Posts Tagged ‘Dianne Feinstein’

And just as in Washington D.C. — the control freaks are at work right here in Wyoming.

June 26, 2013

The war on freedom is hitting much closer to home, Platte County Wyoming to be exact.

Like you, I am outraged at the actions of President Obama, Harry Reid and Dianne Feinstein‘s attempt to repeal the Second Amendment.

And just as in Washington D.C. — the control freaks are at work right here in Wyoming.

Remember during the last session when state “educators” stormed the capitol in Cheyenne — demanding that our pro-gun legislation was killed in committee?

Well now they are scheming at the “local” level to rob you and me of our God-given rights.

The Platte County School Board and its “Republican Majority” are using “truancy” as a way to strip away constitutionally protected rights.

9 year old was put<br /><br />
on probation” src=”<a href=http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/cimages/b7545e235762184362f5dcd1c7274c6d/9-year-old.jpg&#8221; width=”206″ height=”233″ align=”left” border=”0″ />In Wheatland, WY this 9 year old boy was placed on probation for missing 19 days of school — even though his mother had approved the absent days (sick days and family emergencies) with the school.

Under the probation orders — minor children may not “own” any firearms — and must agree to random urine analysis.

But the state statute reveals this is a misdemeanor and the parents could receive 10 days in jail and/or a $25 fine.

But as if using the same playbook of the Obama administration — the “local control” freaks made truancy their latest crisis, so they could now violate citizen’s rights.

All involved have Ignored current law — since one must first be convicted of a “felony” in order to strip rights to possess firearms.

Of course this is how the anti-gun crowd rolls — all the players are in unison with every step maneuvering to crush civil liberties.

To drive their point (control) home, the bad actors will even railroad unsuspecting young children through a system that begins with an overzealous prosecutor, and ends with a heavy handed judge.

But let’s not forget, it all started with the Platte county school board’s policy…”Turn them over to the authorities” they say.

The “elected school board” should be ashamed of themselves — so far not one single school board member has lifted a finger to stop this egregious trampling of parental rights.

If fact, there are a dozen other families lined up to face the same judicial force.

Wheatland family being prosecutedLike in this photo, a young Wheatland couple challenged with the day to day struggles of caring for their severely handicapped little girl — could now follow the same path and loss of rights.

It seems that in the eyes of the Platte County School Board nothing else matters, not even breathing tubes and stays in critical care that this family has recently endured.

Just as maddening are the “Lawyers” that claim we must remain silent because these children are now “in the judicial system”.

This is the same way the “control-program” rolls in many others states — by treating rights including the Second Amendment with outright contempt.

But we will not be silenced…

Last week I personally attended the school board meeting and witnessed their “appointed-bureaucrat-superintendent” running the show — so now the elected board members need to hear from you!

Did I mention that the Superintendent of Platte County Schools was appointed in 2012. And…that he applied in Wheatland after his former employer, a Minnesota School, failed to renew his contract that same year
.

Please contact Platte County Schools today at (307)322-3175 and demand the school board ends this assault on God-given rights.

To Liberty,

Anthony Bouchard
   Executive Director
Wyoming Gun Owners

P.S. In an attempt to “control” citizens — Platte County Schools is using a truancy statute to put children on “probation” that includes striping families of their right to bear arms!

P.S.S. Click here to contribute to WyGO’s statewide defense of freedom today.

Senate staffer says “gun grabbers were livid” and “DiFi was pissed”

March 25, 2013

On Friday, GOA asked you to contact your Senators and urge them to support the Lee amendment which would require Senators to muster 67 votes before adopting gun control legislation. You responded to the call, and the results were very encouraging.

The good news is that a majority of Senators supported the Lee amendment by a 50-49 vote. The bad news is, since the Senate rules requires 60 votes, the Lee amendment fell ten votes short.

Click here to see how your Senators voted on the Lee amendment.

Part of GOA’s strategy for defeating Harry Reid’s gun control bill (S. 649) has been to put Senators on record and force them to reveal where they stand on gun rights. Are they going to stand with us, or are they going to follow Obama down the road to further gun control restrictions and, therefore, require additional pressure from their constituents?

One high-level Senate staffer, commenting about the vote on the Lee amendment which took place at 4 a.m. Saturday morning, told GOA that, “The gun grabbers were livid when Senator Lee forced the vote. Mark Pryor looked nervous as hell, and DiFi [aka, Dianne Feinstein] was pissed.”

GOA’s strategy was realized twice Saturday when two key amendments were offered to the budget resolution — one amendment by Senator Lee, the other by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK).

Six Democrats and all but one Republican (Mark Kirk of Illinois) voted in favor of the Lee Amendment which would make S. 649 impossible to pass. Again, this is because the Lee amendment would have required anti-gun Senators to muster 67 votes (rather than a simple majority of 51 votes) before gun control could be adopted.

There were six “Red State” Democrats who voted Against the Lee amendment — Senators Mark Begich (AK), Tim Johnson (SD), Tim Kaine (VA), Mary Landrieu (LA), Harry Reid (NV) and Mark Warner (VA). Gun owners in these states should be sure to voice their displeasure with these Senators.

The other provision — an anti-UN treaty amendment offered by Sen. Inhofe — passed by a 53-46 margin.  53 senators, including eight Democrats, voted for the Inhofe amendment to kill the UN Arms Trade Treaty — a treaty that would impose gun registration and possibly even ban handguns and semi-autos, while creating a microstamping requirement that would be technologically impossible to comply with. You can see how your Senators voted on the Inhofe amendment here.

Anti-gun Mary Landrieu and Harry Reid voted wrong on both amendments — and even refused to join the eight Democrats who oppose the UN Arms Trade Treaty. This treaty could be self-executing and could, without further legislation, force the U.S. to implement gun registration and bans on semi-autos and handguns.

Gun owners in Louisiana and Nevada, you have some homework to do — Mary Landrieu and Harry Reid need to hear from you!

GOA will keep you updated on the status of Harry Reid’s gun control bill (S. 649), which will be voted on right after the Easter recess.

It would then appear that many of them are still STUCK ON STUPID!

 

Gun ban advocates must decide if they’re willing–and able–to kill 50,000,000+

March 23, 2013

This id from Kurt Hoffman’s Examiner. Kurt is indeed one of the best writers on the internet, and AIRBORNE of course!

A new WorldNetDaily/Wenzel poll finds that only 20 percent of American gun owners would surrender their firearms if ordered to by the government (although an additional 16 percent claimed to be “unsure”–probably not the sort who would be determined enough to face the consequences of defying such an order). From WorldNetDaily:

The scientific telephone survey was conducted March 7-12 and has a margin of error of 2.92 percentage points.

“Among gun owners, 64 percent said they would not relinquish their guns, while 20 percent said they would and another 16 percent of gun owners were unsure on the question,” he said.

In some respects, additional details of the poll carry few surprises. Those who identify themselves as “conservative” are far less likely to surrender their guns than those who call themselves “liberal,” Republicans are less likely to submit to disarmament than Democrats, men less likely than women, whites less so than other ethnic groups, and southerners are less likely than inhabitants of other regions.

But if we step back away from the minutiae of the demographic breakdown, we have somewhere between 64 and 80 percent who will not comply with any confiscatory gun bans. And make no mistake, the specter of confiscatory bans is not “paranoid, right-wing delusion,” as can be seen be seen in the obscenely misnamed “SAFE Act,” in New York, an active program of confiscation of registered firearms in California, and proposals for similar abominations at the federal level:

From Senator Feinstein’s early plans for her “assault weapon” ban, (and remember, that’s “just the beginning”), to the Obama administration’s own National Institute of Justice declaring that “assault weapon” and “high capacity” magazine bans cannot accomplish anything without confiscation, to Rep. Eliot Engel‘s (D-NY) perennial confiscatory ban of “armor piercing” handguns, the gun prohibitionist lobby very clearly considers confiscation to be a realistic goal, and not just an abstract fantasy for the distant future.

What this poll shows, though, is that aspiring gun banners need to do some math homework. 64 to 80 percent of an estimated 80 million gun owners (a common, if tough to verify, estimate) works out to 51 to 64 million freedom loving, angry–and armed–Americans who intend to stay armed. Taking the math a bit further, that’s about 102 to 128 million hands that are not cold and dead, and will be holding guns until they are.

The WND article quotes Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):

Meanwhile, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who has sponsored a bill that would ban certain types of weapons, said in Congress last week, “We cannot allow the carnage … to continue.”

She has never seen wholesale “carnage,” but if she really wants a good look, an attempt to disarm the American citizenry would get her a ringside seat for a level of carnage America hasn’t seen since the 1860s–except that there are no ringside seats for aspiring tyrants. She will be in the ring.

Who is going to disarm us? Who is going to kill us, in order to make that possible? Here’s something to think about before you answer. There are not enough jackbooted thugs to make it happen. There are not even enough grave diggers to bury the JBTs who might try. We were ready to rumble as three percent of America’s gun owners. At 20 or more times that, there won’t be enough targets to go around.

Your move, statists. Molon Labe.

SOURCE

Obama’s gun control proposals: epic failure by the epic fail POTUS

March 16, 2013
  • Today, the Nut-Left Democrats on the Senate Judiciary voted to report the Feinstein gun ban –which could ban between 50% and 80% of guns and magazines in circulation today. It may not even get a majority in the Senate – much less the 60 votes needed to pass. And it is being pushed primarily to allow anti-gun Democrats from pro-gun states to pretend to be pro-gun.
  • Tuesday, the Judiciary Committee passed, by a 10-to-8 vote, the universal gun registry bill. Chief sponsor Chuck Schumer has been unable to achieve Republican support from anyone other than the anti-gun Illinois Republican Mark Kirk. Therefore, unless another Republican sells out at the last minute, we believe we can successfully filibuster this ill in the full Senate.
  • Tuesday, by a vote of 14-to-4, the Judiciary Committee also reported a Boxer bill that would increase, by $10 million, the funding for an existing school safety program. The money could be used for armed guards, as the NRA proposes, or it could be used for an anti-gun study. It is therefore neither inherently “pro-gun” nor “anti-gun.” We have said we would oppose proceeding to Boxer if it is a vehicle for votes on other anti-gun measures – but that we would not object to its passage, without amendment, by “unanimous consent.”
  • This brings us to the central battlefield: Last week, the committee reported, by a vote of 11-to-7, the Veterans Gun Ban, S. 54. The lone GOP vote in favor came from Chuck Grassley, who indicated he would oppose the bill on the Senate floor unless it was improved from the committee-reported version.
As we see it, the chief strategic objective is now to keep gun control votes from coming to the Senate floor by opposing the “motion to proceed” to any bill which is going to be used as a vehicle for gun votes.
That would certainly mean that senators should oppose moving to proceed to universal gun registries or the Veterans Gun Ban. But it also means that we oppose moving to proceed to so-called non-controversial bills, such as Boxer, if those bills are being brought up as a vehicle for anti-gun amendments.
ACTION: Click here to contact your senator. Ask him to oppose any motion to proceed – by filibuster if necessary – to the Feinstein gun ban, the universal gun registry bill, the Veterans Gun Ban (S. 54), or to any other piece of legislation being brought up as a vehicle for votes on these anti-gun proposals.

Barrett, LaRue Tactical, Olympic Arms, York Arms, MidwayUSA, Cheaper Than Dirt, Spike’s Tactical: HEROS

February 24, 2013

Ever since the mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the Left has rabidly pursued all manner of unconstitutional gun control legislation. Federal, state and local, the NeoComs stop at nothing to deprive us of our unalienable rights, endowed by our Creator. Yet all is not lost as long as we stand firm.

The National Institute of Justice, the research branch of the Justice Department, recently leaked a memo evaluating many of the White House’s preferred gun control measures. For example, the NIJ says that Dianne Feinstein‘s defensive weapons ban is “unlikely to have an impact on gun violence” because — wait for it — those firearms “are not a major contributor to gun crime.” Therefore, concludes the NIJ, in order for a ban to be effective, it would have to include no exemptions and be paired with a mandatory buyback program.

Notably, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) just introduced legislation to impose a 10 percent tax on concealable firearms, aiming to fund a federal buyback with the revenue collected.

The NIJ reaches similar conclusions about magazine capacity limits, which would be ineffective while exempting currently owned magazines, and universal background checks, which won’t work without national gun registration because criminals use straw purchasers or steal weapons in order to avoid background checks.

The question is, will Obama and the NeoComs pursue NIJ’s recommended “fixes” to their obviously flawed plans?

While movement has temporarily slowed at the federal level, the states are busy enacting their own draconian gun restrictions. In Colorado, House Democrats passed four anti-gun bills including outlawing concealed carry on college campuses (more on that below), requiring universal background checks and limiting magazine capacity to 15 rounds.

As we noted last week, Magpul, maker of the popular PMAG magazine for AR-15 platform weapons, plans to carry through with its threat to leave the state because of the mag cap limit. Democrats tried offering them an exemption to manufacture their magazines in-state as long as they didn’t sell them there, but Magpul wisely didn’t take the bait. “If we’re able to stay in Colorado and manufacture a product, but law-abiding citizens of the state were unable to purchase the product, customers around the state and the nation would boycott us for remaining here,” said Doug Smith, Magpul’s chief operating officer. The move would take $85 million and hundreds of jobs from Colorado.

In Washington, a bill is in the works with a requirement to “safely and securely store” any legally owned “assault weapons.” It would also provide sheriffs with the power to, “no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance,” upon penalty of up to one year in jail.

Maryland Democrats seek to ban “possessing, selling, offering to sell, transferring, purchasing, or receiving an assault weapon.” That goes beyond Feinstein’s federal ban proposal in that it also bans “possessing.” Furthermore, no one under the age of 21 may possess ammunition, meaning they also can’t hunt. Things aren’t going well in the Used-to-Be Free State.

New York, an early adopter of unconstitutional restrictions post-Newtown, isn’t done. Democrats introduced a bill to require that all gun owners in New York “obtain and continuously maintain a policy of liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars specifically covering any damages resulting from any negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person.” Failing this, a gun owner will face “immediate revocation of such owner’s registration, license and any other privilege to own” a firearm. Privilege? Our copy of the Constitution recognizes the right to keep and bear arms.

Speaking of New York, numerous gun manufacturers and sellers are refusing to sell to law enforcement officers or government agencies anything that can’t be legally bought by the average citizen. This move applies to any other state that bans weapons or magazines while making exceptions for law enforcement officers. So far, none of the big three law enforcement suppliers — Smith & Wesson, Glock and Sig Sauer — have joined the effort, but Barrett, LaRue Tactical, Olympic Arms, York Arms, MidwayUSA, Cheaper Than Dirt, Spike’s Tactical and several others have announced the policy change.

We greatly respect and appreciate our nation’s law enforcement officers, but if a seven-round mag is good enough for a civilian, it’s good enough for a police officer. And if civilians can’t own modern muskets, police shouldn’t either. Civilians and law enforcement personnel are fellow citizens, not subjects.

State news isn’t all bad, however. Ten states have proposed legislation to preempt federal gun bans and protect lawful gun owners. Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Washington have all proposed legislation to protect firearms made and kept within their borders. Alaska, Arizona, Montana and Tennessee have already passed such laws.

Finally, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia thinks state guns bans will reach the Court. We agree, and we don’t doubt Scalia is itching to reiterate that the Court meant what it said in its Heller and McDonald rulings, and that the Second Amendment also means what it says.

During the debate in Colorado about concealed carry on campus, Democrat state Rep. Joe Salazar explained why women don’t need guns for self-defense against would-be rapists: “It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody.”

Hot Air’s Mary Katherine Ham retorted, “Well, after all, you might not get raped. In Salazar’s world, not only are women incapable of defending themselves against a physical threat, but they are incapable of even identifying a physical threat, and should therefore be deprived of the ability to try. Empowerment!”

Never fear, the University of Colorado posted some safety tips for avoiding rape, including “kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.” Failing that, “Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating. Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.” They conclude, “Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.” Well, unless you decide carrying a firearm is appropriate. Call boxes, whistles and vomiting are peachy ideas, but a handgun would be far better. When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

Another legislator, Democrat State Senator Jesse Ulaberri, contended that people don’t need guns for self-defense because that just leads to a “whole crossfire.” And besides, the people in Tucson “stood up to defend themselves … and they did it with ball point pens.”

These are the people who think they know what’s best for you.

The Patriot Post

Owning firearms is a First Amendment exercise, too!

February 8, 2013

By Alan Gottlieb

Following the hysteria generated by gun prohibitionists in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, a nationwide rush on gun stores began as citizens bought semiautomatic modern sporting rifles, handguns and ammunition, in effect “making a political statement” about proposals to ban such firearms.

Making political statements is what the First Amendment is all about.

The so-called “assault rifle” has become a symbol of freedom and the right of the people to speak out for the entire Bill of Rights. Banning such firearms, which are in common use today, can no longer be viewed exclusively as an infringement on the Second Amendment, but must also be considered an attack on the First Amendment.

Many people now feel that owning a so-called “assault rifle” without fear of government confiscation defines what it means to be an American citizen. Their backlash against knee-jerk extremism is a natural reaction to overreaching government.

What should one expect in response to this heightened rhetoric and legislative hysteria? Citizens in other countries react differently to government intrusion into their lives, but Americans are uniquely independent. Among firearms owners, talk of gun bans and attempts to limit one’s ability to defend himself or herself against multiple attackers by limiting the number of rounds they can have in a pistol or rifle magazine turns gun owners into political activists.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) did not intend her gun ban proposal to cause skyrocketing sales of semiautomatic rifles and pistols, but that’s what happened. She must live with the consequences of her shameless political exploitation of the Sandy Hook tragedy.

President Barack Obama never envisioned the rush to purchase rifle and pistol magazines, but telling American citizens they shouldn’t have something is like sending a signal they need to acquire those things immediately.

Vice President Joe Biden never imagined his efforts would result in a tidal wave of new members and contributions to gun rights organizations, making the firearms community stronger and more united in opposition to any assault on the Second Amendment.

Freedom of association is also protected by the First Amendment.

Perhaps they should take a day off and visit the monuments at Lexington and Concord, and reflect on what prompted those colonists to stand their ground. It was the first time in American history that the government moved to seize arms and ammunition from its citizens, and it went rather badly for the British.

Beneath the surface many Americans are convinced that we may be approaching a point when the true purpose of the Second Amendment is realized. Underscoring this is a new Pew Research Center poll that, for the first time, shows a majority (53 percent) of Americans believe the government is a threat to their rights and freedoms.

Exacerbating the situation is a perceived indifference from the administration toward the rights of firearms owners who have committed no crime, but are being penalized for the acts of a few crazy people.

It is time to lower the rhetoric and allow cooler heads to prevail. The demonization of millions of loyal, law-abiding Americans and the firearms they legally own must cease. If we are to have a rational dialogue about firearms and violent crime, we must recognize that the very people who could be most affected have a First Amendment right to be heard.

Recall the words of Abraham Lincoln, who cautioned us more than 150 years ago that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” A half-century before him, Benjamin Franklin taught us that “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Their spirits are calling to us now.

Alan Gottlieb is founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation.

Democrats at Feinstein press conference lie to Americans: Of course, that’s what they do best…

January 29, 2013

Congress and the American people:

Today, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) pulled out all the stops in holding a press conference to introduce her long-anticipated ban on modern rifles and magazines, including universal registration of all gun sales. And today, you have been fed lies by the same politicians who have been trying to confiscate guns since at least the early 1990’s.

At the conference, Democrats, including Sens. Feinstein, Richard Durban (D-IL), Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) , recycled virtually every cynical distortion used by gun ban advocates in their effort to divide and defeat not only Second Amendment supporters, but all freedom-loving Americans.

 

Lies you are being told

“We don’t want your guns”

Durbin and Schumer appealed to hunters and sportsman, saying: “We don’t want to take your guns.” But their histories and the history of the gun control movement say otherwise. These cynical manipulators of tragedy hope you don’t remember 1994, when passage of the Brady Act, and then the ban on semi-automatic firearms, was immediately followed by “Brady II,” a draconian gun ban which would have given the BATF power to search the homes of law-abiding Americans and would have banned most common self-defense handguns and magazines.

In the present proposal, the “one feature” test for semi-automatic firearms could ban even a .22 caliber rifle if it has a “thumbhole” stock. More importantly, the arbitrary magazine capacity limit will apply to defensive handguns, limiting your ability to protect yourself and your family.

The legislative history of Sens. Feinstein, Schumer and Durbin is that they will take what they can get, and they will not stop in going for the rest. If they pass this ban, more will follow and they will go after your hunting rifle or shotgun. These people have been consistent and clear, they want to prohibit law abiding citizens from owning any type firearm.

 

“No right is absolute”

Schumer said these are “reasonable limitations” to your Second Amendment rights because, after all, “no right is absolute.” He argued that our First Amendment right to freedom of speech doesn’t allow you to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Apparently, however, this Harvard-educated lawyer is unfamiliar with the concept of “prior restraint.” Prosecuting someone for wrongly yelling “fire” represents prosecution of those who abuse their rights. By contrast, gun control is a restraint on the rights of the law-abiding. If the gun control model were applied to freedom of speech, you would be bound and gagged before entering the theater on the premise that you might yell “fire.”

 

“Only the ‘Gun Lobby’ opposes reasonable measures”

As much as those who would restrict your freedoms want you to believe “the NRA” and the “gun manufacturers” are the only ones opposing restrictive gun control, understand that the National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban represents a grass roots movement of millions of law-abiding gun owners, the vast majority of whom don’t earn a dime from this effort, and take time from jobs and families to fight for your civil rights. Ironically, it is the “anti-gun lobby” which actually comprises a small number of well-funded gun ban activists and their paid lobbyists.

 

“You don’t need an AR-15 to go hunting”

Regurgitated by several anti-gun politicians at the press conference, it was most completely expressed by Philadelphia Police Chief Charles Ramsey, who pointed to an AR-15 and said, “You can’t go hunting with something like that…there would be nothing left to eat.”

But the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. In drafting the Bill of Rights, the Framers intended it as the last in a series of checks and balances against abuse of government – perhaps, indeed, the sort of abuse President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Feinstein and others are determined to thrust on the American people.

 

“These ‘assault rifles’ are weapons of war”

The guns being targeted by this ban are not “assault rifles,” which are military machine guns virtually unavailable to the public since 1934. Yet Schumer and others repeatedly called the guns “assault rifles” in order to confuse you about the guns they want to ban which, in reality, differ from common hunting guns only by cosmetic features.

 

“If the magazine ban had been in effect, kids would be alive in Newtown today”

So claimed Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy (both D-CT), in a complete absence of any evidence to that effect. Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho was reported to carry one hundred magazines, and most active shooters carry multiple firearms, making magazine capacity moot. Moreover, contrary to claims by gun ban advocates, the rate of violent victimization in schools during the period from 1994 to 2004, when the last semi-auto ban was in effect, increased by five-fold.

 

Coalition members reject these lies

The thirty-seven (37) participating organizations of the National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban, representing millions of Second Amendment supporters, reject the lies being told to the American people in order to pass the Feinstein ban.

Some will urge you to “compromise.” The Coalition, however, regards “compromise,” as our opposition defines it, to be a process in which we lose slightly fewer of our rights than under the original proposal. Consequently, any legislation which registers or bans firearms; limits magazine capacity; registers private transactions through NICS; or restricts time, place or manner of self-defense is unacceptable.

Members of Congress who support gun owners by opposing all gun control will, in turn, benefit from support by Coalition organizations. Members of Congress who support gun control by any means, procedural or substantive, will be targeted for defeat by Coalition members. They will be subject to picketing, leaflet drops at events in their districts, phone and mail campaigns, and political action committee opposition. NRA ratings and endorsements will have no impact on Coalition actions.

Do not believe lies promulgated by politicians who exploit tragedy to further their pre-ordained agenda to follow the disarmament path of Britain and Australia. Unlike other countries, the Framers designed our Republic to keep Americans free, and freedom means keeping arms in the hands of the people.

Respectfully,

The National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban

Signatories

 

Also
The latest Knox Report column has been posted at WND.org.
This week Jeff takes a look at the reality of “Assault Weapons.”
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/deadly-assault-weapons-what-are-they/
Deadly “Assault Weapons” – What are They?
These “scary-looking” guns are the very type referenced in the Second Amendment
By Jeff Knox

There’s been a lot of talk recently about “Assault Weapons,” but it seems that many of the people doing the talking don’t know anything at all about guns, and that’s causing confusion.

As an Army-certified Small Arms Repairman and a lifelong firearms owner and enthusiast, I know a little bit about guns and assault rifles, so I’d like to set the record straight about a few things.

First off, the term “Assault Weapon” is a made-up name.  There really is no such thing.  The term was coined by some firearm marketers back in the 1970s to describe military-looking, semi-auto firearms.  Anti-gun extremists recognized it as a catchy and scary term and exploited it for all it was worth.  The term was a play on the valid label “Assault Rifle,” which is a lightweight, selective fire rifle or carbine.  The key there is that term “selective fire,” which means the operator can select either single shot or multi-shot modes of fire.  In other words, a true assault rifle can fire one shot for each trigger pull, or it can fire a burst or string of shots for each trigger pull – machinegun mode.

What Feinstein, Obama, and Holder are calling “assault weapons” are not selective fire.  They are not machineguns, and are not capable of selective fire.  Nor are they easily modified to be able to fire like machineguns.  These guns are semi-auto firearms that fire one round each time the trigger is pulled, just like a typical revolver or semi-auto pistol, or the 100-year old Winchester Model 1907.

Read the full article by clicking here.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/deadly-assault-weapons-what-are-they/ 
This Update was sent from The Firearms Coalition to our friends and supporters.
Please forward to others concerned about retaining their rights.
*** Please make sure we have your ZIP Code so we can better alert you to important issues in your state! ***
*** Just Reply to this message with your ZIP in the Subject line.  Thanks for your help. ***
Your elected servants need to hear from You!
Please contact your elected representatives now – by phone, email, letters, and faxes – and contact them every few days until they get the message.
STOP ALL Infringements on our rights - No gun bans.  No magazine bans.  No government interference in private firearms transactions.
Tell them that Violent Crime – including “gun crime” – has gone down by more than 50% in the past twenty years – while gun ownership and guns in circulation have gone through the roof.  Tell them to stop trying to control guns and instead do a better job of controlling criminals and the criminally insane.
If you agree with the work we’re doing and you’d like to help, there are three things we ask you to do:
First, stay informed and contact your representatives on a regular basis.
Second, join your local grass roots rights organization and help them in protecting your rights.
Third, join The Firearms Coalition for news, updates, and to add your voice to our efforts.  Contributions – of any amount – are  appreciated.
  
You can contribute online with PayPal or a credit card at www.FirearmsCoalition.org, or you can drop us a check – or just a $5 bill at PO Box 1761, Buckeye, AZ  85326.  If you see value in the work we do, please help us out.  We’ll do our best to give you a good return on your investment.  – Jeff
Please forward, post, and circulate this Update.

Civil War no less..?

January 25, 2013

Within the last two weeks the forces of the progressive, ultra-liberal cabal have managed to amass a coordinated front to attack and render null and void the gun rights of average citizens as protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Gun rights enthusiasts say that such actions will provoke civil war.

Today, these forces appear to be simultaneously unleashing their attack on all fronts, from attempting to prevent citizens from gaining access to brass for the purpose of making their own ammunition to the push by leftwing extremists to bully banks into refusing to give loans to gun manufacturers, effectively putting gun makers out of business.

Further, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced her so-called “assault weapons ban” bill Thursday, which actually bans much more than semiautomatic rifles. The bill goes after handguns, shotguns, and ammunition as well. It also sets a federal limit on the number of rounds each citizen can legally possess.

Gun rights groups across the country, which are not known for extremism but for representing citizens from every walk of life, from Democrat to Republican, liberal to conservative, the non-religious to Christian, have warned repeatedly that should the federal government launch this type of attack on the gun rights of citizens, outright civil war would ensue.

That warning was no mere idle threat. The citizens in the heartland are angry, fired up, and ready to defend their Constitution and their rights. The battle lines are being drawn now. This nation stands closer to armed conflict between its own citizens as never before since the Civil War of the 1860s.

The laws being proposed currently will automatically criminalize millions of law-abiding citizens who own the types of guns the government wishes to ban. For example, the handgun of choice for most women and homeowners are the semiautomatic variety made by Sig Sauer, Kel-Tec, and other brands that fire multiple rounds quickly.

And if citizens refuse to comply like sheep with the direct tyrannical assault on our rights, apparently the Obama administration has every intention of using force against our own citizens if they resist turning over their guns and registering the guns they are allowed to keep.

A rumor has been floating around Washington concerning a new mandate the Obama administration allegedly implemented that would require military personnel to state, up front, that they are willing to open fire upon American citizens on our own soil if ordered to do so.

In addition, National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea reported today a most disturbing story out of Fort Drum, N.Y. indicating that the military installation is destroying used ammunition brass, rendering it useless for citizens to purchase in what is known as “reloading” — the practice of making homemade ammunition using expended brass.

The administration attempted this once before and was ordered by Congress to stop. The practice is also against the law, but the installation apparently is still engaging in the practice.

Thus, a united front has amassed on the Left that is determined to shove gun bans, gun registration, and gun and ammo control down the throats of citizens who have always operated under the assumption that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

How many infringements will it take to get clear-headed, patriotic citizens to rise up and demand that the government cease and desist? It appears that such a time has come.

SOURCE

Innocents Betrayed (The Downsides of Gun Control)

January 8, 2013

What the left does not want you to know about. The true motive behind Gun Control and what drives hoplophobia. This is long, but well worth it. Remember, The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting! This is very graphic and you should not watch it if you can’t handle watching about what the real agenda of the democrats.

SOURCE

Warning: Graphic Violence. This disturbing video clearly demonstrates the consequences of centralizing government power and disarming citizens. Genocide always follows.

Luby Cafeteria shooting survivor Suzanna Gratia-Hupp and The Second Amendment. Powerful testimony in defense of the Right to Bear Arms.

 

Firearms Policy Coalition pledges “not one more inch.”

January 4, 2013
BELLEVUE, WA / SAN CARLOS, CA / MADERA, CA (January 4, 2013) – Firearms Policy Coalition, a new project of renowned Second Amendment rights advocacy organizations Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, Second Amendment Foundation, and The Calguns Foundation has been launched, noted managing director Brandon Combs.  The Coalition’s website, firearmspolicy.org, was opened to the public in late December 2012.

The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) provides for an effective, NATO-like response to gun control campaigns and efficient, low-friction advocacy of litigation, legislation, education, and grassroots efforts that advance Second Amendment rights. Of the Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said, “I’m proud to help usher in the next generation of gun rights activism. The new paradigm is, and must be, coordination, mutual-support, and unity. Those who would disarm America’s law-abiding people are rabid in their desire to assault gun owners’ Second Amendment, privacy, and property rights.”

“FPC immediately brings to the table leading Second Amendment advocacy groups, leadership, staff, volunteers, and hundreds of thousands of active supporters. This,” said Combs, “will enable superior communication, real-time collaboration, and scalable action to advance individual liberties and defend against promised attacks on civil rights by extremists like U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Representative Carolyn McCarthy, California State Senator Leland Yee, and Illinois State Senators Dan Kotowski and Antonio Muñoz.”

“The coordination between stakeholders at all levels within FPC,” explained Calguns Foundation Chairman Gene Hoffman, “ is really key. We knew that, to meet the coming challenge head-on, a new model for our cause would have to be employed. As a seasoned Silicon Valley entrepreneur, I know how important it is to be agile and effective in today’s world – and what happens when you’re not.”

Excitement surrounding the Coalition and its fresh, positive approach to the issues that matter to gun owners has led to a rapid and steady increase of new individual members, which is expected to continue as new tools and organizational alliance members come online. FPC has already received numerous inquiries from interested gun rights organizations across the country and looks forwards to onboarding a number of organizations over the next quarter.

“We must now take on those who say that our Constitution is outdated, that it doesn’t mean what it says, and we must take them on together,” said Combs, CCRKBA Director of Advocacy and President of Cal-FFL. “Our rights are not negotiable and we are simply not going to give up another inch of our inalienable rights. This is the year of unity, focus, and resilience for gun rights activists at every level across the nation.”

State-level organizations seeking additional information or to explore joining the coalition should contact FPC at info@firearmspolicy.org or through the contact form at http://firearmspolicy.org/contact.

More information about FPC can be found at http://firearmspolicy.org/faq. FPC’s Facebook page is located at http://facebook.com/gunpolicy and its Twitter feed can be viewed at http://twitter.com/gunpolicy.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (ccrkba.org) is dedicated to protecting your firearms rights. Its role is to educate grass root activists, the public, legislators and the media. CCRKBA’s programs are designed to help all Americans understand the importance of the Second Amendment and its role in keeping Americans free.

The Second Amendment Foundation (saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

The Calguns Foundation (calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization which serves its members by providing Second Amendment-related education, strategic litigation, and the defense of innocent California gun owners from improper or malicious prosecution. The Calguns Foundation seeks to inform government and protect the rights of individuals to acquire, own, and lawfully use firearms in California.

California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (calffl.org) is California’s premier non-profit industry association of, by, and for firearms manufacturers, dealers, collectors, training professionals, shooting ranges, and others, advancing the interests of its members and the general public through strategic litigation, legislative efforts, and education. For more information or to join Cal-FFL, please visit calffl.org.

Contact:
Brandon Combs
info@firearmspolicy.org
425-454-4911

The listing above is the source.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 205 other followers

%d bloggers like this: