Archive for the ‘Local Politics Colorado’ Category

Safety, or back door Gun Control?

July 7, 2007

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has proposed new rules that would have a dramatic effect on the storage and transportation of ammunition and handloading components.  The proposed rule indiscriminately treats ammunition, powder and primers as “explosives.” 

The public comment period ends July 12. To file your own comment, or to learn more about the OSHA proposal, click here or go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and search for Docket Number OSHA-2007-0032″; you can read OSHA’s proposal and learn how to submit comments electronically, or by fax or mail.  

Islam and America

July 6, 2007

Track back URL: http://texasfred.net/archives/316/trackback/

This is an old story recently revisited. Read it, and think about what has been going on in the time that has passed.

FROM JOSEPH FARAH’S G2 BULLETIN
Author sees Islam’s 20-year plan for U.S.
Arab-American author outlines secret
20-year strategy to undermine country


Posted: August 4, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor’s note: Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin is an online, subscription intelligence news service from the creator of WorldNetDaily.com – a journalist who has been developing sources around the world for the last 25 years.
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A refugee from the Muslim Middle East thinks he has discovered Islam’s 20-point plan for conquering the United States by 2020 – a plan revealed in the latest issue of Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

Anis Shorrosh, author of ”Islam Revealed” and ”The True Furqan,” is a Christian Arab-American who emigrated from Arab-controlled Jerusalem in January 1967.

”The following is my analysis of Islamic invasion of America, the agenda of Islamists and visible methods to take over America by the year 2020,” Shorrosh says. ”Will Americans continue to sleep through this invasion as they did when we were attacked on 9/11?”

1. Terminate America’s freedom of speech by replacing it with statewide and nationwide hate-crime bills.

2. Wage a war of words using black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jesse Jackson and other visible religious personalities who promote Islam as the religion of African-Americans while insisting Christianity is for whites only. What they fail to tell African-Americans is that it was Arab Muslims who captured them and sold them as slaves. In fact, the Arabic word for black and slave is the same, ”Abed.”

3. Engage the American public in dialogues, discussions, debates in colleges, universities, public libraries, radio, TV, churches and mosques on the virtues of Islam. Proclaim how it is historically another religion like Judaism and Christianity with the same monotheistic faith.

4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office to bring about favorable legislation toward Islam and support potential sympathizers by block voting.

5. Take control of as much of Hollywood, the press, TV, radio and the Internet as possible by buying the related corporations or a controlling stock.

6. Yield to the fear of the imminent shut-off of the lifeblood of America – black gold. America’s economy depends on oil and 41 percent of it comes from the Middle East.

7. Yell ”foul, out-of-context, personal interpretation, hate crime, Zionist, un- American, inaccurate interpretation of the Quran” anytime Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena.

8. Encourage Muslims to penetrate the White House, specifically with Islamists who can articulate a marvelous and peaceful picture of Islam. Acquire government positions and get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as medical doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. (Ever notice how numerous Muslim doctors in America are, when their countries need them more desperately than America?) Take over the computer industry. Establish Middle Eastern restaurants throughout the U.S. to connect planners of Islamization in a discreet way.

9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via:

  • Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961).
  • Use no birth control whatsoever – every baby of Muslim parents is automatically a Muslim and cannot choose another religion later.
  • Muslim men must marry American women and Islamize them (10,000 annually). Then divorce them and remarry every five years – since one can’t legally marry four at one time. This is a legal solution in America.
  • Convert angry, alienated black inmates and turn them into militants (so far 2,000 released inmates have joined al-Qaida worldwide). Only a few ”sleeper cells” have been captured in Afghanistan and on American soil.

10. Reading, writing, arithmetic and research through the American educational system, mosques and student centers (now 1,500) should be sprinkled with dislike of Jews, evangelical Christians and democracy. There are currently 300 exclusively Muslim schools in the U.S. which teach loyalty to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution. In January of 2002, Saudi Arabia’s Embassy in Washington mailed 4,500 packets of the Quran and videos promoting Islam to America’s high schools – free of charge. Saudi Arabia would not allow the U.S. to reciprocate.

11. Provide very sizeable monetary Muslim grants to colleges and universities in America to establish ”Centers for Islamic studies” with Muslim directors to promote Islam in higher-education institutions.

12. Let the entire world know through propaganda, speeches, seminars, local and national media that terrorists have hijacked Islam, when in truth, Islam hijacked the terrorists.

13. Appeal to the historically compassionate and sensitive Americans for sympathy and tolerance towards Muslims in America who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries.

14. Nullify America’s sense of security by manipulating the intelligence community with misinformation. Periodically terrorize Americans with reports of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls.

15. Form riots and demonstrations in the prison system demanding Islamic Sharia as the way of life, not America’s justice system.

16. Open numerous charities throughout the U.S., but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism with American dollars.

17. Raise interest in Islam on America’s campuses by insisting freshman take at least one course on Islam.

18. Unify the numerous Muslim lobbies in Washington, mosques, Islamic student centers, educational organizations, magazines and papers by Internet and an annual convention to coordinate plans, propagate the faith and engender news in the media.

19. Send intimidating messages and messengers to the outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by hook or crook.

20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the U.S. by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethic groups in America.

Shorrosh is a member of the Oxford Society of Scholars, has traveled in 76 countries, and is a lecturer and producer of TV documentaries. ”Islam Revealed” is a bestseller now in its eighth printing. His forthcoming 10th book, from which the 20-point plan is abridged, is titled ”Islam: A Threat or a Challenge.”

”The True Furqan” is also available for viewing on Islam-Exposed.org. Shorrosh’s new website is Focusing-on-Islam.com.

Flag marks SEAL’s sacrifice

July 1, 2007

Banner that flew in Afghanistan is raised at Capitol
Javier Manzano © The Rocky

Cindy Dietz, right, mother of fallen Navy SEAL Danny Dietz, waits with state Sen. Steve Ward, holding flag, and Colorado State Patrol Trooper Mike Garcia for the start of Thursday’s ceremony honoring her son. “I don’t know what else to say other than we love him,” Dietz said.
By James B. Meadow, Rocky Mountain News
June 29, 2007
The American flag hung motionless in the hazy, breezeless sky, a solemn red-white-and- blue reminder of the man who had sacrificed his life for it two years ago to the day.
For the tourists who took photos and the strolling locals who paid no attention to them, it was a sleepy-quiet Thursday morning on the west steps of the state Capitol. Even the traffic below seemed more lulling than clamorous.

But for Cindy Dietz it was “a very hard day.”

On June 28, 2005, her son, Navy SEAL Danny P. Dietz, was killed on a mission in Afghanistan.

On June 28, 2007, a star-spangled banner that had once flown over Bagram Airfield – Dietz’s base – in that faraway Asian land was hoisted up a 35-foot flagpole that sat on a hill not very far from the Littleton neighborhood where he was born and raised.

Moments before Colorado State Trooper Mike Garcia raised the flag, Cindy Dietz had said softly, “I’m honored. It’s so special to me that this flag was flying over Danny’s base. And now it’s flying in his home state.”

Later, she would overcome her sadness. Summoning up composure and grace, she would stand before the media and say, “Two years ago, my oldest son was killed in Afghanistan.”

A soft hesitation, then, “I don’t know what else to say other than we love him.”

Joining her for the occasion were Danny’s brother, Eric, and his grandmother, Dolores Gilmer, along with a smattering of public officials.

Among them was state Sen. Steve Ward, who not only represents the Dietzes’ district, but who, as a Marine Corps colonel, was stationed at Bagram for two years himself. It was Ward who obtained the flag for the Dietz family.

“He was a brave man who died tragically and heroically,” said Ward, alluding to Petty Officer 2nd Class Danny Dietz being posthumously awarded the Navy Cross – the nation’s second-highest military honor – for his bravery in the face of fierce combat.

The same flag that honored -Dietz will be used Wednesday at the July Fourth dedication ceremony of a statue of him that will be held in Littleton’s Berry Park extension.

But Littleton Police Chief Heather Coogan wasn’t thinking a week ahead as she watched the ceremony.

“This demonstrates that we have so many fine young people who have such a strong sense of duty, honor and patriotism,” said Coogan. “Being here to watch this just feels absolutely right.”

After a long minute, Garcia slowly began lowering the limp flag.

But halfway down, a quicksilver breath of wind caught it. And suddenly, for several blinks of the eye, there it was, spread against the sky: a 3-foot-by-5- foot piece of red-white-and-blue cloth that represented something for which a Colorado warrior was willing to give his life.

If you go

• What: Dedication of the Danny Dietz Memorial Sculpture

• When: 11 a.m. Wednesday

• Where: Berry Park extension, 5507 S. King St., Littleton

• More info: littletongov.org

LAW OF THE LAND

July 1, 2007

LAW OF THE LAND
Trial will debate 2nd Amendment rights
Defendant is accused of having ‘militia’ weaponry

——————————————————————————–
Posted: January 6, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

A lawyer whose client is on trial for having “militia” weaponry says he’ll ask questions and raise arguments about the 2nd Amendment, and then let the judge rule whether or not the Bill of Rights can be discussed in a federal courtroom these days.

A federal prosecutor in the Arkansas case against Hollis Wayne Fincher, 60, who’s accused of having homemade and unregistered machine guns, has asked the judge to censor those arguments.

But lawyer Oscar Stilley told WND that he’ll go ahead with the arguments.
“I’m going to ask questions, what else can I say?” he said. “There is a 2nd Amendment, and it means something, I hope.”

“His (Fincher’s) position is that he had a legal right to bear arms that are suitable and customary to contribute to the common defense. If it’s a militia army, it’s what customarily would be used by the military suitable for the defense of the country,” Stilley said.

The objection to constitutional arguments came from Assistant U.S. Attorney Wendy Johnson, who filed a motion several days ago asking U.S. District Judge Jimm Larry Hendren to prevent Fincher and Stilley from raising any such issues.

“Yes, that is correct – the government does not want to allow the defense attorney to argue the law in Mr. Fincher’s defense,” Michael Gaddy wrote on Freedom Watch.

“If a defendant is not allowed to base his/her defense on the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, we are certainly doomed. If we allow these criminal acts perpetrated on law-abiding citizens to continue, we might as well turn in all our guns and scheduled a fitting for our chains,” he wrote.

“Yes, Hollis Wayne Fincher goes on trial on January 8th – but so does our Constitution, our Liberty and our right to own firearms. If Mr. Fincher loses this battle, we all lose,” he said.

Fincher, a lieutenant commander with the Militia of Washington County, is accused of having three unregistered machine guns and an unregistered sawed-off shotgun.

Stilley said his client believes no one has a right to use weapons to hurt somebody else, just as “you can’t use words to injure. You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”

He said whether the gun is a .22 caliber used for “plinking,” or a cape buffalo killer, you cannot put it in a position where it’s pointed at someone and pull the trigger.

It’s about responsibilities that accompany the rights outlined in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, he said.

The motion seeking to suppress any constitutional arguments will be handled by making his arguments, and letting the government make its objections, and then letting the court rule.

The motion from the federal prosecution indicated the government believes Fincher wants to argue the gun charges are unconstitutional, but it is asking that the court keep such decisions out of the jury’s hands.

The government also demanded to know the items the defense intends to use as evidence, the results of any physical examinations of Fincher and all of the witnesses and their statements.

Fincher was arrested Nov. 8 and has been held in custody since then on a bond of $250,000 and other conditions that included posting the deed to his home with the court and electronic monitoring.

Police said two of the .308-caliber machine guns, homemade versions of a Browning model 1919, allegedly had Fincher’s name inscribed on them and said “Amendment 2 invoked.”

There have been laws since 1934 making it illegal for residents of the United States to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Federal law allows the public to own machine guns made and registered before 1986 under certain conditions.

Comments posted online with an area newspaper offered some support for Fincher’s side of the case.

“When the government decides that your spare bedroom [can be regulated] as greatly affecting interstate commerce and makes you put a homeless person or work release prisoner in that spare room, then you’ll understand why property not actually affecting interstate commerce should not be regulated on by the feds,” said Lawful Machine Gun Owner.

DKSuddeth noted that the commerce clause, cited as support for gun regulations, should be studied. “Take a very close read on how the commerce clause is used by congress and the decisions that the courts have made. You do realize that using the commerce clause, congress can regulate ANYTHING that you may wish to grow on your own personal property?”

Another observer cited the statements attributed to Tenche Coxe, a government official during the 1790s. “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? … Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.”

Another observer, this one a critic who called himself “Blah Blah Blah,” added the other perspective. “You give us a clear picture of why the government wants to limit arguments in the case. You guys cannot quit talking. And you insist on quoting every dead white guy in history.”

Fincher, in a letter from his jail cell that was published on a blog, said he was doing fine.

“I am doing OK here in jail. It’s not where I want to be, but it’s where I am and I try to make the best of it,” he wrote to family and friends. He said the conditions were tolerable.

“We can attend in house church a couple times a week, sometimes more. I talk to other prisoners about their need for Jesus to save them. Some take heed and are willing to listen and some go to their cells and pray,” he said.

Authorities said the arrest culminated an eight-month investigation that included having a undercover agent attend meetings of the militia. The investigation was collectively conducted by the ATF, FBI, Washington County Sheriff’s Department, Fayetteville Police Department, Springdale Police Department, Arkansas State Police, Arkansas State Bomb Squad and the Madison County Sheriff’s Department.

According to criminologist and researcher Gary Kleck, an estimated 2.5 million Americans use guns for defensive purposes each year, with one in six believing someone would have been dead if they had not resorted to their defensive use of firearms.

New Gun Control

July 1, 2007

By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

The government is using paperwork errors as small as the abbreviation of a city name to shut down some of the nation’s longest-serving gun shops, and 2nd Amendment advocates fear the right to bear arms will mean little if there’s no way to obtain a gun.

“No good deed goes unpunished,” Larry Pratt, of Gun Owners of America, told WND while confirming that as recently as 15 or 20 years ago, there were 250,000 licensed gun dealers in the United States.

Today, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told WND, there are 108,381, and if more cases involving dealers such as Red’s Trading Post of Twin Falls, Idaho, develop, that number will plummet quickly.

Ryan Horsley, a spokesman for Red’s, which has been in business 71 years, said the store has been battling over its license because of rules infractions such as a missing poster for more than six years.

Red’s manager Ryan Horsley

He’s launched an online petition asking Congress to intervene and halt the “blatant targeting of law abiding dealers.” It also seeks a “fair, constitutional and speedy appeals process” and has attracted thousands of signatures.

His company also has a federal lawsuit pending against the ATF over its announcement that Red’s firearms dealership license was being withdrawn.

Attorney Mark Geston said the case asks the court to review the statute and the “propriety” of the decision that was made.

Horsley said the reason Red’s is facing a revocation is – at most – insignificant paperwork mistakes.

“Imagine having your driver’s license revoked because you did not completely spell out the word ‘no’ when answering a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question on your application five years ago,” his petition asks.

He told WND the inspectors begin with efforts to locate any petty violation they can, usually clerical mistakes. “They list these errors as ‘willful’ which Congress set in the wording to protect FFL dealers,” he said. “The dealer’s Federal Firearms License is then revoked and the dealer must enter an appeals process which is extremely unfair.”

He said essentially the appeal of a ATF decision goes directly to the people who originally made the decision.

“This is the equivalent of being in court and having the prosecuting attorney act as an adviser to the judge,” Horsley said. The result forces the business, if owners want to continue operating, to sue in federal court.

Pratt told WND, “the power that has enabled ATF to take away people’s licenses to do business” continues unabated.

Pratt said many gun dealers were closed down when Congress allowed local municipalities to recommend denial depending upon the location of the gun dealership.

The founder of Red’s, “Red” Kinney, and son Jesse

And he noted a family gun business that had been operation in Baltimore, Md., for years was attacked because of the “wanton, repeated crime” of abbreviating Baltimore as “Blto” on the “teeny, tiny spaces on the forms provided by the teeny, tiny little minds.”

The agency holds, he said, a “continuing animas against gun owners and dealers.”

The inspectors have no handbook under which to operate, and the absence of such written procedures allows them to be arbitrary and capricious.

Horsley described to WND his experiences with those very actions.

The ATF inspection of Red’s in 2000 discovered various paperwork violations, he said, just shortly after he arrived to take over the store, mistakes such as a customer failing to write down the county in which he lived.

In 2001, “they couldn’t find any violations,” he told WND. A few other minor problems were found later, including a failure to put up a poster.

“I wasn’t alarmed because this agent … had told us we were one of the best small gun shops he’d ever seen,” Horsley told WND.

Then early in 2006, “We get a letter that ‘We’re [ATF] revoking your license,'” Horsley said. “I just came unglued. I couldn’t believe it.”

After an expensive appeal process within ATF, he ended up with the same result, and sought out a lawyer for the federal court challenge.

During the appeal process, the penalty had been delayed, so the store could continue its business. But once the federal court challenge was filed, the ATF announced that the store now was a “threat to public safety” and no longer would be able to acquire firearms.

Horsley told WND he still was allowed to sell whatever he had, but couldn’t purchase more stock. His stock plummeted from 1,000 guns to 160 and two workers were laid off before an emergency run to federal court obtained a ruling from U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge that allows the store to continue operations – for now.

The judge found “the ATF speaks of violations found during the inspections of 2000 and 2005, but fails to reveal that additional investigations in 2001 and 2007 revealed no violations or problems.”

The judge also noted the ATF was exaggerating the situation by “double counting” some violations.

Horsley said the key issue is that the inspectors make the determination that any errors were “willful.” He said the first inspection results in a warning for whatever clerical errors are found; then the next inspection makes the assumption any errors are willful, even if none of the original mistakes was repeated.

Horsley said one inspector told another – in front of a store worker who noted the exchange, that, “We’re going to keep doing this until we find something.”

He said the number of gun dealers dropped from 1994-2005 by nearly 80 percent and revocations are up nearly six times from 2001-2006. The ATF declined to share information on cases with WND, citing the confidentiality required in an open investigation.

But on a blog on his store’s website, Horsley described one situation that happened just a few weeks ago:

The ATF came in yesterday at about 10 a.m. and stayed until around 6 p.m. attempting to find violations to submit to the judge. They did give us a pass on one of the violations. A customer wrote his middle initial instead of a full middle name. We let them know that the customer does not even have a middle name and only an initial. They still told us they would let that pass. So, I am overflowing with gratefulness right now.
I questioned Linda Young (the Area Supervisor) on the last violation that we did not have our records in PERFECT alphabetical order, stating that if you wanted to read the policy literally then we should have to keep all of our records in full alphabetical order and not separated by year despite this being the way nearly all records are kept by dealers. She agreed and then stated that she had the authority to overrule procedures and policies. When I brought up the issue that [an] ATF Inspector … advised us to keep them in the previous order that we were cited for, she then stated that inspectors did not have the authority to overrule procedures and policies.

Why was [the inspector] not cited or suspended for providing us incorrect information? We were cited for a violation on incorrect information.

He continued: “This is not just happening to us though and is becoming a common trend throughout the United States … Why would we honestly put our license, reputation and over 70 years in business in jeopardy? We would never condone illegal activity, we have always gone above and beyond what is asked of us and will continue to do so.”

Horsley’s store, meanwhile, has paid about $70,000 in legal fees so far to avoid his only other option – to lock the doors and go away.

And Pratt said such actions – and expenses – are common.

One dealership in Texas already has paid about $600,000 in fees and expenses to fight to retain its license. That case started with the complaint that bullets from a shooting range near the store were polluting groundwater – even though no test ever had been done to confirm that.

Meanwhile, the publicity campaigns and stunts arranged by high-profile activists opposed to guns continue to muddy the water by making unsubstantiated allegations about gun dealers, they noted.

Jesse Jackson recently appeared at an anti-gun rally outside a gun shop in the Chicago area, a shop that has been targeted multiple times. The protesters have claimed weapons sold at the store have been used to commit murder.

“We must turn our mourning into marching,” Jackson said. He was joined by the mother of Blair Holt, 16, who died in a gunman’s rampage on a bus.

“To all those people watching me: It could be your child next. So, you better stand up and do something now,” said Annette Holt.

Jackson compared gun retailers to the insurgency in Iraq.

“These guns are killing police, civilians, they’re killing our children,” he said. “In Iraq, they’d call that an insurgent’s base.”

Rebecca Hazen, however, had a different view. She and her husband for years had run Blue Lakes Sporting Goods, also in Twin Falls, and competed with Red’s. They shut down after their firearms license was revoked just a few months ago.

“No government agency should have the right to take away our right to do business,” she wrote. “Without a gun license, we had no reason to continue our business… I believe government has been unable to take guns from the hands of citizens or sue gun manufacturers out of business, so they will use government agencies to revoke licenses one at a time until there are no stores to buy guns.”

“I encourage every gun owner to step forward and let their senators and congressmen know how we feel about the ATF’s power to revoke licenses and close up businesses. The ATF should be stopped before there are no guns left to buy. Let your voice be heard,” she wrote.

HILLARY QUOTES : Potty Mouth Clinton

June 30, 2007

Hat Tip to Earl1911 for finding these!

Where is the G-damn f**king flag? I want the G-damn f**king flag up every f**king morning at f**king sunrise.” (From the book “Inside The White House” by Ronald Kessler, p. 244 – Hillary to the staff at the Arkansas Governor’s mansion on Labor Day, 1991)

“You sold out, you mother f**ker! You sold out!” (From the book “Inside” by Joseph Califano, p. 213 – Hillary yelling at Democrat lawyer.)

“It’s been said, and I think it’s accurate, that my husband was obsessed by terrorism in general and al-Qaida in particular.” (Hillary telling a post-9/11 world what a ‘great’ commander in chief her husband was; Dateline, NBC 4/16/2004.)

“I have to admit that a good deal of what my husband and I have learned [about Islam] has come from our daughter.” (TruthInMedia.org 8/8/1999 – Hillary at a White House function, proudly tells some Muslim groups she is gaining a greater appreciation of Islam because Chelsea was then taking a class on the “religion of peace”)

F**k off! It’s enough that I have to see you shit-kickers every day, I’m not going to talk to you too!! Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut.” (From the book “American Evita” by Christopher Anderson, p. 90 – Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with “Good morning.”

“You f**king idiot.” (From the book “Crossfire” p. 84 – Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event.)

“If you want to remain on this detail, get your f**king ass over here and grab those bags!” (From the book “The First Partner” p. 259 – Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.)

“Get f**ked! Get the f**k out of my way!!! Get out of my face!!!”(From the book “Hillary’s Scheme” p. 89 – Hillary’s various comments to her Secret Service detail agents.)

“Stay the f**k back, stay the f**k away from me! Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f**king do as I s ay, Okay!!!?” (From the book “Unlimited Access”, by Clinton FBI Agent in Charge, Gary Aldrige, p. 139 – Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail.)

“Many of you are well enough off that [President Bush’s] tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” (Hillary grandstanding at a fund raising speech in San Francisco; SFGate.com 6/28/2004.)

“Why do I have to keep proving to people that I am not a liar?!”(From the book “The Survivor,” by John Harris, p. 382 – Hillary in her 2000 Senate campaign)

“Where’s the miserable c*ck sucker?” (From the book “The Truth About Hillary” by Edward Klein, p. 5 – Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer)

“No matter what you think about the Iraq war, there is one thing we can all agree on for the next days – we have to salute the courage and bravery of those who are risking their lives to vote and those brave Iraqi and American soldiers fighting to protect their right to vote.” (Was posted on Hillary Clinton’s senate.gov web site on 1/28/05)

“Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those sunglasses. We need to go back!” (From the book “Dereliction of Duty” p. 71-72 – Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One.)

A right-wing network was after his presidency…including perverting the Constitution.” (To Barbara Walters about the Republicans who impeached her husband; 20/20, ABC 6/8/2003.)

“What are you doing inviting these people into my home? These people are our enemies! They are trying to destroy us!” (From the book “The Survivor” by John Harris, p. 99 – Hillary screaming to an aide, when she found out that some Republicans had been invited to the White House)

“I mean, you’ve got a conservative and right-wing press presence with really nothing on the other end of the political spectrum.” (C-Span, 1/19/1997 – Hillary complains about the mainstream media, which are all conservatives in her opinion)

“Come on Bill, put your dick up! You can’t f**k her here!!” (From the book “Inside The White House” by Ronald Kessler, p. 243 – Hillary to Gov. Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female at an Arkansas political rally)

“You know, I’m going to start thanking the woman who cleans the restroom in the building I work in. I’m going to start thinking of her as a human being” (From the book “The Case Against Hillary Clinton” by Peggy Noonan, p. 55)

“You show people what you’re willing to fight for when you fight your friends.” (From the book “The Agenda” by Bob Woodward, ch. 14)

“We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West.” (From the book “I’ve Always Been A Yankee Fan” by Thomas D. Kuiper, p 119 – During her 1993 commencement address at the University of Texas)

“The only way to make a difference is to acquire power” (From the book “I’ve Always Been A Yankee Fan” by Thomas D. Kuiper, p 68 – Hillary to a friend before starting law school.)

“We just can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices…. Government has to make those choices for people” (From the book “I’ve Always Been A Yankee Fan” by Thomas D. Kuiper, p 20 – Hillary to Rep. Dennis Hastert in 1993 discussing her expensive, disastrous taxpayer-funded health care plan)

“I am a fan of the social policies that you find in Europe” (From the book “I’ve Always Been A Yankee Fan” by Thomas D. Kuiper, p. 76 – Hillary in 1996)

Hat Tip Joe http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/03/hillary-clinton-get-fcked.html

Gun Control’s Nazi Connection!

June 30, 2007

Source: http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm

Are you tired of being told that “gun control” is a chronic pain that you have to accept because there’s no cure? Do you — a law abiding person — want to be free: to own whichever firearms you want to own, regardless of where in America you live; from waiting periods, gun bans, magazine capacity restrictions, etc.; to spend your time on the range or in the field, rather than fighting “gun control”?

Are you tired of giving hard earned bucks to efforts that have at best only slowed the gun grabbers’ push toward firearms registration and confiscation? If you have had enough of death by a thousand cuts, you are ready to take action to wipe out “gun control” — now.

Members of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) consider “gun control” to be an aggressive cancer. JPFO has a cure, a way to destroy “gun control”. JPFO has hard evidence that shows that the Nazi Weapons Law (March 18, 1938) is the source of the U.S Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA ’68). Adolph Hitler signed the Nazi Weapons Law. The Gestapo (Nazi National Secret Police) enforced it. In “Gun Control”: Gateway to Tyranny we present the official German text of the Nazi Weapons Law and a side-by-side translation into English. Even more deadly: a side-by-side, section-by-section comparison of the GCA ’68 with the Nazi Weapons Law. If you have this in your hands, no one can tell you that you’re imagining things.

The clincher: JPFO knows who implanted into American law cancerous ideas from the Nazi Weapons Law.

The likely culprit is a former senator, now deceased. We have documentary proof — see below — that he had the original text of the Nazi Weapons Law in his possession 4 months before the bill that became GCA ’68 was signed into law.

This former senator was a senior member of the U.S. team that helped to prosecute Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, Germany, in 1945-46. That is probably where he found out about the Nazi Weapons Law. He may have gotten a copy of it then, or at a later date. We cannot imagine why any U.S. lawmaker would own original texts of Nazi laws. To find out his name, read on.

With this hard evidence in your hands and in your head, you can destroy cancerous “gun control”. You can challenge anyone who backs “gun control”. You can show them the Nazi ideas, line by line.

The parallels between the Nazi law and GCA ’68 will leap at you from the page. For example, law abiding firearm owners in Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey must carry identification cards based on formats from the Nazi Weapons Law. Nazi based laws have no place in America. Thousands of Americans died or were wounded in the war to wipe out the Nazis. They did not suffer or die so that Hitler’s ideas could live on in America and kill more Americans. Remember Killeen, Texas! The 23 who died in Luby’s Cafeteria there died because they obeyed Nazi inspired “gun control” laws. The law forced them, unarmed, to face an armed madman.

To destroy “gun control” before more law abiding Americans are murdered by criminals or madmen helped by “gun control”, you need to get hold of the evidence as presented in “Gun Control”: Gateway to Tyranny. You can then challenge the media, the most aggressive backers of “gun control”. Ask media personalities in your city or town why they back Nazi based laws. You can help to erase “gun control”, Hitler’s last legacy.

GCA ’68 puts your life at risk right now. You have a constitutional civil right to be armed in order to protect yourself, because under U.S law the police have no duty to protect the average person:

“There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state (or Federal) against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state (gov’t) to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order”
(Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 [1982]).

The Supreme Court last dealt with this issue in 1856; the 1982 decision states the position in modern language. The laws of virtually every state parallel federal law (see JPFO Special Report Dial 911 and Die! covered in Guns & Ammo, July 1992). This has been so ever since the Constitution was adopted in 1791. As a result, the framers of the Second Amendment deliberately created (guaranteed) an individual civil right to be armed. It is your only reliable defense against criminals. GCA ’68 ties your hands and keeps you from carrying out your legal duty to ensure your own self defense. GCA ’68 thus undermines a pillar of U.S. law and helps criminals to kill law abiding Americans. Hitler would be pleased.

Thus, GCA ’68 marked a new approach to “gun control”. It replaced the Federal Firearms Act (June 30, 1938), which was based on the federal power to regulate interstate commerce. The 1938 law required firearms dealers to get a federal license (which then cost $1). Only dealers could ship firearms across state lines. Ordinary people could receive shipments from dealers.

In GCA ’68 the government required that in almost all cases only dealers could send and receive firearms across state lines. This ended “mail order” sales of firearms by law abiding persons who are not licensed dealers. GCA ’68 hits you even harder. Congress gave federal bureaucrats in Washington D.C., the power to decide what kinds of firearms you can own. The framers of GCA ’68 borrowed an idea — that certain firearms are “hunting weapons” — from the Nazi Weapons Law (Section 21 and Section 32 of the Regulations, page 61 and page 73, respectively, of “Gun Control”: Gateway to Tyranny). The equivalent U.S. term, “sporting purpose,” was used to classify firearms. But it was not defined anywhere in GCA ’68. Thus, bureaucrats were empowered to ban whole classes of firearms. They have, in fact, done so.

We wanted to know the source of these new ideas. On reading “Dial 911 and Die!” a JPFO member told us he had seen an article — by Alan Stang in ‘Review of the News,’ October 4, 1967 (pages 15-20) — the author of which felt that the Nazi Weapons Law was the model for GCA ’68. We found the article. But Stang did not reproduce the Nazi law, so we could not check his conclusions.

We started to hunt for the text of the Nazi Weapons Law. We eventually found it, in the law library of an Ivy League university.

Until 1943-44, the German government published its laws and regulations in the ‘Reichsgesetzblatt,’ roughly the equivalent of the U.S. Federal Register. Carefully shelved by law librarians, the 1938 issues of this German government publication had gathered a lot of dust. In the ‘Reichsgesetzblatt’ issue for the week of March 21, 1938, was the official text of the Weapons Law (March 18, 1938). It gave Hitler’s Nazi party a stranglehold on the Germans, many of whom did not support the Nazis. We found that the Nazis did not invent “gun control” in Germany. The Nazis inherited gun control and then perfected it: they invented handgun control.

The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb “gang activity,” violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? “Gun control” did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.

The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they ‘lawfully’ took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not “reliable.” Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.

In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other “reliable” people.

The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 — one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany — new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.

Given the parallels between the Nazi Weapons Law and the GCA ’68, we concluded that the framers of the GCA ’68 — lacking any basis in American law to sharply cut back the civil rights of law abiding Americans — drew on the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938.

Finding the Nazi Weapons Law whetted our appetite. We wanted to know who implanted this Nazi cancer in America. We began by probing the backgrounds of lawmakers who championed “gun control”. We focused on those whose bills became part of GCA ’68. GCA ’68 as enacted closely tracks proposals dating to August 1963. We felt that if the culprit were a lawmaker — or a congressional staffer — he or she would know Germany, German law and possibly even speak German. He or she probably would have spent time in Germany on business or during military service. Alternatively, if the culprit were not a member of Congress or a staffer, there would be testimony at the hearings to that effect.

Most potential suspects were quickly eliminated; they had no apparent ties to Germany. But one lawmaker caught our attention.

An old “Who’s Who” entry showed he had been a senior member of the U.S. team that prosecuted German war criminals at Nuremberg in 1945-46. Thus, he had lived in Germany just after the Nazi period. His official duties required him to look at Nazi records, including Nazi laws. In 1963 he led the effort to greatly expand the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.

We then got a break. We told a legal scholar of our findings. He was intrigued. He sent us an extract from the record of hearings held a few months prior to the enactment of GCA ’68. At the end of June 1968, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee to investigate Juvenile Delinquency — chaired by Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT) — held hearings on bills: (1) “To Require the Registration of Firearms” (S.3604). (2) “To Disarm Lawless Persons” (S.3634) and (3) “To Provide for the Establishment of a National Firearms Registry” (S.3637), among others.

U.S. Representative John Dingell (D-MI) testified at these Senate hearings on “gun control”. Senator Joseph D. Tydings (D-MD) chaired some of these hearings, in Dodd’s absence.

Rep. Dingell expressed concern that if firearms registration were required, it might lead to confiscation of firearms, as had happened in Nazi Germany. Tydings angrily accused Rep. Dingell of using “scare tactics”:

“Are you inferring that our system here, gun registration or licensing, would in any way be comparable to the Nazi regime in Germany, where they had a secret police, and a complete takeover?”

Rep. Dingell backed away.

(Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Committee on the Judiciary, 90th Congress, 2nd Session, June 26, 27 and 28 and July 8, 9 and 10. 1968, pp. 479-80, 505-6 cited as Subcommittee Hearings.)

Tydings later inserted into the hearing record various documents, “concerning the history of Nazism and gun confiscation.”

Exhibit No. 62 (see reproduction) is fascinating. This letter — dated July 12, 1968 — is to Subcommittee Chairman Dodd from Lewis C. Coffin, Law Librarian at the Library of Congress. Coffin wrote:

” … we are enclosing herewith a translation of the Law on Weapons of March 18, 1938, prepared by Dr. William Solyom-Fekete of [the European Law Division — ed.] as well as the Xerox of the original German text which you supplied” (Subcommittee Hearings, p. 489, emphasis added).

This letter makes it public knowledge that at the end of June 1968 — 4 months before GCA ’68 was enacted — Senator Thomas J. Dodd, now deceased, personally owned a copy of the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law.

Why did Dodd own the original German text of any Nazi law? Why did he make known that he owned it?

The Library of Congress then had (and still has) the ‘Reichsgesetzblatt’ in its collection. The Library of Congress translator, Dr. Solyom-Fekete, could easily have used the Library of Congress’ own copy.

Any member of Congress who wanted to read the Nazi Weapons Law need only have asked for it to be produced from the shelves of the Library of Congress and for it to be translated by Library of Congress experts. Why should any member of Congress ever have owned the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law?

Without access to Tom Dodd’s personal papers, archived under his heirs’ control, we unfortunately cannot offer definite answers.

Dodd could have acquired the German text of the Nazi Weapons Law during his time at Nuremberg. But he had no need to do so.

Dodd did not personally handle the prosecution of Nazi Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick, who signed the Nazi Weapons Law. The case against Frick was presented by Robert M.W. Kempner, Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States (see ‘Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal,’ cited as TMWC, Vol. V, pp. 352-67, Nuremberg, Germany, 1947).

Nor should the Nazi Weapons Law otherwise have come to Dodd’s attention. The Nazi Weapons Law was not used as evidence against Frick (see Kempner’s speech, TMWC, V, pp. 352-67 and ‘Index of Laws, Decrees, Orders, Directives, and the Administration of Justice in Nazi Germany and Nazi Dominated Countries’, TMWC, Vol. XXIII, pp. 430-33). The Nazi Weapons Law is not listed among documents submitted as evidence to the Tribunal by the American prosecutors (see Vol. XXIV, pp. 98-169).

The prosecutors at Nuremberg doubtless knew of the Nazi Weapons Law. They probably saw it in the ‘Reichsgesetzblatt.’ On the same day that Nazi Interior Minister Frick signed the Weapons Law, March 18, 1938, he signed another law governing security measures in newly annexed Austria. This law concerning Austria appeared in the ‘Reichsgesetzblatt’ — directly in front of the Weapons Law — and was introduced into evidence at Nuremberg (‘Reichsgesetzblatt’ 1938, I, p. 262; the Nazi Weapons Law was published in the same volume, p. 265; see TMWC, Vol. V, p.358 for reference to law concerning Austria).

Thus, the Nazi Weapons Law appeared to have no historical merit at Nuremberg and should not have attracted anyone’s notice, certainly not to the extent of causing anyone to want to keep a copy of it as a separate document.

If Dodd got his copy of the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law during his time at Nuremberg, it likely was part of a collection of documents, for example, issues of the ‘Reichsgesetzblatt’.

But if he acquired the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law after his service at Nuremberg, he must have done so for a very specific reason. The Nazi Weapons Law plainly did not figure at Nuremberg.

We may safely conclude it had little, if any, interest for those interested in the history of the Nazis’ rise to power. For example, the Nazi Weapons Law is not mentioned at all in William L. Shirer’s very thorough study of Nazi Germany, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich’ (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1950).

At the hearings held by Dodd’s subcommittee at the end of June 1968, Rep. Dingell had objected to the firearms registration provision then being discussed. Dodd may have offered his copy of the Nazi Weapons Law to show that the specific proposal did not resemble anything in the Nazi law.

He may not have realized that he was revealing a broader truth; that the whole fabric of GCA ’68 was based on the Nazi Weapons Law, even if the specific registration proposal was not so based.

Alternatively, Dodd may not have cared whether or not anyone knew that he had the German text of the Nazi Weapons Law. He doubtless knew that months would pass before the hearing record was printed and so generally available for scrutiny. Thus, even if anyone then noticed the parallels between the two laws, the bill would already have become law.

Rep. Dingell does not appear to have pursued the matter: the firearms registration provision was not included in GCA ’68. The Congress was stampeded on “gun control” by public enthusiasm. Martin Luther King had been murdered on April 4, 1968, and Robert F. Kennedy had been murdered on June 6, 1968.

We are not the first to have seen this hearing record. But we appear to be the first to have recognized its importance. This hearing record suggests strongly that the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT) himself implanted the Nazi Weapons Law into American law, or, at very least, helped others to do so.

Now you know the ugly truth about the roots of GCA ’68. But you need to see — with your own eyes — the hard evidence of the Nazi roots of “gun control” in America presented in “Gun Control”: Gateway to Tyranny.

If you want to destroy “gun control”, you can use this book to do it.

The Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, cleared the way for World War II and Nazi genocide against the Jews, Gypsies and 7,000,000 other people.

Front Sight Advanced Training

June 22, 2007

<ul style=”list-style-type: none;”>
<li>Front Sight <a href=”http://www.frontsight.com&#8221; title=”firearms training”>Firearms Training</a></li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatiuspiazza.com&#8221; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – founder of Front Sight</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatiuspiazzafrontsight.com&#8221; title=”Ignatius Piazza blog”>Ignatius Piazza</a> blog site</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-gun-world.com&#8221; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Gun World</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-chicago-tribune.com&#8221; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Chicago Tribune</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-cybercast-news-service.com&#8221; title=”front sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Cybercast News Service</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-las-vegas-life.com&#8221; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Las Vegas Life</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-new-york-times.com&#8221; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in New York Times</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-el-pais-semanal.com&#8221; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in El Pais Seminal </li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-black-belt-magazine.com/&#8221; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Black Belt Magazine</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-times-democrat.com&#8221; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Times Democrat</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-us-news-and-world-report.com&#8221; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in US News & World Report</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-cnn.com&#8221; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – on CNN</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-los-angeles-times.com&#8221; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Los Angeles Times</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-santa-cruz-sentinel.com/&#8221; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Santa Cruz Sentinel</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-handvapen-guiden.com&#8221; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Handvapen Guiden</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-las-vegas-sun.com&#8221; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Las Vegas Sun</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-the-mail-on-sunday-review.com&#8221; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in The Mail on Sunday Review</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-financial-times.com&#8221; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Financial Times</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-playboy.com&#8221; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Playboy</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-london-times.com&#8221; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in London Times</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-national-enquirer.com&#8221; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in National Enquirer</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-sierra-times.com&#8221; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Sierra Times</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-bbc-news.com&#8221; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – on BBC News</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-usa-today.com&#8221; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – on USA Today</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-guns-and-ammo.com&#8221; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Guns & Ammo</li>
<li>My Experience at <a href=”http://www.nevadacarry.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36&Itemid=42&#8243; title=”Front Sight “>Front Sight </a></li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-las-vegas-mercury.com&#8221; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Las Vegas Mercury</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-san-francisco-chronicle.com&#8221; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in San Francisco Chronicle</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-fort-worth-star-telegram.com&#8221; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Fort Worth Star Telegram</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-washington-post.com&#8221; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Washington Post</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-icon-magazine.com&#8221; title=”Front sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Icon Magazine</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-small-arms-review.com&#8221; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Small Arms Review</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-el-mercurio.com&#8221; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in El Mercurio</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-forbes-magazine.com/&#8221; title=”Ignatius Piazza in Forbes”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – in Forbes Magazine</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-pajaronian.com/&#8221; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Pajaronian Register</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-world-net-daily.com&#8221; title=”Ignatius Piazza”>Ignatius Piazza</a> – on World Net Daily</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and-front-sight-in-gunweb.com&#8221; title=”Front Sight”>Front Sight</a> – in Gun Web</li>
<li><a href=”http://www.ignatius-piazza-and

Biometric Social Security cards

June 19, 2007

Senator Chuck Schumer wants to amend the immigration bill to require you to get a new Social Security card with biometric information imbedded in it. Creating this new card would . . .

* Cost $9 billion (before the usual government cost over-runs)
* Require the Social Security administration to hire an additional 60,000 employees
* Require you to spend time getting the new card
* Require you to give the central government sensitive personal information

In the past only criminals had to supply the state with things like fingerprints, DNA, or retinal scans. Now, if Schumer gets his way, law abiding citizens will have to do it too, just for the privilege of earning a living. Meanwhile . . .

The people this card is supposed to control will continue to live underground, work on the black market without papers, or forge documents. The real control will be over you, not them.

So why does Schumer want this Biometric Social Security card on top of the REAL ID?

It could be because the REAL ID Act is in big trouble and the politicians are looking for an alternative that doesn’t require the cooperation of state governments. After all . . .

New Hampshire just voted to NOT COOPERATE with the REAL ID requirement!

This New Hampshire decision is a big victory for our side, but a real challenge to Big Brother politicians like Schumer. Biometric Social Security cards may soon take the place of the REAL ID, unless we stop the whole thing dead in its tracks, right now.

This Biometric Social Security card is evidence that the politicians are going to come at us from all angles. If they can’t come in through the door (REAL ID), then they’ll try to come in through a window (Biometric Social Security cards). We need to use the same tactic to defeat this tactic, fighting fire with fire.

We need to attack these Big Brother proposals from all angles. That’s why we’re devoting the entire week to defeating the immigration bill. We need for you to send a new message about this each day. Every message will ask the Senate to oppose the immigration bill as a whole. But then . . .

In your personal comments we want to ask you to add a specific objection — a different one for each day. Yesterday we asked you to tell your Senators that . . .

You’ve heard rumors that earmarks are being offered in return for voting yes on the immigration bill, and you’re going to be very ANGRY if that turns out to be true. If you sent this message yesterday, thank you. If you did not, please do so now HERE.

Today, send another message, and use your personal comments to ask your Senators to oppose Senator Schumer’s Biometric Social Security Card amendment. You can do so HERE.

Tomorrow we’ll be back with another message for you to send on this issue. In the meantime, could we ask you to put in a little extra effort today, and also send a message calling for the repeal of the REAL ID Act. Tell them you know New Hampshire has refused to participate, and you think it’s time to just repeal REAL ID entirely. You can send that message HERE.

This is important because the more objections the Senate receives to national ID card schemes the more likely it is that the REAL ID Act will be repealed, that provisions related to it will be stripped from the immigration bill, and that Schumer’s Biometric Social Security Card amendment will also be defeated.

You can send your “Repeal the REAL ID Act” message HERE.

 

Sneaky Politicians and you…

June 19, 2007

McCarthy Bill Moves To The Senate
— “Compromise” bill represents the most far-reaching gun ban in
years

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

ACTION:

1. Please urge your Senators to OPPOSE the gun control bill (HR 2640)
which was snuck through the House last week by anti-gun Democrats.
Some people are saying this bill is a positive step for gun owners,
but realize this ONE SIMPLE FACT: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Sen.
Chuck Schumer are the lead sponsors of this legislation! These two
have NEVER once looked out for your Second Amendment rights!!!

2. Please use the contact information below — and the pre-written
letter — to help direct your comments to them, and circulate this
alert to as many gun owners as you can. It is imperative that we
remind gun owners nationwide that gun control DOES NOT work to reduce
crime; that, to the contrary, gun control HAS DISARMED millions of
law-abiding citizens; and that the answer to tragedies like Virginia
Tech is to REPEAL the “gun free zones” which leave law-abiding
victims defenseless.

Monday, June 18, 2007

The Associated Press got it right last week when it stated that, “The
House Wednesday passed what could become the first major federal gun
control law in over a decade.”

It’s true. The McCarthy bill that passed will DRAMATICALLY expand
the dragnet that is currently used to disqualify law-abiding gun
buyers. So much so, that hundreds of thousands of honest citizens
who want to buy a gun will one day walk into a gun store and be
shocked when they’re told they’re a prohibited purchaser, having been
lumped into the same category as murderers and rapists.

This underscores the problems that have existed all along with the
Brady Law. At the time it was passed, some people foolishly thought,
“No big deal. I’m not a bad guy. This law won’t affect me.”

But what happens when good guys’ names get thrown into the bad guys’
list? That is exactly what has happened, and no one should think
that the attempts to expand the gun control noose are going to end
with the McCarthy bill (HR 2640).

Speaking to the CNN audience on June 13, head of the Brady Campaign,
Paul Helmke, stated that, “We’re hopeful that now that the NRA has
come around to our point of view in terms of strengthening the Brady
background checks, that now we can take the next step after this bill
passes [to impose additional gun control].”

Get it? The McCarthy bill is just a first step.

The remainder of this alert will explain, in layman’s terms, the
problems with what passed on Wednesday. Please understand that GOA’s
legal department has spent hours analyzing the McCarthy bill, in
addition to looking at existing federal regulations and BATFE
interpretations. (If you want the lawyerly perspective, then please
go to http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm for an extensive analysis.)

So what does HR 2640 do? Well, as stated already, this is one of the
most far-reaching gun bans in years. For the first time in history,
this bill takes a giant step towards banning one-fourth of returning
military veterans from ever owning a gun again.

In 2000, President Clinton added between 80,000 – 90,000 names of
military veterans — who were suffering from Post Traumatic Stress
(PTS) — into the NICS background check system. These were vets who
were having nightmares; they had the shakes. So Clinton disqualified
them from buying or owning guns.

For seven years, GOA has been arguing that what Clinton did was
illegitimate. But if this McCarthy bill gets enacted into law, a
future Hillary Clinton administration would actually have the law on
her side to ban a quarter of all military veterans (that’s the number
of veterans who have Post Traumatic Stress) from owning guns.

Now, the supporters of the McCarthy bill claim that military veterans
— who have been denied their Second Amendment rights — could get
their rights restored. But this is a very nebulous promise.

The reason is that Section 101(c)(1)(C) of the bill provides
explicitly that a psychiatrist or psychologist diagnosis is enough to
ban a person for ever owning a gun as long as it’s predicated on a
microscopic risk that a person could be a danger to himself or
others. (Please be sure to read the NOTE below for more details on
this.)

How many psychiatrists are going to deny that a veteran suffering
from PTS doesn’t possess a MICROSCOPIC RISK that he could be a danger
to himself or others?

And even if they can clear the psychiatrist hurdle, we’re still
looking at thousands of dollars for lawyers, court fees, etc. And
then, when veterans have done everything they can possibly do to
clear their name, there is still the Schumer amendment in federal law
which prevents the BATFE from restoring the rights of individuals who
are barred from purchasing firearms. If that amendment is not
repealed, then it doesn’t matter if your state stops sending your
name for inclusion in the FBI’s NICS system… you are still going to
be a disqualified purchaser when you try to buy a gun.

So get the irony. Senator Schumer is the one who is leading the
charge in the Senate to pass the McCarthy bill, and he is
“generously” offering military veterans the opportunity to clear
their names, even though it’s been HIS AMENDMENT that has prevented
honest gun owners from getting their rights back under a similar
procedure created in 1986!

But there’s still another irony. Before this bill, it was very
debatable (in legal terms) whether the military vets with PTS should
have been added into the NICS system… and yet many of them were —
even though there was NO statutory authority to do so. Before this
bill, there were provisions in the law to get one’s name cleared, and
yet Schumer made it impossible for these military vets to do so.

Now, the McCarthy bill (combined with federal regulations) makes it
unmistakably clear that military vets with Post Traumatic Stress
SHOULD BE ADDED as prohibited persons on the basis of a
“diagnosis.”
Are these vets now going to find it any easier to get their names
cleared (when the law says they should be on the list) if they were
finding it difficult to do so before (when the law said they
shouldn’t)?

Add to this the Schumer amendment (mentioned above). The McCarthy
bill does nothing to repeal the Schumer amendment, which means that
military veterans with PTS are going to find it impossible to get
their rights restored!

Do you see how Congress is slowly (and quietly) sweeping more and
more innocent people into the same category as murderers and rapists?
First, anti-gun politicians get a toe hold by getting innocuous
sounding language into the federal code. Then they come back years
later to twist those words into the most contorted way possible.

Consider the facts. In 1968, Congress laid out several criteria for
banning Americans from owning guns — a person can’t be a felon, a
drug user, an illegal alien, etc. Well, one of the criteria which
will disqualify you from owning or buying a gun is if you are
“adjudicated as a mental defective.” Now, in 1968, that term
referred to a person who was judged not guilty of a crime by reason
of insanity.

Well, that was 1968. By 2000, President Bill Clinton had stretched
that definition to mean a military veteran who has had a lawful
authority (like a shrink) decree that a person has PTS. Can you see
how politicians love to stretch the meaning of words in the law…
especially when it comes to banning guns?

After all, who would have thought when the original Brady law was
passed in 1993, that it would be used to keep people with outstanding
traffic tickets from buying guns; or couples with marriage problems
from buying guns; or military vets with nightmares from buying guns?
(See footnotes below.)

So if you thought the Brady Law would never affect you because you’re
a “good guy,” then think again. Military vets are in trouble,
and so
are your kids who are battling Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).
Everything that has been mentioned above regarding military veterans,
could also apply to these kids.

Do you have a child in the IDEA program — a.k.a., Individuals with
Disability Education Act — who has been diagnosed with ADD and
thought to be susceptible to playground fights? Guess what? That
child can be banned for life from ever owning a gun as an adult. The
key to understanding this new gun ban expansion centers on a shrink’s
determination that a person is a risk to himself or others.

You see, legislators claim they want to specifically prevent a future
Seung-Hui Cho from ever buying a gun and shooting up a school. And
since Cho had been deemed as a potential danger to himself or others,
that has become the new standard for banning guns.

But realize what this does. In the name of stopping an infinitesimal
fraction of potential bad apples from owning firearms, legislators
are expanding the dragnet to sweep ALL KINDS of good guys into a
permanent ban. It also ignores the fact that bad guys get illegal
guns ALL THE TIME, despite the gun laws!

So back to your kid who might have ADD. The BATFE, in an open letter
(dated May 9, 2007), said the diagnosis that a person is a potential
risk doesn’t have to be based on the fact that the person poses a
“substantial” risk. It just has to be “ANY” risk.

Just any risk, no matter how slight to the other kids on the
playground, is all that is needed to qualify the kid on Ritalin — or
a vet suffering PTS, or a husband (going through a divorce) who’s
been ordered to go through an anger management program, etc. — for a
LIFETIME gun ban.

This is the slippery slope that gun control poses. And this is the
reason HR 2640 must be defeated. Even as we debate this bill, the
Frank Lautenbergs in Congress are trying to expand the NICS system
with the names of people who are on a so-called “government watch
list” (S. 1237).

While this “government watch list” supposedly applies to suspected
terrorists, the fact is that government bureaucrats can add ANY gun
owner’s name to this list without due process, without any hearing,
or trial by jury, etc. That’s where the background check system is
headed… if we don’t rise up together and cut off the monster’s head
right now.

NOTE: Please realize that a cursory reading of this bill is not
sufficient to grasp the full threat that it poses. To read this bill
properly, you have to not only read it thoroughly, but look at
federal regulations and BATF interpretations as well. For example,
where we cite Section 101(c)(1)(C) above as making it explicitly
clear that the diagnosis from a psychologist or psychiatrist is
enough to ban a person from owning a gun, realize that you have to
look at Section 101, while also going to federal regulations via
Section 3 of the bill.

Section 3(2) of the bill states that every interpretation that the
BATFE has made in respect to mental capacity would become statutory
law. And so what does the federal code say? Well, at 27 CFR 478.11,
it explicitly states that a person can be deemed to be “adjudicated
as a mental defective” by a court or by any “OTHER LAWFUL
AUTHORITY”
(like a shrink), as long as the individual poses a risk to self or
others (or can’t manage his own affairs). And in its open letter of
May 9, 2007, BATFE makes it clear that this “danger” doesn’t
have to
be “imminent” or “substantial,” but can include
“any danger” at all.
How many shrinks are going to say that a veteran suffering from PTS
doesn’t pose at least an infinitesimal risk of hurting someone else?

FOOTNOTES:

(1) The Brady law has been used to illegitimately deny firearms to
people who have outstanding traffic tickets (see
http://www.gunowners.org/ne0706.pdf).

(2) Because of the Lautenberg gun ban, couples with marriage problems
or parents who have used corporal punishment to discipline their
children have been prohibited from owning guns for life (see
http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9806.htm).

(3) Several articles have pointed to the fact that military vets with
PTS have been added to the NICS system (see http://tinyurl.com/ytalxl
or http://tinyurl.com/23cgqn).

CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action
Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators
the pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

As a supporter of Second Amendment rights, I do NOT support the
so-called NICS Improvement Amendments Act (HR 2640), which was snuck
through the House last week.

This bill represents the most far-reaching gun ban in years. For the
first time in American history, this bill would impose a lifetime gun
ban on battle-scarred veterans and troubled teens — based solely on
the diagnosis of a psychologist (as opposed to a finding by a court).

You can read more about the problems with this bill by going to the
website of Gun Owners of America at
http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm.

Gun owners OPPOSE this legislation, and I hope you will join the
handful of Senators that have placed “holds” on this bill and
object
to any Unanimous Consent agreement.

Supporters of this bill say we need it to stop future Seung-Hui Chos
from getting a gun and to prevent our nation from seeing another
shooting like the one at Virginia Tech. But honestly, what gun law
has stopped bad guys from getting a gun? Not in Canada, where they
recently had a school shooting. Certainly not in Washington, DC or
in England!

If you want to know some language that gun owners would support, then
consider this:

“The Brady Law shall be null and void unless, prior to six months
following the date of enactment of this Act, every name of a veteran
forwarded to the national instant criminal background check system by
the Veterans Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs be
permanently removed from that system.”

Sincerely,