There is a story told that after leaving the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was approached by a woman who asked what form of government the delegates had created. Franklin responded: “A republic, if you can keep it.” Keeping a republic is indeed a difficult task. The ideas set forth in our Constitution and by our Founding Fathers are constantly under assault from the media, larger government and our own misguided decisions.
— James M. Rodney, “Freedom in Fiction” [July 12, 2007
Pennsylvania Case Reveals How McCarthy Bill Could Threaten All Gun
Owners
— Troubling questions in HR 2640 still go unanswered
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
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
“For the first time [in history, HR 2640], if enacted, would
statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans.” —
Military Order of the Purple Heart, June 18, 2007
ACTION:
1. Even if you have already sent an e-mail to your Senators on the
McCarthy bill, please send another such as the one at the end of this
alert. Yes, you might have already taken action on HR 2640. But if
you (and many other gun owners like yourself) haven’t taken any
action recently, then NO ONE is taking action. After all, the NRA is
supporting this bill, so they’re not rustlin’ up the troops in
opposition to this massive gun control bill. Remember the
immigration fight — it took weeks of continued activism to kill that
bill. This fight may very well be the same.
2. Please try to get as many of your friends as you can to join with
you in this effort to kill the McCarthy bill (HR 2640). Now that
Senators are returning from their July 4th holiday, we need to get as
many gun owners as possible to remind them that HR 2640 is
unacceptable!
McCARTHY BILL COULD COME UP AT ANY TIME IN THE U.S. SENATE
Now that Congress returns to work this week, your liberties are in
jeopardy once again!
You will remember that before the Independence Day break, the House
of Representatives passed a McCarthy gun control bill (HR 2640)
without any hearings, without any committee action… they put it on
the Suspension Calendar and simply got a non-recorded voice vote.
An important part of the legislative process is to introduce a bill
in committee, to get both public and private observers to ask
questions, make recommendations and offer comments on the bill.
But for some reason, HR 2640 was not given this benefit. The bill
was rammed through the legislature with very few Representatives
present on the House floor… there was no recorded vote at all!
So it’s not surprising that, having skipped much of the legislative
process, there are still a lot of unanswered questions regarding HR
2640. In fact, these questions have only been magnified after an
offhanded, tongue-in-cheek remark made at the Harrisburg Community
College in Pennsylvania cost a man his gun rights for life in that
state.
Newspapers last month reported that Horatio Miller allegedly said
that it could be “worse than Virginia Tech” if someone broke
into his
car, because there were guns there. It is not clear whether he was
making a threat against a person who might burglarize his car, or if
he was simply saying that the bad guy could do a lot of damage
because of the guns he would find there. Nevertheless, Miller was
arrested, but not charged with anything.
The comment Miller made was certainly not the smartest thing to say.
But realize, we don’t incarcerate people for making stupid statements
in this country — at least not yet. Miller was a concealed carry
permit holder who, as such, had passed vigorous background checks
into his past history. Miller does not have a criminal record.
Regardless, the county district attorney did not like what he had
said, so, according to the Harrisburg Patriot News on June 20, “I
contacted the sheriff and had his license to carry a firearm revoked.
And I asked police to commit him under Section 302 of the mental
health procedures act and that was done. He is now ineligible to
possess firearms [for life] because he was committed involuntarily.”
Get that?
Pennsylvania is operating exactly the way Rep. McCarthy’s bill (HR
2640) could treat all Americans. You might be thinking, I’ve never
had a mental illness… I’m not a military veteran… I’ve never been
on Ritalin… hey, I have nothing to worry about under the McCarthy
bill. Right?
Well, think again.
DO YOUR VIEWS ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT MAKE YOU A POTENTIAL DANGER?
The Pennsylvania case shows how all gun owners could be threatened by
HR 2640. After all, did you ever tell anyone that the Second
Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because the Founders
(such as James Madison) wanted the people to be able to overturn a
tyrannical American government?
Or, while you were watching the nightly news — and getting a
detailed account of all the crime in your area — did you ever make a
statement such as, “If someone were to break through my door, I’d
blow him away!”
Well, those kinds of statements will certainly make anti-gun nuts
think you’re a potential danger to yourself or others. So if you
make the local district attorney or police officer nervous, how
difficult would it be for him to get a psychiatrist (most of whom are
very left-wing) to say that you are a danger to yourself and to
others?
Or, would the district attorney even need to get a psychiatrist? One
of the outrageous aspects of the McCarthy bill is that Section 3(2)
codifies existing federal regulations. And existing federal code
says it only takes a “lawful authority” to
“adjudicate” someone as a
mental defective.(1) And another section of the bill makes it clear
this “adjudication” does not need to be made by a formal court, but
can simply be a “determination” — such as a medical diagnosis.(2)
Consider how significant this is. The BATFE has been quietly
attempting to amend the federal code by regulatory fiat for years,
but they’ve been somewhat restrained in their ability to interpret
these regulations because they are, after all, regulations (and not
statutory law).
But with HR 2640, much of the pablum that BATFE bureaucrats have
quietly added to the code over the years will now become the LAW OF
THE LAND — even though those regs were never submitted to a
legislative committee or scrutinized in legislative hearings or
debated on the floor of the House of Representatives.
When one looks at the federal regs cited above, there are a lot of
questions that still remain unanswered. What kinds of people can
fall into this category of “other lawful authority” that can deem
someone to be a mental defective? Certainly, it would seem to apply
to Veterans Administration shrinks. After all, the federal
government already added more than 80,000 veterans with Post
Traumatic Stress into the NICS system in 2000.
But who else could be classified as a “lawful authority”? A school
counselor? A district attorney? What about a legislator, a city
councilman or a cop? They are certainly “authorities” in their own
right. Could the words “lawful authority” also apply to them?
Do we really want to risk the Second Amendment on the question of
what the words “lawful authority” in 27 CFR 478.11 mean —
once they
have been “statutized” by HR 2640 and BATF is no longer under ANY
constraint and can read it as broadly as they want?
If the “lawful authority” thinks you pose a danger to yourself or
others (or can’t manage your own affairs) then your gun rights could
be gone.
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 — using the
Pennsylvania standard — are going to say that a pro-gun American
like you, who believes the Second Amendment is the last defense
against tyranny, DOESN’T POSE AT LEAST AN INFINITESIMAL RISK of
hurting someone else?
As easy as that, your gun rights would be gone forever.
HR 2640 is Janet Reno’s dream. Does somebody make a politician
nervous? Get a prescription pad, get your friendly left-wing
psychiatrist to make the “dangerous” diagnosis, and it’s all over.
Expungement will be virtually impossible. Just turn in your guns.
FOOTNOTES:
(1) See 27 CFR 478.11.
(2) See Section 101(c)(1)(C).
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Supporters of the McCarthy bill are hanging
their hat on language which purports to help disqualified people to
get their rights restored. So GOA has built a special section on its
website that gets to the truth on this issue and informs gun owners
of the dangers in HR 2640. Please go to
http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm to learn what the specifics of the
bill are, who its main supporters are, answers to claims made by
proponents of the bill, who faces the greatest risk of being
disqualified for buying a gun, and more.
CONTACT INFORMATION: You can use the pre-written letter below to
help direct your comments to your two U.S. Senators. Please 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:
The Military Order of the Purple Heart got it right when it stated
that for the first time in history, HR 2640 “would statutorily impose
a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans.”
The Military Order of the Purple Heart, which is chartered by
Congress, is urging the DEFEAT of HR 2640, the Brady-expansion
legislation introduced by anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy.
Despite what you may have heard elsewhere, this bill THREATENS gun
owners’ rights and represents one of the biggest gun bans in history.
A recent case in Pennsylvania shows how easily a gun owner can be
slapped with a LIFETIME gun ban, without any due process, based
solely on a mere accusation by a shrink or other “lawful
authority.”
For more information on this — and for a point-by-point analysis of
HR 2640 — please go to http://www.gunowners.org on the website of
Gun Owners of America.
All the background checks in the world will NOT stop bad guys from
getting firearms. Severe restrictions in Washington, DC, England,
Canada, Germany and other places have not stopped evil people from
using guns to commit murder.
Again, I hope you will OPPOSE the McCarthy bill (HR 2640). Thank
you.
Sincerely,
Often times I hear that Libertarianism is just another name for anarchy. If one takes the time however to learn about the philosophical foundations of Libertarianism it soon becomes apparent that it is far from anarchistic.
Let us look at the Right to Freedom of speech. It is said ad nausium that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. What if the theater is actually on fire though? Would not the ethical thing be to warn those present of the danger?
Without filling up this piece with countless examples to make my point I will go straight to the issue. The issue is that with rights come responsibility, it is as simple as that.
Public freedom of speech is not only allowed, but encouraged in American society. In private however, other rights come into play. Such as being safe in your places, as in your own home, church and so on. In other words, your right to free speech ends at the door, or portal, of private property. The property owner may allow you to speak, but he is allowing you to do so. You are not exercising a right when doing that, the owner is allowing you to give voice to your opinions. Don’t be surprised if you enter a church causing a disturbance during services and the Deacons toss you out on your head.
Of what are termed the “Inalienable Rights” of man, none is any greater, nor any less than any other.
“We are, heart and soul, friends to the freedom of the press. It is however, the prostituted companion of liberty… It corrupts, it deceives, it inflames. It strips virtue of her honors, and lends to faction its wildfire and its poisoned arms… It is a precious pest, and a necessary mischief, and there would be no liberty without it.” —Fisher Ames
Hence, any “Right” can be abused or mis-used. The Right to Self Defense, as outlined in the Second Amendment can obviously be mis-used. The Right to be safe in your property can be abused, and so on. They are inextricably intertwined. Your rights end when they infringe upon the rights of others.
A very good blogging friend has been castigated for having the flag of the Confederacy on his blog. It is his blog, he pays for it. It is not a racist symbol, and anyone that has taken the time to actually study what went into causing the American Civil War, as most people refer to the War of Northern Aggression, knows that.
My folks come from the area of Audrain County Missouri. That’s right, they were in the thick of things. From riding with Quantrils Raiders, and supporting Bloody Bill Anderson when ever they could. They fought for principles, not for the right to own other human beings.
For complete coverage go to: http://texasfred.net/archives/325/trackback/
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
 | Patrick Sperry on On Not so civil wars… |
 | TexasFred on Guest commentary… |
 | MaddMedic on Guest commentary… |
| Patrick Sperry on The Stupid runs deep… |
| Patrick Sperry on Math for planning in the comin… |
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 