Posts Tagged ‘AWB 2009’

AWB 2009? Some AG’s get it correct!

June 12, 2009

All to often in recent years we have seen various high end types in Law, as in attorney’s, seek to disavow their sworn oaths to the Constitution. Be that in wrongful prosecutions, or supporting ex post facto law simply based upon political correctness, or expediency.

So, I ask, is what follows the real deal? Or simply political posturing?

MCDANIEL SENDS LETTER TO U.S ATTORNEY GENERAL EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO REINSTATEMENT OF ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN

Thursday, Jun 11, 2009

LITTLE ROCK- Today, Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, along with Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and 21 other State Attorneys General, sent a letter to United States Attorney General Eric Holder expressing their opposition to the reinstatement of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994’s semi-automatic firearms prohibition, which is commonly referred to as the “Assault Weapons Ban.”

In the letter, Generals Abbott and McDaniel note President Obama’s appreciation for the great conservation legacy of America’s hunters. They go on to say, “We share that appreciation for hunters and are committed to defending our Second Amendment rights–which is why we believe that additional gun control laws are unnecessary. Instead, authorities need to enforce laws that are already in place.

“I certainly share the President’s desire to reduce violent crime in our country, and across our borders,” McDaniel said. “However, based on the facts available, there is no reason to believe this law will result in any meaningful reduction in such crime and, therefore, does not justify further infringement on Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”

The text of the letter follows:

The Honorable Eric Holder
United States Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice

Dear Attorney General Holder:

We the undersigned Attorneys General respectfully write to express our opposition to the
reinstatement of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994’s semiautomatic
firearms prohibition, which is commonly referred to as the assault weapons
ban.

As the states’ top law enforcement officials, we share the Obama Administration’s
commitment to reducing illegal drugs and violent crime within the United States. We
also share your deep concern about drug cartel violence in Mexico. However, we do not
believe that restricting law-abiding Americans’ access to certain semi-automatic firearms
will resolve any of these problems. So, we were pleased by the President’s recent
comments indicating his desire to enforce current laws – rather than reinstate the ban on
so-called assault weapons.

As you know, the 1994 ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ did not apply to machine guns
or other fully automatic firearms. Machine gun ownership was first regulated when the
National Firearms Act was passed in 1934. And more than twenty years ago, Congress
took additional steps to ban fully automatic weapons. Because fully automatic machine
guns have already been banned, we do not believe that further restricting law-abiding
Americans’ access to certain semi-automatic firearms serves any real law enforcement
purpose.

Recent public statements by congressional leaders reflect that same view. On February
26, 2009, The Hill newspaper quoted the Senate Majority Leader’s spokesman saying:
“Sen. Reid would oppose an effort [to] reinstate the ban.” When House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi was recently asked whether she supports reinstating the 1994 ban, the Speaker
reportedly responded “No…I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now.” We
agree with the Speaker and the Majority Leader.

The same sentiment has also been expressed to you by sixty-five (65) Congressional
Democrats in a letter dated March 17, 2009. In that letter, they astutely noted, “It is hard
to believe the ban would be…effective in controlling crime by well-funded international
drug traffickers, who regularly use grenade launchers, anti-tank rockets, and other
weapons that are not available on the civilian market in the United States.”

Under Title 18, Section 924 of the U.S. Code,
knowingly transferring a firearm to an individual who will use that firearm to commit a
violent or drug-related crime is already a federal offense. Similarly, it is also a felony to
possess a firearm for the purpose of furthering drug trafficking. At a recent
Congressional hearing, Kumar Kibble, the Deputy Director of the Immigration and
Custom Enforcement’s Office of Investigations, testified that the Patriot Act included
changes to Title 18, Section 554 of the U.S. Code, which improved federal authorities’
ability to investigate and prosecute illegal smuggling.

As Attorneys General, we are committed to defending our constituents’ constitutional
rights – including their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. This duty
is particularly important in light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent Heller
decision, which held that the Second Amendment “elevated above all other interests the
right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”
The high court’s landmark decision affirmed that individual Americans have a
constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. We, the undersigned Attorneys
General, are staunch defenders of that right and believe that it should not be encroached
upon without sound justification – and a clear law enforcement purpose.

We are pleased that the Administration appears to conform with the Congressional
leadership’s position on this very important issue. Importantly, the White House website
no longer calls for the reinstatement of the 1994 ban. In fact, it expressly acknowledges
“the great conservation legacy of America’s hunters.” We share that appreciation for
hunters and are committed to defending our Second Amendment rights–which is why
we believe that additional gun control laws are unnecessary. Instead, authorities need to
enforce laws that are already in place.

As Attorneys General, we look forward to working with you and President Obama on
common-sense law enforcement solutions to transnational crime. We stand ready to
cooperate and collaborate on crime prevention and law enforcement initiatives that will
protect our constituents, crack down on transnational crime, and help reduce narcotics
consumption in the United States. But, for the reasons explained in this letter, we do not
believe that reinstating the 1994 assault weapons ban will solve the problems currently
facing the United States or Mexico.

Sincerely,

SOURCE

obama still rated number 1! Gun Sales Soaring!

April 27, 2009

As reported earlier here obama is still the number one “Gun Salesman” of the year! His attempts at misdirection via the use various lackeys has spurred the sale of firearms to heights not seen since the Clinton debacle.

Assault weapon ban talk increases guns sales

John Sprague, the store manager at Johnson’s Sporting Goods in Adrian Township, gestures to half-empty shelves of ammunition behind the counter.

He said a campaign pledge by President Barack Obama to reinstate a weapons ban led to a rush on sporting goods stores to buy guns and ammunition, a buying trend that continues.

“Since before the election, when there was a good chance of (Obama) becoming president, sales went way up,” Sprague said Thursday. “I can’t keep most ammunition in stock.”

Because of demand, Sprague said, Johnson’s is temporarily limiting ammunition sales to one box of per customer.

Obama had pledged during his campaign to seek renewal of an assault weapons ban but has bowed to the reality that such a move would be unpopular in politically key U.S. states and among Republicans as well as some conservative Democrats.

Confronting a Mexican drug war that is “sowing chaos in our communities,” Obama signaled on April 16 that he will not seek renewal of the weapons ban, but instead will step up enforcement of laws banning the transfer of such guns across the border.

“He (President Obama) appears to be backing down, but sales are brisk,” Sprague said.

An Adrian Wal-Mart associate, who spoke Friday on the condition of anonymity, said the sporting goods department has difficulty keeping  the 550-round boxes of .22-caliber ammunition in stock due to brisk sales. The smaller boxes of rounds, however, are more readily available.

“People want the large boxes,” she said.

A representative in the Adrian Meijer sporting goods department, who also declined to be identified, said he hasn’t seen a significant increase in ammunition sales since the election, and there is no rationing in effect at the store.

Signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban prohibited the sale of ammunition clips with more than 10 rounds and a variety of rifles such as semi-automatic versions of AK-47s and AR-15s. Semi-automatic rifles fire a bullet each time the trigger is pulled. They differ from automatic rifles, which fire continuously as long as the trigger is pulled. Automatic rifles are illegal without a federal permit, and must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The ban expired in 2004 during President George W. Bush’s administration, and a 10-year extension proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., was voted down.

The difference between what defined assault from otherwise legal weapons, Sprague said, was optional accessories. Those included bayonet mounts, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and gun flash suppressors. Except for those additions, Sprague added, there was no mechanical difference between those rifles being legal or illegal during the ban.

Sometimes all it takes to make an illegal weapon legal, such as a 9 mm LAR-15, is to have two or more of those options removed from the instrument.

Sheriff Jack Welsh said problems with assault weapons in Lenawee County haven’t been an issue, before, during or after the ban.

“I saw no concrete evidence that the ban ever significantly reduced violent crimes,” he said. “Legit­imate gun owners register their weapons. Unfor­tu­nately, whether there is a ban or not, some individuals will find ways to get weapons that are illegal.”

Welsh added he is against any fully automatic weapons being possessed or sold, and is in favor of background checks for any weapons purchased. He added that, if the Obama administration attempts to reinstate an assault weapons ban, he will pay close attention to the issue.

Sprague said FBI crime statistics show most crimes aren’t committed with assault weapons.
“Besides, most criminals cannot afford these types of guns,” Sprague added, pointing to rifles with price tags of more than $1,000.

Cambridge Township Police Chief Larry Wibbeler said he also never saw any increase or decrease in violent crime during or after the ban, adding the criminals who are after the assault rifles will usually locate them through illegal purchase or theft.

“If they (the criminals) want them, they’ll find a way to get them,” he said.

Wibbeler said very few fully automatic assault weapons have ever been confiscated in Cambridge Township.

SOURCE

Reporter And Police Sergeant Get It Right

April 12, 2009

The headline reads, “Mayors say Pittsburgh shootings show need for new gun laws.” In this case, the mayors are “Mayors Against Illegal Guns,” an anti-gun front group founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Of course, “Pittsburgh shootings” refers to the cold-blooded murder of three Pittsburgh police officers by an apparently delusional individual who, some reports indicated, had been discharged from the armed forces under other than honorable conditions, and had been under a protective order relative to a former girlfriend.

The article, published today in the Allentown, Pa., Morning Call, was written by John L. Micek. Micek reported that in response to the Pittsburgh officers’ murders, the mayors urge swift action on gun control, recklessly characterizing the officers’ murders as evidence “that gun violence in Pennsylvania is a statewide problem.” The mayors previously have supported legislation to limit handgun purchases, and to require gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms, Micek noted. However, he added, “It seems unlikely that either action would have prevented the Pittsburgh shootings. The gunman had a variety of weapons, including handguns, a shotgun and an AK-47 assault rifle. His mother told a 911 operator he had legal weapons in the home, but the operator didn’t pass that information on to dispatchers, a top police official has said.”

Micek included in his report Bethlehem police Sgt. Don Hoffman’s statement that “criminals and outlaws break the law regardless of what the law says,” a good reminder that many police officers–the people who deal with criminals up close and personal on a daily basis–do not believe that restricting good Americans’ rights is the solution to misdeeds by the aberrant few among us.

Micek’s straightforward and refreshingly objective article can be seen at www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/state/all-a6_5mayors.6850510apr10,0,6802065.story.

SOURCE

RELATED

Senator Kerry–Border Security “No”, Gun Control “Yes”

April 4, 2009

Well just what can you really expect from someone that put himself in for medals, then threw them away, but the medals were actually someone else’s, and also negotiated with enemy government representatives while still serving as a reserve officer in the United States Navy? John Kerry deserves to be tarred and feathered, then hung until dead, period. Not a United States Senator that is still determined to undermine and destroy the Constitution if not the United States of America. He has been in league with the international felon George Soros to that end, and now this?

With escalating drug-related violence continuing unabated in Mexico, anti-gun elected officials in Washington continue to let no tragedy go unexploited.

The latest to add his voice to the anti-gun chorus should come as a surprise to no one, as Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) has a long voting record in support of gun control.

This week, Kerry called sending National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexican border “premature and possibly counterproductive.” But Kerry had no qualms in supporting additional restrictions on law-abiding American gun owners. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/30/kerry-mexico-failed-state/)

For a fleeting moment Kerry sounded a hopeful tone in his remarks in El Paso when he noted the need to “work harder to enforce existing gun laws against exporting weapons across international borders.” However, Kerry reverted to his usual anti-gun talking points as he called for a ban on imported “assault rifles” (presumably he meant semi-auto “assault weapons”) into the U.S.—a ban that has existed since 1989.

Senator Kerry is either confused about what an “assault rifle” is, is ignorant of the parameters of the existing import ban, or more likely, simply wants to expand his gun control crusade. In either case, and as noted earlier, none of this should come as a surprise from a failed presidential candidate who tried to camouflage his decades long voting record against the Second Amendment by trying to reinvent himself as a “sportsman.” Senator Kerry’s plan to stop the international trafficking of firearms into Mexico by banning legal importation of firearms into the United States simply defies logic and common sense.

American gun owners should be outraged when a sitting U.S. Senator dismisses tightening up our nation’s border security as “possibly counterproductive”, but has no qualms about passing additional restrictions that will be avoided and evaded by criminals.

SOURCE

Well, we told you so…

April 3, 2009
Health Plan Threatens to Feed Your Gun-related Data Into a National
Database
--- And charge you $10,000 a year for the privilege

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

Thursday, April 2, 2009

In a year when trillion dollar bailouts have become routine, many
Americans have become almost numb to our acceleration towards socialism.

But gun rights activists aren't in that crowd, and so GOA has to inform
you of yet ANOTHER threat to your privacy, the Second Amendment, and
even your wallet.

It is called an "individual mandate" or, alternatively, the
"Massachusetts plan."  And over the weekend, both the 
Washington Post
and the New York Times worked hard to build momentum for it.

First, a little history.

We alerted you a few weeks ago to the gun control provisions in the
stimulus bill that President Obama signed in February.  Our government
will now spend between $12 and $20 BILLION to require the medical
community to retroactively put our most confidential medical records
into a government database -- a database that could easily be used to
deny veterans (and other law-abiding Americans) who have sought
psychiatric treatment for things such as PTSD.

Currently, gun owners can avoid getting caught in this database by
refusing to purchase health insurance or by purchasing insurance with a
carrier that has not signed an agreement with the government to place
your records in a national database.

But that's all about to change.  A budget resolution -- to be voted on
this Friday in the Senate -- will be the first domino in a process that
could FORCE you to buy government-approved insurance, thus making it
impossible to avoid the medical database.

Put another way:  If you do not have health insurance -- or,
potentially, if you do not have the TYPE of health insurance the
government wants you to have -- the government will force you to
purchase what it regards as "acceptable" health insurance.  
And, in most
cases, you will have to pay for it out of your own pocket.

What would all this cost?  Based on comparable insurance currently on
the market, it could cost $10,000 a year -- or more.

If you were jobless, the socialists would probably spot you the ten
grand.  But if you are middle class and can't pay $10,000 because of
your mortgage payments, your small business, or your kids' college
education, you would be fined (over $1,000 a year currently in
Massachusetts).  And, if you couldn't pay the confiscatory fine, you
could ultimately be imprisoned.

Scary, you say.  But why is this a Second Amendment issue?  Under the
Massachusetts plan, your MANDATED insurance carrier has to feed your
medical data into a centralized database -- freely accessible by the
government under federal privacy laws.

So... remember when your pediatrician asked your kid if you have a
firearm in the home?  Or when your dad was given a prescription for
Zoloft because of his Alzheimer's?  Or when your wife mentioned to her
gynecologist that she had regularly smoked marijuana ten years ago?

All of this would be in a centralized database.  And all of it could
potentially be used to vastly expand the "prohibited persons" list
maintained by the FBI in West Virginia.

How serious a threat is this?

If it gets into the budget resolution the Senate will consider on
Friday, it will be almost impossible to strip out later. It will be as
much of a done-deal as the stimulus package was.

We have asked senators to introduce language to prohibit such an
individual mandate for socialized medicine that would violate the
privacy of gun owners. In the absence of such an amendment, we are
asking senators to vote against the budget resolution.

ACTION:  Write your U.S. Senators.  Urge them to vote against the budget
resolution if it does not contain language prohibiting a mandate that
Americans buy government-approved health insurance against their will.

Please use 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:

A budget resolution that could end up requiring Americans to purchase
expensive health insurance policies against their will is truly
frightening.

And equally alarming is the fact that such mandated health care coverage
could easily become a shill for gun control.

Potentially, anyone who does not have health insurance-- or does not
have the TYPE of health insurance the government wants them to have --
will be forced to purchase "acceptable" health insurance and 
pay for it
out of our own pockets.

Based on the cost of comparable insurance currently on the market, that
could cost $10,000 a year -- or more.

That's bad enough. But far worse, such a "Massachusetts Plan" would
MANDATE that an insurance carrier feed medical data into a centralized
database -- freely accessible by the government under federal privacy
laws.

Hence, a kid's statement to his pediatrician about his parents'
firearms... or a dad's prescription for Zoloft because of his
Alzheimer's... or a wife's statement to her gynecologist about her
regular use of marijuana ten years ago... could all turn up in a federal
database and unconstitutionally expand the list of "prohibited 
persons."
Individuals would have no ability to opt out.

For all of these reasons, if the budget resolution does not contain
language prohibiting an "individual mandate" regarding health 
care, I
would ask that you oppose the budget resolution.

Sincerely,

Strange Bedfellows Indeed: AWB 2009

February 28, 2009

Dirty Harry Reid and San Fran Nancy Pelosi in bed seeking to thwart Eric Holder and the rest of the obamanite’s? Actually supporting the Second Amendment based upon the Constitution? I’m somewhat dazed and it’s been fully a half hour since checking an RSS feed that almost makes it appear that the democrat congress is siding with the National Rifle Association. I’m still waiting for a Gun Owners of America situational analysis, and as we all have learned based upon the collective histories of the players involved we had better keep our heads up.

Eric Holder the treasonous creep that he is blames Americans for Mexico’s crime problem. No, not anything that might be rational, such as America fueling the drug business via the seemingly insatiable market. But, naturally, he attacks our freedoms attaching the blame to Americans. Alright, I’ll give him just a little bit of lee way there. After all, some criminals are buying weapons as straw purchasers and selling them to the drug gangs. That is already a serious felony though Mister Attorney General. But, in your (Eric Holder’s) warped mind it is just so much simpler to deny Americans that have nothing at all to do with the criminal activity their rights as granted them by our Constitution. Or is it just that they (Americans not involved other than possibly as victims) would be all that much easier to arrest and convict than the criminals that are part and parcel of the drug gangs that are more prone to shooting back?

Put all these things together and what do we have then? Politicians that are frightened beyond the pale that they might just lose their positions of power and prestige. An Attorney General who has based his entire career upon being a lackey for the powers of mysandry and hopolophobia. That is also all too obviously a fall guy for the administration, and that has a history of being right in the middle of having an innocent woman killed while holding a baby in her arms, and later having Americans burned to death. None of these people are friends of the American people. After all, the drug gangs have ample means of securing sophisticated weaponry. It’s just  easier to have innocent Americans slaughtered and by law, incapable of effectively defending their families, friends, nation, and selves.

What follows is the National Rifle Association’s take on it all.

Feds Send Mixed Signals On Push For Gun Control

HolderOn Wednesday, February 25, just over five weeks after Inauguration Day, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama Administration will seek to reinstate the expired federal “assault weapon” ban and impose additional restrictions.

“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder said. Based on Holder’s testimony during his confirmation hearings before the Senate, those other “changes” presumably include prohibiting private transfers of firearms and banning most center-fire rifle ammunition as “armor-piercing.”

Holder said that new gun control laws are needed because in Mexico, a country with a history of corruption and disregard for individual rights, there’s a shooting war going on between drug gangs and government troops, and some of the gangsters’ guns have been illegally purchased in the United States.

Few Americans are going to buy into the idea that the U.S. is responsible for internal problems in any foreign country, particularly one to which we give millions of dollars in aid, and in turn illegal drugs and illegal aliens flow freely into our southwestern states.

Holder tried to sell his scheme by saying that “International drug trafficking organizations pose a sustained, serious threat to the safety and security of our communities,” noting that law enforcement officers in this country have arrested more than 750 individuals on related illegal narcotics charges over the last 21 months.

Atta-boy to our law enforcement officers for their good work in making drug gangs bite the dust. But it appears that Holder exaggerated the “threat” that they pose to the U.S. On Thursday, a Drug Enforcement Administration spokesperson told NRA-ILA that there is little incidence of Mexican drug gang members committing violent crimes in this country against Americans who are not involved in illegal activities with the gangs. Some Americans who have colluded with the drug-smugglers have not been so lucky, but for that they have only themselves to blame.

Of course, ignored in the discussion was any mention that straw purchasing a firearm for a Mexican drug runner, and transferring a firearm to someone knowing it will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime, are currently federal felonies punishable by 10 years in prison.

Holder was still enjoying the high (pardon the pun) that he must have felt from his media moment when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reminded him that it isn’t the Attorney General who makes laws in the United States. Asked whether Holder had spoken to her before putting himself in front of the national news cameras, Pelosi said “no,” adding, “I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now.” Shortly thereafter, the office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) stated flatly that “Senator Reid would oppose an effort [to] reinstate the ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future.”

Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid were joined in opposing Holder by members of the bipartisan House of Representatives Second Amendment Task Force. U.S. Rep. and Task Force co-chair Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said “The Attorney General’s recent comments about reinstating the ‘assault weapons’ ban are extremely troubling since a ban clearly violates our Constitutional right to bear arms.” Co-chair Dan Boren (D-Okla.) added, “The Second Amendment Task Force is adamantly opposed to reinstating the ban on the sale of assault weapons as it clearly would demonstrate a violation of United States citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.” Other members of the Task Force include Democrats Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), Travis Childers (D-Miss.), Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah) and Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.), and Republicans Rob Bishop (R-Utah), John Carter (R-Tex.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Steve King (R-Iowa) and Steve Scalise (R-La.).

Independently, Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), an NRA Life Member, said that he would “oppose any action on behalf of the Attorney General or President Obama to reinstate the assault weapons ban.”

Unfortunately, Holder still has many options for ways to threaten the right to arms. As examples, he could force the BATFE to once again arbitrarily reinterpret firearm importation law, to further limit the kinds of firearms that may be imported. He could force the agency to discontinue its support of the Tiahrt Amendment, which protects both the privacy of gun buyers and the integrity of police investigations. And though the Justice Department has previously testified against the type of “armor piercing ammunition” restriction gun control supporters advocate today, Holder’s DOJ could reverse course. Holder could also direct BATFE to adopt enforcement policies designed to drive licensed dealers out of business.

And while Sen. Reid has a good record on many gun control issues, there is no doubt where Speaker Pelosi truly stands. She will support gun control, but on her timetable, not one provided her by the new Attorney General.

As we expect to say a lot over the next four years, “Stay tuned.”

SOURCE

Facist Holder secures power

February 2, 2009

Fascist Eric Holder has been appointed United States Attorney General. Only twenty-one Senators had the courage to stand for the Constitution and against the Obama henchman. Get ready for more Americans to die at the hands of government rogues after being entrapped. How long until another group of Americans are incinerated at the hands of the Department of Justice for practicing their religion? Those things happened during Holders last watch. Eric Holder condemns as torture something that every American troop that is spec ops, and many others go through as training, but he can’t condemn atrocities against Americans..?


%d bloggers like this: