Gun owners for ‘gun control’ useful to anti-gunners for now

Leave a comment

This is from

These Quislings will pay the price for their back stabbing lies and traitorous ways.

After they serve their master needs, they will be attacked as extremist gun nuts.


Democrat-supporting “Republican” gun owner Kemp stumps for more Bloomberg-financed “gun control.” Everytown for Gun Safety

“A responsible gun owner on why he supports common-sense gun laws,” Everytown for Gun Safety tells its Facebook followers, presenting a poster featuring Paul Kemp of Portland, Ore. Kemp warns against private sales being “a loophole,” and says “that’s a threat to me and law abiding gun owners everywhere.”

“I’m a registered Republican and a gun owner,” Kemp told the media after his brother-in-law was killed with a stolen gun in a“gun-free” mall. “But I secure my weapons, and I’m not going to give them up.”

He may not be willing to give his up, but he’s perfectly willing to throw standard capacity magazine owners under the bus. As for being a “Republican,” Kemp nonetheless supported Michael Bloomberg’s effort to reelect an anti-gun Democrat for governor (John Kitzhaber resigned in February following state and federal investigations into criminal allegations).

Per his Facebook page and Twitter feed, Kemp is not only for the background check/registration fraud and magazine bans,but he’s also against open carry of long guns, he enthusiastically spreads Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (formerly the National Coalition to Ban Handguns) propaganda, and he’s a fan of Mark and Gabby…

We’ve seen the antis do this before. We saw “Average Joe” presented as a Bloombergian poster boy for guns on the farm. We saw present its version of a “proud defender of the Second Amendment.”

In addition to gun owners for infringements, we’ve also seen two other developments: Phony “third way” gun groups and gun dealers for “gun control.” And now we have a gun club owner and dealer helping impose criminal penalties for noncompliance with anti-gun edicts on his patrons.

At a time when grassroots gun rights activists are fighting the Bloomberg AstroTurf money machine, at a time when it bought a measure in Washington State and is buying one in Nevada, and is trying to pass a bill in Oregon, Joe Deaser, owner of the Capital Gun Club, a member’s only facility that offers a “sophisticated [and] elite shooting experience,” comes down squarely on the side of the gun-grabbers. Deaser thinks California-style infringements extended nationwide would be a capital idea, and that fears of a registry are “unfounded,” in spite of states doing it, and in spite of the National Institute of Justice confirming the “effectiveness [of universal background checks] depends on … requiring gun registration,”

“Federal law” Deaser says, “bans the creation of such a registry.” Not only is the prohibition subject to being rescinded and changed, but no less a source than Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said “the language of proposed federal legislation left a door open for a new kind of record of sales between private sellers — as opposed to sales by federally licensed gun dealers — a record that may not be subject to the registry ban.”

Instead, Deaser dismisses “the extreme fringe” who raise these concerns as ‘ridiculous” [and] “just paranoid” as he makes a point of traveling to Oregon to call for prior restraint infringements in front of Floyd Prozanski’s Judiciary Committee. If people who point out the obvious are so disparaged, what must he think of those who flat out will not comply?

Two things are certain: Violent criminals, who are protected by law from gun registration requirements, won’t be slowed down one bit by what Kemp and Deaser are endorsing. And the enemies of gun rights, who are more than happy to accept their aid and comfort, will be using whatever turf is ceded to launch their next assault.

Actually, make that three things: Today’s gun owners hailed as “responsible” by the antis will be tomorrow’s “uncompromising extremists” when their usefulness is over and they stand in the way of the next phase in an unrelenting war on guns.



Gun Control Debate: The Argument That Every Gun Owner Needs to Start Making

Leave a comment

This is from Policy. Mic


If there is one argument that the National Rifle Association loves to use, it is that guns are necessary for personal security. This claim became infamous following the Sandy Hook shootings, when Wayne LaPierre went on national television to announce new legislation the organization would be pushing: an armed guard in every school. There are a number of legislators who agree, including this one who apparently thinks that middle-aged primary school principals are willing and able to handle a semiautomatic rifle. But pro-gun advocates are wrong to take this approach. Yes, some people do keep guns for personal security. But that is not why most gun people — the people that really care — own guns. We own guns because guns are so much fun.

Beyond that, we need make no apologies for exercising a right that is enshrined in the Constitution. Gun advocates often suggest that more guns means less crime, whereas gun control advocates often argue that no guns at all is the best solution. Usually, the statistics on one end or the other are too corrupted by ideologies to be useful. If I had to take a guess, I would say that more gun control would probably result in more muggings, burglaries, and assault-and-battery cases, and fewer homicides (killing someone with a knife is harder than many gun supporters realize). But the larger problem is that by engaging in this debate, gun proponents are buying into the gun-control camp’s premise that they only have a right to own guns insofar as those guns make society safer.

This premise is not true, and it isn’t one that we should accept. There are many things that do not make our society safer. Alcohol does not make society safer (and Prohibition saved lives), but we assume that it should be legal and have a constitutional amendment to defend ownership of it as well. Motorcycles do not make society safer and a swimming pool in your backyard probably does not make your neighbors’ children any safer either.

President Obama said that we have an “obligation” to try anything that could save one child. This argument is ludicrous. First, because the idea that the ability of the government to pass one policy or another will “prevent” bad things from happening is ridiculous, but also because sometimes living in a free society means living with the people who abuse their freedoms.

After any mass shooting, I would welcome a debate on guns in American society, so long as it was a debate and not a formal conversation leading to the inevitable outcome of instituting some new law to make guns harder to obtain. But that does not mean that I feel a need to justify owning guns beyond the fact that I use them responsibly, am old enough to purchase them legally, and enjoy having them. No doubt, if I were talking about whiskey, the vast majority of law-abiding drinkers would say the same thing.


llinois Attacks Freedom! Every Gun Maker & Gun Owner Should Leave Illinois Now!

Leave a comment

This is from United States Concealed Carry Association.

I think instead of moving out gun owners should ban together and elect Pro Second Amendment politicians.

Moving out only if the elections go against them.




That’s right. Every gun maker or gun owner should leave Illinois now! I know, the economy sucks and now is not the time to make a big move, but a recently introduced piece of legislation in the Illinois state house should prompt an exodus of Biblical proportions!

This bill, HB4715, proposes that EVERY SINGLE firearm in the state of Illinois be registered.

First came the Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) card, which required all Illinois gun owners to carry their “papers” if they even wanted to touch a gun. We have all seen how well THAT restriction on the freedoms of law-abiding citizens worked to reduce crime.

Now comes the next step: full and complete registration of all firearms! Not only is this heinous bill directed only at law-abiding citizens, it goes beyond “simple” registration of firearms to include a provision that says Illinois residents cannot buy ammunition unless they can prove that they have registered a gun capable of firing that ammunition! Here is a direct quote from the bill: “Provides that a person shall not purchase or possess ammunition within this State without having first obtained a registration certificate identifying a firearm that is suitable for use with that ammunition…”

Does anyone really believe that inner city criminals sitting on a pile of drugs and money or people who are willing to kill for their street corner or crappy run-down crackhouse are going to be lining up to register their guns? Do you think there will be no black market for ammo? Does anyone remember the folly of Prohibition and what it did to Chicago? Is there no lawmaker in Illinois with a combination of brains and backbone to stand up to this?

In the past, I have suggested that people take action and work to defeat such idiotic laws. Now, I have changed my mind. I suggest gun owners move out of Illinois. If you are a gun maker or firearms accessory maker, move your business out of Illinois. South Dakota has a great deal for you in a gun-friendly state with a wonderful business climate.

I know that there will never be an exodus big enough to open the eyes of the most corrupt and inept lawmakers in the country, but maybe, just maybe, it will get someone’s attention.

Vacate the state. Vote with your U-Haul trailer. Leave Illinois behind.

West Virginia Bill Disarms Federal Gun Control Regulations

1 Comment

This is from The New American.

If your a West Virginia  gun owner you need to support State Delegate Cindy Frich and thank the co sponsors for her bill.


West Virginia state lawmakers are doing their part to keep the federal beast inside its constitutional cage. First, state delegate Eric Householder took on ObamaCare, and now Cindy Frich, his colleague in the House of Delegates, is setting her sights on protecting the Second Amendment.

On January 9, Frich and five cosponsors (the same bill was offered last legislative session and had nine cosponsors) introduced HB 2832, the Firearm Protection Act.

If it were enacted, the bill would render unenforceable any “federal law which attempts to ban semiautomatic firearm[s] or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on firearms in this state…”

There are two forces at work in Frich’s effort to thwart the federal government’s constant attempt to unconstitutionally infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

First, there is a well-established principle of federalism called anti-commandeering.

Put simply, anti-commandeering prohibits the federal government from forcing states to participate in any federal program that does not concern “international and interstate matters.”

While this expression of federalism (“dual sovereignty” as it was named by Justice Antonin Scalia) was first set forth in the case ofNew York v. United States (1992), most recently it was reaffirmed by the high court in the case of Mack and Printz v. United States(1997).

Sheriff Richard Mack was one of the named plaintiffs in the latter landmark case, and on the website of his organization the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, he recounts the basic facts of the case:

The Mack/Printz case was the case that set Sheriff Mack on a path of nationwide renown as he and Sheriff Printz sued the Clinton administration over unconstitutional gun control measures, were eventually joined by other sheriffs for a total of seven, went all the way to the supreme court and won.

There is much more “ammo” in this historic and liberty-saving Supreme Court ruling. We have been trying to get state and local officials from all over the country to read and study this most amazing ruling for almost two decades. Please get a copy of it today and pass it around to your legislators, county commissioners, city councils, state reps, even governors!

The Mack/Printz ruling makes it clear that the states do not have to accept orders from the feds!

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia explained:

As Madison expressed it: “The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist No. 39, at 245. [n.11]

This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.”

When the federal government assumes powers not explicitly granted to it in the Constitution, it puts the states on the road toward obliteration and citizens on the road to enslavement.

The next principle on display in Delegate Frich’s bill is known as nullification — Thomas Jefferson’s “rightful remedy.”

Nullification is a concept of constitutional law that recognizes the authority of each state to nullify, or invalidate, any federal measure that exceeds the few and defined powers allowed the federal government as enumerated in the Constitution.

Nullification is founded on the assertion that the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the federal government to enact laws that they expect the people to obey.

That is to say, the Constitution is an agency agreement between the states (the principals) and the federal government (the agent).

The law of agency applies when one party gives another party legal authority to act on the first party’s behalf. The first party is called the principal and the second party is called the agent. The principal may grant the agent as much or as little authority as suits his purpose. That is to say, by simply giving an agent certain powers, that agent is not authorized to act outside of that defined sphere of authority.

Upon its ratification, the states, as principals, gave limited power to the federal government to act as their agent in certain matters of common concern: defense, taxation, interstate commerce, etc.

The authority of the agent — in this case the federal government — is derived from the agreement that created the principal/agent relationship. Whether the agent is lawfully acting on behalf of the principal is a question of fact. The agent may legally bind the principal only insofar as its actions lie within the contractual boundaries of its power.

Should the agent exceed the scope of its authority, not only is the principal not held accountable for those acts, but the breaching agent is legally liable to the principal (and any affected third parties who acted in reliance on the agent’s authority) for that breach.

Under the law of agency, finally, the principals (states) may revoke the agent’s (the federal government’s) authority at will. It would be unreasonable to force the principals to honor promises of an agent that has acted outside the limits of its authority as set out in the document that created the agency in the first place — the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson provided perhaps the best defense of nullification in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 where he wrote:

That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour [sic] of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.

Even Alexander Hamilton, not exactly a champion of strong state governments, explained that an act of Congress is a law only when it is enacted lawfully. In Federalist 33 he wrote:

If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted [sic] to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed…. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. [Emphasis in original.]

As Cindy Frich, Eric Householder, and the cosponsors of their respective bills apparently understand, state legislators have not only the authority, but the obligation to stand in defense of liberty and prevent the federal government from using them as mere administrative subdivisions, good for nothing more than executing their unconstitutional edicts.

As of Friday, January 18, West Virginia’s Firearm Protection Act was waiting with scores of other recently proposed legislation to be heard by the state’s House Judiciary Committee.

Jackson: Gun owner unarmed, unwelcome in Maryland

Leave a comment

This is from The Tampa Tribune.

This is outrageous.

Why was Mr Jackson stopped?

I borrowed a quote from a commenter.


As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)..

%d bloggers like this: