53 Colorado Sheriffs Sue State Over Gun Control Laws

In a deliberate move to catch gun control activists off guard, an organization representing Colorado sheriffs in a lawsuit over a series of recently passed gun control laws abruptly announced the filing of the suit in federal court today.

“We did that deliberately,” David Kopel, an attorney with the Independence Institute, which is handling the case, said. “We wanted to catch our opponents who support gun control off guard.”

As recently as Wednesday, the Independence Institute was suggesting the filing was still a few weeks off. Appearing at a rally against another bill, Amy Oliver Cooke, wife of Weld County Sheriff John Cooke, said they were planning to file the suit in the next couple of weeks.
The suit, which was filed in federal district court, lists 54 out of the state’s 64 sheriffs as plaintiffs in the case.

Kopel says what is significant to note is that while not all sheriffs are party to the suit, not a single sheriff has come out in opposition to it.

Cooke had harsh words for critics in the media and others who questioned whether a government official should sue another government official.

“Some in the media … asked me if I think it’s a good idea or if it’s appropriate for [a] government official to sue another government official. My response is unequivocally yes. It is our duty and responsibility as sheriffs to protect the people who elected us and whom we serve.”

At a recent event in Fort Collins by the Independence Institute providing updates on the case, Cooke said he was proud that gun control supporters are nervous over the lawsuit.
“When we announced our opposition to these gun control laws, the Greeley Tribune ran a story titled, ’48 Sheriffs going Rogue on Guns,’” Cooke said. “They should be fearing us. What right does the state have dictating how many rounds of ammunition [a woman] can have to defend herself?”

The lawsuit isn’t just limited to law enforcement officials, but lists a variety of organizations including the Colorado Farm Bureau, which has expressed concerns about rural farmers and ranchers having to deal with predators, Women for Concealed Carry, and the Colorado Outfitters Association.

“We have a diverse number of plaintiffs in this case. We are celebrating diversity,” Kopel said. “The difference is we actually believe in genuine diversity.”
Cooke noted that the lawsuit was not a partisan issue, with Republican and Democratic sheriffs both taking part in the lawsuit.

“This is not about urban versus rural as the governor likes to portray it,” Cooke said. “We have rural and urban plaintiffs in this case. It is about the Constitution. It is about the 2nd and 14th amendments. The suit is about our way of life, our freedoms, our rights, our liberties which transcend political affiliation and place of residence.”

Within minutes following the announcement of the filing of the suit, Republican Atty. Gen. John Suthers, who will be defending the state in the lawsuit, finally issued a statement providing guidance to law enforcement on how they are supposed to enforce the new laws.

Under the existing laws, any magazine that holds greater than 15 rounds, or can be modified to hold greater than 15 rounds, is now illegal to purchase in the state. The problem is nearly all magazines are designed with features that make them readily expandable to hold more than 15 rounds. The law’s wording effectively bans all magazines in Colorado.

Suthers said in the guidelines that magazines “must be judged objectively” and that a magazine holding 15 rounds or fewer cannot be defined as “large capacity” just because it can be modified to hold more.

While those currently possessing magazines greater than 15 rounds, the law prevents the transfer of any of these magazines. The wording states the grandfather clause only applies as long as the holder “maintains continuous possession” of it. Cooke and other sheriffs have pointed out that based on this wording, anyone who gives their magazine to a gunsmith or asks for help on a shooting range with a jammed magazine is now violating the law.

Suthers said “an owner should not be considered to have transferred a large capacity magazine or lost continuous possession of it simply by handing it to a gunsmith, hunting partner, or an acquaintance at a shooting range.”

However, the problem is Suther’s statement is just what it says, guidance, and it does not hold the force of law. Any officer can choose to disregard Suther’s recommendations anytime he chooses in favor of the plain text of the law.

The lawsuit also claims the gun control measures violate the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as individual civil rights.

Dylan Harrell, one of the disabled plaintiffs in the case, said his disability, which confines him to a wheelchair often makes it more difficult for him to defend himself or his family. He also noted that as an outdoorsman, when exiting his vehicle he needs help.

“I often request the assistance for the safe handling of my firearms anytime I am transferring from a wheelchair to an ATV or another vehicle,” Harrell explained. “It is now against the law for me to even seek assistance anytime I am transferring my firearms for my wheelchair to another vehicle. I am filing this lawsuit on the half of all Coloradans with disabilities such as my own.”
The suit noted that disabled citizens often find it difficult to change magazines quickly, which could be a serious threat to their life if their weapon is needed for self-defense.

Colorado’s far left government this year is controlled by Democrats in the governor’s office, in the House and the Senate. They rammed through a number of gun restrictions and limits – at the behest of the White House.

During debate over the gun control measures, the vast majority of citizens testifying before the legislature were opposed to any new gun control laws. However, frequently their testimony was dismissed and treated with disdain by Democratic lawmakers who seemed to have already made up their minds about passing the laws.

State Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Westminster, scolded a witness opposing one of the gun restrictions.

Amanda Collins, 27, of Reno, Nev., was telling her story of being assaulted and explained that had she been carrying a concealed weapon, the incident might have ended differently.
“I just want to say that, actually statistics are not on your side even if you had a gun,” Hudak scolded. “And, chances are that if you would have had a gun, then he would have been able to get that from you and possibly use it against you.”

Hudak continued, speaking over the committee witness, “The Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence says that every one woman who used a handgun in self-defense, 83 here are killed by them.”
Finally able to resume her testimony, Collins said, “Senator, you weren’t there. I know without a doubt [the outcome would have been different with a gun].
“He already had a weapon,” she told the meeting of the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee. “He didn’t need mine.”

A similar attitude was displayed by state Rep. Joe Salazar.
He said that a woman who feels threatened by rape on a college campus doesn’t need to be armed because she can use a call box to get help.

Salazar’s statement came in a debate over a proposal to ban citizens possessing a concealed-carry permit from being armed on university campuses.

“It’s why we have call boxes,” said Salazar, “It’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at.

“And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around, or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop a round at somebody.”

Perhaps the most surprising statement came from U.S. Rep. Diane DeGette, a Denver Democrat who displayed her perspective on gun magazines.

“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them; so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot, and there won’t be any more available,” she said.

The Denver Post said DeGette didn’t appear to understand that a firearm magazine can be reloaded with more bullets.

State officials admitted they were doing the bidding of the White House. In February, Vice President Joe Biden flew to the state to strong-arm Democratic lawmakers who were feeling pressure from their constituents to vote against the bills.

“He (Biden) said it would send a strong message to the rest of the country that a Western state had passed gun-control bills,” Tony Exhum, a Democratic lawmaker from Colorado Springs, told the Denver Post.

House Majority Leader Mark Ferrandino, an open homosexual who also pursued a “civil unions” agenda this year, admitted the gun-control bills introduced by fellow Democrats had national implications.

“I was shocked that he called. He said he thought the bills could help them on a national level,” Ferrandino said.

Florida Prof Teaches Conspiracy Classes

Outrageous: James Tracy claims that the government was behind the Boston Marathon bomber that left 3 dead and more than 180 injured

T
he Florida college professor who sparked controversy after saying that the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School may not have taken place is now infuriating even more people by saying that the Boston Marathon bombings were an inside job. 

James Tracy, a media professor who writes extensively about conspiracy theories, said that last week's bombing appears as if it was planned by the government. 

'The event closely resembles a mass-casualty drill, which for training purposes are designed to be as lifelike as possible,' he wrote in a blog post.
Other topics of rumination on his site include a number of the classic conspiracy theories: the September 11 attacks, the purview of the Department of Homeland Security, the PATRIOT Act, the death of Osama bin Laden and Fukishima have all been of interest.

Mr Tracy, a tenured professor at Florida Atlantic University, argues that the media and 'play actors' have made up the bombing that left three dead and more than 180 injured. 

He takes particular issue with the endless stream of photos supporting the popular belief that the bombing did in fact happen. 

He writes that the multitude of pictures 'suggests the possibility of play actors getting into position after the detonation of what may in fact have been a smoke bomb or similarly benign explosive.'

Picking a fight: Tracy argues that the media and 'play actors' have made up the bombing that left three dead and more than 180 injured

Still at work: James Tracy, 47, has been teaching at Florida Atlantic University for 10 years and refuses to lessen his stance against the official version of events regarding the Sandy Hook shooting

'Since it is mediated, however, and primarily experienced from afar through the careful assemblage of words, images and the official pronouncements and commentary of celebrity journalists, it has the semblance of being, for all practical purposes, "real."’

University officials had a similar reaction to his latest rant as they did for the Newtown shooting.

 

'As with all postings on his personal blog, Florida Atlantic University does not agree with Mr. Tracy’s views or opinions,' the University spokesman said in a statement to FoxNews.com. 

'His editorialized postings do not reflect the positions of the University or its leaders.

'The University stands with the rest of the country in our support of the victims of the Boston Marathon tragedy. We, too, are Boston Strong.'

One difference between his comments on the Sandy Hook massacre and the Boston bombing was the amount of time that he left in between.
Last time, he waited nearly a month after the 20 young students and six school administrators were killed at the elementary school before making his controversial comments. 

This time he waited just nine days. 

The 47-year-old professor based his outrageous allegations largely on the flurry of conflicting media reports that were made as news of the shooting was released throughout the tragic day.

'I think that the entire country mourned about Sandy Hook and yet, once again, the investigation that journalistic institutions should have actually carried out never took place as far as I'm concerned,' Tracy said at the time. 

VIDEO News reporter confronts Tracy on his conspiracy theory

What Conspiracy?

Locked and Loaded in Indiana?

Sign Entering Virginia

Sheriffs Against Obamacie

The great usurper of the Constitution, President Obama, is seeking to obliterate the Second Amendment and subsequently, he is coming after your guns. Obama is not coming after your guns in one fell swoop, although he would like to.Inch by inch, Obama believes that gun confiscation is a cinch.

 He is employing the principle of incrementalism. Under this communist despot, Americans will see registration and prohibition today, followed by confiscation tomorrow.

Democide, defined as murder by government, in the 20th century, accounted for 262,000,000 deaths. Nearly everyone of these mass murders by government was preceded by gun control and gun confiscation. Logic, wisdom and historical precedent would indicate that Americans would be foolish to ever surrender any of the Second Amendment rights to the federal government.

I am one of a growing group of Americans who believes that what I have dubbed Obamacide (i.e. the continual takedown of the Constitution and replacing it with Marxist Communist ideals), will be followed by democide which will be perpetrated against the American people by the minions who represent and serve the bankers who have hijacked our government.

A Pro-American Message From An Unlikely Source

Former California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a man of very limited acting skills, recently returned to the big screen as Sheriff Ray Owens, a tough law man who leads a band of an inexperienced small town police officers who face the daunting task of stopping a ruthless drug cartel leader from reaching the US-Mexico border.

As an aside, some men gracefully age and understand the importance of choosing age appropriate activities, hobbies and vocations. Apparently, Schwarzenegger does not possess that kind of introspective awareness. This “grandpa on steroids” approach to reliving his days as an action hero, was very comedic, but only in a very tragic way. More to the point,

Schwarzenegger’s character portrays one of America’s last remaining heroes, the County Sheriff. You might be wondering about the name of Schwarzenegger’s newest action movie? Never mind, you would be better off saving your money and buying some more ammunition.

 The only saving grace of this very bad movie lies in the expressed belief that the County Sheriff is America’s last line of defense in a community and that the federal government, if not always corrupt, is always incompetent.

America’s Last Remaining Heroes

The County Sheriff is the indeed the last line of defense against a tyrannical government which is undeniably hell-bent on destroying the Second Amendment for very nefarious purposes. Here are some very poignant examples



In response to the national gun-control/confiscation debate, Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County in Kentucky stated in a recent press conference that his power as sheriff, charged with upholding the Constitution, constitutes his most important to the citizens of Jackson county and that Peyman is unconcerned with the hidden, and often illegal agendas of state and federal agents. Peyman further explained that

 “I can ask federal people to leave, they have to leave. I can ask state people to leave, they have to leave. And it doesn’t matter what new laws Obama passes, the sheriff has more power than the federal people.”



Illinois Clark County Sheriff, Jerry Parsley, posted a message from the Clark County Sheriff’s Office Facebook page this past Thursday explaining his mission to protect the Constitution. “It’s a given to me; the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting. The amendment is about a free state’s ability to defend itself from an oppressive government. When a government won’t or can’t defend its citizens, they have a God-given right to protect themselves. To me it’s simple.”

The Utah Sheriffs’ Association has written a strongly worded letter to President Obama on the issue of gun control. Part of the letter reads, “No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights—in particular Amendment II—has given them.”

In Oregon’s Josephine County, Sheriff Gil Gilbertson said Wednesday that a lot of sheriffs are standing up and demanding the Constitution – especially the Second Amendment – be followed.



Frank Deming, the Johnson County Sheriff is sounding off against President Barack Obama’s new gun control proposals. Denning discussed the mass shootings in Colorado and Connecticut, but says he sees nothing in the proposed measures that could prevent similar incidents in the future. “Logic dictates to us that armed individuals; whether armed private individuals or hired security personnel, are the answer to prevent future tragedies in those places that we have inadvertently made free-fire zones with the totally useless ‘No Guns Allowed’ signs,” Deming continued.



In Minnesota, Pine County Sheriff Robin Cole sent an open letter to residents saying he did not believe the federal government had the right to tell the states how to regulate firearms. He said he would refuse to enforce any federal mandate which he felt violated constitutional rights, specifically the Second Amendment.

I  received a recent email from Sheriff Richard Mack, former Graham County, AZ. Sheriff, who successfully challenged the Brady Bill before the Supreme Court. Mack’s email detailed for me his efforts, as an Oathkeeper, to remind Sheriffs across the country to uphold the Second Amendment.

Even A Governor “Gets It”

In Mississippi, Governor Phil Bryant, urged the Legislature to make it illegal to enforce any executive order by the president that violates the Constitution.

“If someone kicks open my door and they’re entering my home, I’d like as many bullets as I could to protect my children, and if I only have three, then the ability for me to protect my family is greatly diminished,” Bryant said. “And what we’re doing now is saying, ‘We’re standing against the federal government taking away our civil liberties.’” At least one politician is not on the take.

Evil Never Takes a Holiday

MA. Representative, the Democidal David Linsky, has filed a bill which, among other things, forces gun owners to undergo mental health background checks, acquire liability insurance, pay an additional 25% tax on all forms of ammunition, and requires firearms categorized as “assault weapons” to be stored outside of their homes and only at government approved storage depots. In my estimation, this is only an intermediate step with the final destination being the nearly complete destruction of the Second Amendment followed by gun confiscation.



Of course this man shipped guns into Mexico in an attempt to undermine the Second Amendment under Operation Fast and Furious.



This woman allowed the murder of Ambassador Stevens by refusing the Ambassador’s request for additional protection following his gun running into Syria on behalf of the CIA in this Middle East version of Fast and Furious in which tens of thousands have already been murdered.



This man oversaw Operation Fast and Furious which resulted in the death of Border Patrol Agent, Brian Terry, 40,000 Mexicans last year and 300 Americans.  This man also oversaw the stand down orders which could have prevented Ambassador Stevens death/assassination. And this man wants to disarm you while he is responsible for the murders of hundreds of thousands human beings.

Yesterday, I purchased a gun and some ammunition. I have drawn my line in the sand. I stand for the Constitution and in particular, the Second Amendment. As the President continues to commit Obamacide, I have decided that I will not obey. I will not follow Obama’s gun control policies as issued by 23 illegal and unconstitutional executive orders. I will not submit to ANY form of federal tyranny committed against the Constitution.

And in my role as a journalist, I refused to be silenced as I will continue to publicly decry the criminal communist takeover of this country by this creation of the modern-day version of the Weathermen Underground terrorists, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dorne and their puppet-in-chief, Barak Hussein Obama.



If we submit to this unconstitutional and illegal authority, we will become vulnerable like never before in our nation’s history. I would encourage everyone to write today to their local sheriff and demand that he defend the Constitution and in particular, the Second Amendment against unwarranted federal government interference. I would encourage you to act as if your life depends on it, because it does.

The US Proven Record Of Keeping Peace & Killing

This is an open letter to one of my friends who is pro-gun control... Well, that's not exactly true; he doesn’t just want gun control. He wants to make all guns completely illegal.

Dear Lenny (not his real name),

About gun control: I agree with you. We need to protect the children. I understand that the best entity to do that is undoubtedly the US government. They have a proven record of success that cannot be matched!

Perhaps you should tell everyone who is against gun control about how the U.S. government protected them when they killed about 1 million Native Americans (who, by the way, didn't have guns). Those Native Americans were savages and they had to die to make way for our God-given manifest destiny and us.

Also remind people not to forget the great protection the US government gave its own citizens when it waged a war against them and killed nearly 700,000 of them in a war to protect sanctity of the state between 1861 and 1865? A war that killed citizens that had voted in that government to protect them! 


Or how, as late as about 1890, the US government righteously executed over 150 American Indians (80% were women and children) in a legal gun seizure raid at Wounded Knee? 

 Or those evil Branch Davidians at Waco, TX in 1993, killing 76 men, women and children?

Don’t forget to mention the now rarely disputed view that FDR knew about and encouraged the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor – and didn't allow his commanders to know about it, so that 2400+ Americans died? FDR did that to save lives!

Sure, sometimes there are tough choices to make, right? But remind everyone that the US government are always the Good Guys, with God on our side. Everyone makes mistakes, but at least our government means well. 

Isn’t it wonderful living in the greatest country in the world?

Oh, and don’t forget to mention about how the U.S. government – which would never turn on its citizens – imprisoned about 112,000 peaceful Japanese Americans during WWII? And also imprisoned peaceful German Americans during both world wars (over 2,000 in World War I and over 11,000 in World War II.)

Or, don’t forget to mention shooting peaceful student protestors and killing them at Kent State in 1970! Sure, those things happened... But it was for those students' own protection!

9/11? What? There another 3000 died. But no one could possibly imagine that our benevolent leaders would intentionally allow the world's most powerful, most feared, air force to sit at base doing nothing at the time, right?

 Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th.
Some nutcases will argue that US history is replete with the US government committing gross crimes against humanity (Hiroshima, Nagasaki) and a litany of atrocities against its own people. But these cases are all hearsay. What proof do they have?

Blowing away a few to several hundred troublesome Americans matters to no one except conspiracy nuts and terrorists, right? I mean, if they are troublesome, they can’t be "real Americans," anyway!)

We need to protect the children. We need to take guns out of the hands of the citizens and give it back to the government…. 

After all, history shows that the US government is our best protector. They've proven, without a doubt, again and again, that they will take care of us! 

Thanks to my friend, David Kramer.

Trust NOT Your Federalized Sheriff & How To Tell The Difference

"You look depressed."

"I was lamenting. I’ve lost my innocence."

"You lost that some time ago. If you've only just noticed, it can't have been very important to you."

Exchange between Thomas Cromwell – the Machiavellian Lord Chancellor of England – and Richard Rich, an ambitious functionary who had sold his soul in a buyer’s market, from A Man for All Seasons.
"I will not enforce an unconstitutional law against any citizen of Smith County," insisted Sheriff Larry Smith. 

The sheriff wants his constituents to believe that he would refuse to participate in a federally mandated gun grab, or permit one to be carried out by federal officials within his jurisdiction. Yet ten days before Smith offered that assurance, his office had taken part in an early-morning SWAT rampage throughout East Texas in which 73 warrants were served as part of the federal government’s patently unconstitutional war on drugs.
During a December 2011 campaign debate, Smith said that he wanted to "invest more resources" – that is, redirect wealth plundered from the productive – into a "Drug Task Force," and insisted that under his administration the Sheriff’s Office would embrace a "Task Force mentality" in dealing with law enforcement issues. 

The problem with the mindset Sheriff Smith was extoling should become obvious once it’s understood that the German term for "task force" is einsatzgruppe. By their actions many multi-jurisdictional task forces in contemporary America are increasingly faithful to their historic pedigree. 

Smith’s devotion to narcotics task forces might be the residue of his early law enforcement career, which included two years as a special agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration – an agency that could be considered the mentally deficient stepchild of the CIA, which is the world’s largest narcotics syndicate. 

Twenty years ago, an ATF einsatzgruppe launched a murderous raid against an isolated religious group at Mt. Carmel outside Waco. The warrant they were enforcing was clotted with falsehoods. The investigation that produced it was haphazard. Its target, Vernon Howell -- aka David Koresh -- was suspected of trivial violations of federal firearms regulations, and had indicated his eagerness to cooperate with ATF investigators to clear the record. 

If an arrest were to be carried out – and one was neither necessary, nor justified – it could have been performed during one of Koresh’s frequent solitary jogging expeditions, or one of his routine visits to town. Instead, the ATF – seeking a dramatic, high-profile enforcement action to generate headlines for the scandal-plagued agency – staged a paramilitary assault on the religious sanctuary.

 They did so even though the raiders had lost the element of surprise, and when they arrived at Mt. Carmel they opened fire on the building despite the fact that an unarmed Koresh had confronted the stormtroopers with his hands up, pleading for them not to shoot.

Four ATF agents were killed during that Sunday morning raid. Their deaths were utterly unnecessary, and entirely well-deserved: They were attempting to murder innocent people, and the would-be victims acted within their rights in using deadly force to defend their homes against that assault. The criminal clique that had sent the ATF to attack the Davidians sent a larger contingent to lay siege to their residence, and eventually arranged for the holocaust that annihilated 76 people, including seventeen small children.

Like most gun owners in Eastern Texas, Smith can remember where he was the morning of April 19, 1993, when the Mt. Carmel refuge went up in flames. He was on the scene as an agent of the ATF, which he had joined in 1989. Smith believes that the initial ATF raid on the Davidians was justified, and that the entire operation was at least a partial success. It’s doubtful that his assessment is shared by many gun owners in his jurisdiction.

Larry Smith is among dozens of sheriffs who have gone on record in opposition to the Obama administration’s impending firearms restrictions. All of them have promised to intervene to protect their counties from federal tyranny. And all of them are active collaborators in the same.

Kieran Donahue was sworn in as the new Sheriff of Canyon County, Idaho on January 14. Three days later he joined the ranks of "refusenik sheriffs" by promising not to implement any federal gun policy at odds with his responsibility to "uphold the Constitution."

Unfortunately, that resolute statement of principled defiance was fatally undermined when Donahue – in the same press conference -- expressed his willingness to continue his office’s collaboration in the federal "war on drugs" and displayed his indecent eagerness to accept new federal subsidies to deploy deputies to guard public schools as soon as the funds are available.

Wendy Olson, the official assigned by the regime to act as the federal regime’s legal sub-commissarina for Idaho, has said that her office will fully comply with new federal firearms mandates. She pointedly noted that the Canyon County Sheriff’s Office – like most others in the country – has officers who are cross-deputized to serve on federal einsatzgruppen. During last year’s campaign the future sheriff proudly boasted of his work as an "undercover officer" with the FBI-supervised METRO Violent Crime and Gang Task Force.

"In these changing and difficult economic times it is a great benefit to have all law enforcement agencies working together in order to share costs and resources," insisted Donahue. Those words will almost certainly come back to haunt Canyon County gun owners when – not "if" – the Feds make it clear that they are willing to "share resources" only with sheriff’s offices who are on board with the gun grab.

Donahue insisted on playing coy about the fact that he’s for sale. Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims was shameless. She told the local ABC affiliate that while she will not enforce unconstitutional gun laws, she also "backs the added funding for local law enforcement, especially in schools." 

Her office has a huge budget, a small but significant portion of which is derived from proceeds seized through a federally supervised "asset forfeiture" program. 

In 2009, Mims was the "local" face that was pasted onto the Obama administration’s "Operation Save Our Sierra" marijuana crack-down, which was personally supervised by federal Drug War Commissar Gil Kerlikowske. This campaign involved 300 personnel from local, state, and federal agencies – including military pilots that flew Black Hawk helicopters over targeted areas. The manpower and hardware were deployed in a mission best described as militarized horticulture. It’s quite easy to see how the personnel and assets used against "illegal" plants could be employed to confiscate "illegal" firearms in the future. 


A few years ago, when Mims and her department faced a $4 million budget deficit, the Fresno County commission had to scrounge up $10.6 million in plundered funds to prevent layoffs in the Sheriff’s Office. That money most likely won’t be available next time Sheriff Mims wants to avoid handing pink slips to her deputies. It’s quite easy to imagine a scenario in which her federal supervisors will introduce her to a new variety of alchemy -- converting confiscated "illegal" firearms into federal subsidies. 

Four sheriffs in Oregon have announced their opposition to the renewed campaign to disarm citizens. Among them is Sheriff Brian Wolfe of Malheur County (who, in the interests of full disclosure, is a childhood friend). In a letter to Vice President Biden, Sheriff Wolfe declared: "I believe that the Constitution stands above all laws and executive orders of this Country. I want to be very clear that no one employed on our team at the Malheur County Sheriff’s Office will enforce or support any laws or executive orders that are not consistent with the Constitution of this great land." 

If only those inspiring words were consonant with Sheriff Wolfe’s actions. Like every other sheriff in the country, Brian Wolfe violates the Constitution on a routine basis. 

Last August, the Malheur County Sheriff’s Department casually announced that it had found several small marijuana gardens during a two-week aerial surveillance operation conducted with the help of the National Guard.

Acting as the department’s official stenographer, the Argus Observer newspaper reported that Sheriff Brian Wolfe will now "contact property owners and acquire search warrants if needed." Warrants would not be necessary, Wolfe observed, if the property owners consented to the searches. The Sheriff pointed out that the plants may be part of legal medicinal marijuana operations, or could have been planted without the owner’s knowledge or consent.

At this point an actual journalist would have asked Wolfe why his office was conducting warrantless aerial searches of private property without probable cause. After all, the Sheriff has admitted that none of the property owners was a criminal suspect.

The Malheur County Sheriff’s Department spends part of each summer arresting marijuana plants – that is, dispatching its SWAT team to barren locations in rural Oregon to clear out patches of marijuana.
Sheriff Wolfe insists this is necessary to "protect the public," which is more acutely threatened by the unconstitutional, paramilitary operations of his own department.

 Wolfe’s department spends a great deal of time seizing contraband and prosecuting people who possess it. That experience will prove quite useful when – once again, not "if" – the Feds decide to treat legally owned firearms as illicit contraband. 

There isn’t a single county sheriff’s office in the country that hasn’t compromised itself by accepting federal funds, and collaborating in unconstitutional federal enforcement operations. They’ve long since lost their innocence, but are pretending that they’ve just noticed that fact.

Nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorizes the Feds to prohibit the consumption of narcotics or any other substance. Indeed, last time the Feds undertook a campaign of national prohibition, they had to change the Constitution in order to do so. Unless they’re investigating charges of treason or counterfeiting, sheriffs should not collaborate with the Feds – and in such circumstances the Feds themselves should be treated as the primary suspects.

If you take the nickel, you take the noose. If a sheriff’s office receives so much as a farthing of federal funding, it will be subject to federal mandates. That principle was underscored about seven years ago in the case of Josh Wolf, a 24-year-old video blogger imprisoned for refusing to turn over a portion of footage he shot of tumultuous street protests during the G-8 summit in San Francisco.
The Feds claim that Wolf, who spent two-thirds of a year in prison on civil contempt charges, possessed footage of a police car being set on fire. Wolf maintained that he didn’t have the material the Feds were after, and that under California's very liberal journalist shield law, he wasn’t required to turn over his confidential, unpublished material. A Federal District Court Judge ignored Wolf's argument and incarcerated him in a detention center in Dublin, California for contempt.

The alleged assault on a San Francisco police car would be a municipal matter, and the California shield law is obviously a question of state law. Why was this dealt with in a federal court?

As Time magazine pointed out: "The Feds say they have jurisdiction over the case because the police car is partly U.S. government property since the SFPD receives federal anti-terrorism money."

Note well that the Feds didn’t claim that the regime paid for the specific cars that were reportedly destroyed, only that the police department had been subsumed into the federal law enforcement apparatus because it had received some quantity of Homeland Security funding.

What this means, in principle, is that any police agency that receives a dime of federal Homeland Security money is effectively an appendage of the Department of Homeland Security (or, to use the appropriate German expression, the Heimatsicherheitsdienst).

This is obviously true of municipal police departments, which are innately illegitimate paramilitary bodies in no way accountable to the public they supposedly serve. We’re invited to believe that local elected sheriffs are different – at least where the incipient gun grab is concerned. 

The ranks of the refuseniks will continue to expand, and they will feed gun owners a steady diet of bold talk about their willingness to interpose on behalf of their constituents if the Feds come for their guns. Some of them may be sincerely committed to do so. But until they stop actively collaborating in existing federal abuses, why should we assume they would be willing to take the side of the public against the Feds when the Regime decides to come for our guns?

By Way of Illustration... 

... we see the following act of felonious assault and kidnapping by Citrus County, Florida Deputy Sheriff Andy Cox, who threatens to murder innocent, law-abiding gun owner. It took less than two seconds for this this cretinous, foul-mouthed tax-feeder to drop the pose of superficial geniality. His first instinct, on learning that this harmless man was armed, was to threaten to murder him, because he had been indoctrinated in the belief that Mundanes simply cannot be permitted to bear arms.

When assessing the credibility of "constitutional sheriffs" as protectors of the right to bear arms, bear in mind that sheriffs are politicians and administrators; the patrol officers in their departments are people like Andy Cox.

Oregon Sheriff & Others Won't Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws

 

An Oregon sheriff says he will not enforce any federal regulation that President Barack Obama lays out in his package of gun control proposals Wednesday.

Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller joins several other public officials across the nation who have decided to square off with the White House even before it outlines what its plans are for expanded measures.

Mueller sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden this week saying he won't enforce any federal regulation "offending the constitutional rights of my citizens." He won't permit federal officers to come to his county to enforce such laws either, he said.

Mueller's defiant stand exploded into a groundswell of support. His letter -- posted on the department's Facebook page -- earned more than 59,000 likes and shares -- and was growing by the minute.

Over the weekend, Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky, said that he too would disobey any directive from the administration. He told residents in a town hall meeting that the sheriff has more power than the federal government.

"They need to go back and study that. We are a commonwealth. I can ask federal people to leave, they have to leave. I can ask state people to leave, they have to leave," he said.

But Wednesday on CNN, Peyman said he would enforce laws approved by Congress.

"If it goes through Congress, if it becomes law, if it goes that way, yeah, I'd enforce the law," he said.

 

Obama considers executive action on guns

In Texas, a lawmaker said this week that he will introduce legislation that would make it illegal to enforce a federal gun ban.

"At some point there needs to be a showdown between the states and the federal government over the Supremacy Clause," Republican Rep. Steve Toth told WOAI 1200-AM. "It is our responsibility to push back when those laws are infringed by King Obama."

New York passes first gun control bill since Newtown

Local officials don't get to make that call, CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin said.

"A sheriff does not get to decide whether laws are constitutional," he said. "Unless a court invalidates a law, he's obligated to enforce it."

In any event, local police wouldn't be responsible for enforcing federal gun laws, CNN Legal Analyst Paul Callan said.

"The FBI will be enforcing them, treasury agents will enforce them. It won't be local police who would be out making sure federal gun regulations are enforced," he said.

Obama's proposals Wednesday largely draw on the work of a task force chaired by Biden.

An official familiar with the process said the president's proposal will include universal background checks and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Other recommendations by Biden's panel include tougher enforcement of existing laws, legislators briefed by the vice president said Tuesday.

Support surprises sheriff

In Linn County, the support for Mueller's letter caught the sheriff's office by surprise.

"Sheriff Tim Mueller is humbled and amazed at the support people near and far have expressed to his letter. Thank you!" said a post on the department's Facebook page.

A post by Jill Leiser Crowley of Eugene expressed the opinions of many.

Senator: Obama acting like a 'king'

"Thank you for standing up for our Constitutional Rights!!!" it said. "You are doing the right thing for the people of Linn County - I can only hope other counties will follow!!!"

But Karin Hunt, another Oregonian, questioned the sheriff's stance.

"I would expect (an) officer to enforce the laws of Oregon and the U.S.A. whether he agrees with the law or not," she said. "That's taking the law into your own hands."

The White House knows it can expect a fight.

"Part of the challenge we confront is that even the slightest hint of some sensible, responsible legislation in this area fans this notion that somehow, 'Here it comes, everybody's guns are going to be taken away,' " Obama said Monday.

Getting any legislation passed may prove to be difficult.

The influential National Rifle Association, among other gun rights groups, has vowed to fight tooth and nail against any new gun restrictions -- like an assault weapons ban, which the group's president, David Keene, predicted Sunday wouldn't make it through Congress.

Polls support change

Although some officials have come out against new gun control laws, Americans as a whole are looking for some sort of change after the Newtown, Connecticut, shootings last month that took the lives of 20 grade school children and seven adults.

By a 51%-45% margin, Americans questioned in a new Pew Research Center poll said it was more important to control gun ownership than to protect gun rights.

And by a 52%-35% margin, a new ABC News/Washington Post survey indicates the public says it is more likely to support some forms of gun control after last month's massacre. However, the polls showed continuing divisions along political and gender lines.

Still, one Oregon resident warned against passing laws that would conflict with the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms.

"Constitutional changes must be made properly with Congressional and judicial approval, and by a majority of the citizens of the USA, not by the order of a tyrant in Washington D.C.!!!" said Rick Carter of Pendleton.

 "I stand with the brave Sheriff!"

The battle lines could not be clearer.

B of A Will Not Honor Debit or Credit Card Sales On Guns Or Ammo

Check this sound recording from B of A...they are now refusing to honor debit or credit card sales for guns or ammo.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=j7XkLszFt90

Is Your Home Proudly A GUN FREE ZONE?

Post your home, business & car as a GUN FREE ZONE, lead by example

Bury Your Guns At Wounded Knee

December 29, 2012 marked the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection.” The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. 

The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. 200 of the 297 victims were women and children. About 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, but over half of them were victims of fratricide from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry’s death squad, were deemed “National Heroes” and were awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of [cowardice] heroism.

We hear very little of Wounded Knee today. It is usually not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little that does exist about Wounded Knee is normally a sanitized “Official Government Explanation.” And there are several historically inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre, which appear in movie scripts and are not the least bit representative of the actual events that took place that day.

Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.

Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment, the right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government.

 The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted, “hunting” was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and “target shooting” was an unheard of concept. Musket balls were a precious commodity and were certainly not wasted on “target shooting.”

 The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defensive purposes, should such tyranny arise in the United States.

As time goes forward, the average citizen in the United States continually loses little chunks of personal freedom or “liberty.” Far too many times, unjust gun control bills were passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety” or “for protection.” The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, was expanded and continues under Barack Obama. It is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for “safety.” Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be attacked to facilitate the path for the removal of our firearms, all in the name of “our safety.”

Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about something for just one minute. – Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We can not legislate “evil” into extinction. Good people will abide by the law, and the criminal element will always find a way around it.

Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years, across the globe, where is “evil” and “malevolence” most often found? In the hands of those with the power, the governments. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments.

 Who do the governments always target? “Scapegoats” and “enemies” within their own borders….but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they no longer pose a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise.

 Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer “We were disarmed before it happened.” Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was – confiscation of firearms from the people.

Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be totally stripped of any ability to defend ourselves and our families.

The Chart Anti Gunners Don't Want You To See

What we are hearing from bloviating gun control advocates in America is nothing short of emotionally driven irrationality.

According to statistics assembled from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Center for Disease Control and the Federal Government, firearms related homicides are minuscule in comparison to other the other “big killers” in the United States.

If we look at homicide statistics in the United States it’s clear that more murders are committed with knives, bats, hammers and poisons than with firearms. As Kurt Nimmo recently noted, “ the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outpaces the number of murders committed with a rifle.”

The facts, not the drivel being spewed by the anti-gun propaganda machine, leave us wondering why some State and Federal lawmakers are so adamant about restricting the sale and ownership of handguns and rifles, especially since the majority of gun owners – close to 99% – have never committed a violent crime in their lives, let alone used a gun to do so.

Here is the chart they never want you to see:

The chart above proves that politicians and those who would disarm Americans by going so far as to call for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment have ulterior motives – or they’re completely ignorant of the facts.

Perhaps their goal is to trigger a revolution in an effort to implement a total police state over the American people.

It wouldn’t be the first time that a government has tried something like this.

Prof Disputes Sandy Hook Timeline

One more "long-shot coincidence": Sandy Hook, Dark Knight Rises by Jon Rappoport

The murders at the premier of the The Dark Night Rises, in Colorado, and the massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, have yet another bizarre connection.

First of all, in the film, The Dark Knight Rises, which premiered last summer in Aurora, where a killer(s) took the lives of 12 theater goers, wounding 58 others, there is a moment at one-hour, fifty-eight minutes. A startling moment in the Batman movie. Commissioner Gordon is talking about thwarting an imminent attack on "Strike Zone One."

At that moment, he points to the only legible words on a map lying on a table in front of him. The words are: SANDY HOOK. The scene of the massacre last month at a Connecticut elementary school. The other recent massacre.

And now, by way of an article at Before It's News, we have a new tie-in. The unlisted author of that article cites a story from a newspaper in Connecticut, The Stamford Advocate. Dated April 7, 2012, it has so far flown under the radar. It reports a death in an automobile accident, on the Merritt Parkway. The victim was Scott Getzinger.

Mr. Getzinger was the property master on The Dark Knight Rises. As such, there is a chance he, in fact, selected that map with the words SANDY HOOK printed on it. The property master is responsible for all props used in a film.

The Stamford Advocate story mentions that Getzinger's injuries were, at first, called non-life threatening by the police. But then he died.

The last fact of the story is stunning, to say the least. Mr. Getzinger was a resident of...Newtown, Connecticut.

As I and others have pointed out previously, the production designer of The Dark Knight Rises, Nathan Crowley, is related to the infamous black-magic British legend, Aleister Crowley, sometimes called The Great Beast 666. Aleister was Nathan's grandfather's cousin.

Then we have the fact that Suzanne Collins, author of The Hunger Games, a novel in which 23 children are ritually sacrificed in combat by the dystopian state, also lives in Sandy Hook/Newtown

My Line In The Sand Is Drawn Here

If Barack Obama and his gaggle of gun grabbers have their way, the American citizenry will have all of their firearms taken away. If their current attempt to outlaw semi-automatic rifles is successful, does anyone think it will stop there? Don’t be naïve! The goal of people like Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, et al., has always been total gun confiscation. In fact, Senator Feinstein is actually on record as saying so.

According to Infowars.com, “Senator Dianne Feinstein’s ultimate plan has always been to have Mr. and Mrs. America turn in their guns to the government, period. Feinstein’s bill would criminalize millions of Americans and completely eviscerate second amendment rights.

“She tells us a gun ban is about saving the children and reducing crime, but her comments on 60 Minutes in 1995 reveal her true plan is to target law-abiding American gun owners.

“On Thursday, Feinstein will introduce her dream bill to disarm the American people. The legislation is open-ended and includes provisions to re-register firearms and submit the fingerprints of law-abiding Americans as if they’re sex offenders.

“Feinstein’s bill will also include a buy-back provision that will allow the government to confiscate all firearms. Both Feinstein and New York governor Andrew Cuomo have said that is their plan.

“It is a gun confiscation bill.

“The proposed bill is open declaration of war on the Second Amendment.

“It’s no coincidence that the communist Chinese, the biggest holders of U.S. debt, have demanded the American people be disarmed. History tells us that it is the instinct of all tyrants to disarm the slaves.”

The report plays a video in which Senator Feinstein said, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”
See the report.

Writing for the National Association for Gun Rights, Dudley Brown said, “After reading Senator Dianne Feinstein’s new so-called ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban, I can only describe it as the effective END of the Second Amendment in America.

“The definition of an ‘Assault Weapon’ in this bill is so broad you can drive a truck through it!

They’re targeting EVERYTHING – rifles, shotguns and even handguns.

“You see, the gun-grabbers are going for broke.

“Even owners of supposedly ‘grandfathered’ firearms will be treated like common criminals.
“If passed, Feinstein’s so-called ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban would:

• “Ban the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of 120 specifically named rifles, shotguns and handguns;
• “Ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of ALL firearms with a detachable magazine and at least one ‘military characteristic’ – which could mean just about anything that makes a gun ‘look scary.’
• “Bans the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of magazines holding more than 10 rounds;
• “Force owners of ALL ‘grandfathered’ weapons to undergo an intrusive background check and unnecessary fingerprinting;
• “Force owners of ALL ‘grandfathered’ weapons to federally register their guns after obtaining permission slip from local law enforcement showing their guns are not in violation of state or local law. That’s right. If you own a $10 magazine that’s more than 10 rounds, you’ll have to register it with the BATFE in their National Firearms Registry.

“And you and I both know registration is only the first step toward outright confiscation. So don’t be fooled.”

See the report.
As I stated in this column last week, “The semi-automatic rifle is the vanguard of our liberty; it is the surest and most trustworthy means of our self-defense; and it is the primary companion of any man who would both protect and feed his family.

“Make no mistake about it: to take away an American’s right to a semi-automatic rifle is to FULLY DISARM HIM. There is no Second Amendment; there is no right to keep and bear arms; there is no citizen militia; there is no liberty without the semi-automatic rifle!”

In that column I also quoted Thomas Jefferson who rightly observed, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”


And it is Jefferson’s observation that the “strongest reason” that the American people must always retain the right to keep and bear arms is “to protect themselves against tyranny in government,” that is universally ignored in the modern gun-control debate.

Throughout the United States, there are tens of millions of fully-armed citizens who are more than capable of defending themselves and their communities against any enemy – whether that enemy is an internal or external one. In fact, many millions of these citizens have been trained in the US armed forces. Firearms – especially semi-automatic rifles – in the hands of millions of American citizens is truly the only thing that stands between freedom and tyranny for the people of the United States. That Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein want to disarm the American people should be considered an act of war against our liberties!

 In other words, ladies and gentlemen, this is a line in the sand that none of us can afford to ignore.
Here’s how we must fight:

1. We must literally inundate our US representatives and senators with the most vociferous protest.
We must make sure that every representative and senator in America is told that under no uncertain terms their reelection will be determined by how they vote on this issue. Obviously, people such as Senators Feinstein and Schumer come from liberal, anti-gun states – which is why they feel safe in proposing these draconian gun-control measures. 

However, the vast majority of US House members represent average God-fearing Americans to whom the right to keep and bear arms is sacrosanct. And make no mistake about it: the legislative battle will be won or lost in the US House of Representatives.

Here in Montana, however, our two US senators (both Democrats) proudly profess to be pro-Second Amendment. Montanans should be sending a strong message to both of these senators to hold the line for our right to keep and bear arms – including semi-automatic rifles. I cannot imagine that any civil magistrate from either major political party could hope to be reelected in the State of Montana who would support Senator Feinstein’s gun-grab bill. And I would hope and pray that there would be dozens of other states in which the Second Amendment is equally honored.

Folks, CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS NOW!

 If we expect to retain any semblance of freedom for our posterity, we must pick up the phones and barrage our representatives and senators with opposition to this gun-control bill. And we must do it NOW! Furthermore, we must let our elected officials know that under no uncertain terms there can be NO COMPROMISE, that only outright opposition to any new gun-control measures will be deemed acceptable. 

There are already far too many gun-control laws in this country. We cannot accept any more abridgements and restrictions to our right to keep and bear arms. NO MORE!

2. We must demand of our State governors and legislators that they resist any attempts of the federal government to outlaw our firearms.

Should the Republican-led House of Representatives in Washington, D.C., cave-in to the Obama gun-grab like they did on Obama’s tax increases, it will be up to the states to say NO! If there is a single issue for which individual, sovereign states would be willing to defy the federal government and protect the rights and liberties of their citizens, it will be this issue. 

If the states, and liberty-minded people of the states, do not stand as one on this issue, there is no issue for which they would stand. We either draw the line on this issue or our liberties are gone forever!

This means State legislatures should pass laws defying the federal gun ban and protecting the right of citizens to keep and bear arms within their states. Governors should be willing to utilize State law enforcement agencies to protect their citizens’ right to keep (and not register) their guns, and county sheriffs should stiffen their backs and refuse to allow any federal police agency from enforcing the gun ban. After all, the county sheriff is the highest law enforcement authority in his or her county, trumping even federal law enforcement officers.

3. Individual citizens like you and I must be willing to draw our personal line in the sand on this issue and refuse to comply with any law requiring us to register or surrender our firearms – including our semi-automatic rifles.

Ladies and gentlemen, whatever the consequences might be, and whatever anyone else does or doesn’t do, I am prepared to become an outlaw over this issue! I don’t know how to say it any plainer: I will not register my firearms, and I will not surrender my firearms. Period. End of story. It’s not just a saying with me: when my guns are outlawed, I will be an outlaw!

It is time RIGHT NOW for every American citizen to make up his or her mind on this issue.
There are many laws, which I personally find repugnant and even unconstitutional, to which I grudgingly submit. For example, while I very much understand, and even philosophically agree with, those who refuse to pay income taxes, I pay income taxes. Even though I believe the income tax to be unconstitutional, onerous, and maybe even nefarious,

 I have not drawn my line in the sand on that issue. I haven’t drawn a line in the sand on the requirement for all sorts of government licenses, i.e., marriage licenses, driver’s licenses, CCW permits, Social Security cards, etc., even though I personally believe that many requirements for licensure stretch the boundaries of legitimate government. And, again, even though I understand those who refuse to take them, 

I have a marriage license, a driver’s license, a CCW permit, and a Social Security card. There are many issues over which I am willing to be annoyed, but for the sake of perceived Christian testimony and/or perceived good citizenship, I reluctantly and grudgingly comply. But on the issue of taking away my right to keep and bear arms – including a semi-automatic rifle – I absolutely refuse to comply!

My line in the sand is drawn here!

Make no mistake about it: it is not just semi-automatic rifles that these gun grabbers are after. Ultimately, they want to take all of our guns. We either stop them now or there will be no stopping them at all.

It is no hyperbole to say that this attempt by people such as Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein to make outlaws out of law-abiding citizens for simply exercising our right to keep and bear arms is the most important political battle of our lifetimes! I am not exaggerating when I say that the future of freedom and liberty for our children and for our country – not to mention the future of our own personal lives and freedom – hang in the balance.