NEVER TOLERATE TYRANNY!....Conservative voices from the GRASSROOTS.

OH, SHOOT!

guncontrolshowdown101

SALON – Blake Zeff: It’s hard to remember now, but in the immediate aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Conn., this country seemed serious about gun safety reform. President Obama visited the community and tearfully invoked Scripture and vowed real action. Hunting enthusiast and senator Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) suggested he’d consider supporting an assault weapons ban. And National Rifle Association foe Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) called the organization “enablers of mass murderers” and vowed to wage war on it — and few rushed to its defense.

Then, somehow, things seemed to get even worse for the NRA. After a full week of silence after the tragedy, it held a press conference in Washington, D.C., in which its leader, Wayne LaPierre, inspired laughter and ridicule by supporting zero reforms to guns, aside from a call for more of them (arm teachers!).

But for all the mockery LaPierre’s speech elicited (and maybe even deserved), history may well show it to be a canny political maneuver. By effectively shifting the conversation far to the right, he also shifted rightward what constituted a “compromise” in the gun discussion. And ultimately, against all odds, his organization would emerge with a deal it could more than live with — in fact, one it had once publicly proposed, itself.

In other words, it is Wayne LaPierre who will get the last laugh. . . .

CLICK HERE:

http://tpartyus2010.ning.com/forum/topics/gun-control-poster-for-li...

Comment

You need to be a member of REAL CONSERVATIVES to add comments!

Join REAL CONSERVATIVES

Comment by Gordon Ray Kissinger on April 15, 2013 at 2:37pm: Showing Us Who He Really Is

By Linda McKinney / 14 April 2013

“How easy it is to abuse truth and language, when men, by habitual wickedness, have learned to set justice at defiance.” — Thomas Paine, “Common Sense on George III’s Speech”, 1782

“An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma. To begin with, he does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist.” — Saul D. Alinsky, Rules For Radicals, 1971

As many of us know, the President is one of the most ardent followers of Saul Alinsky. For both, the truth is relative. Consider what the President said earlier this month in his speech in Colorado:

“And so we’ve seen enacted tougher background checks that won’t infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners, but will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.”

Conveniently wrong, but truth is relative.

In the same speech he says,

“Over the past 20 years, those background checks have kept more than 2 million dangerous people from buying a gun.”

If that mattered a hill of beans to him why has his administration prosecuted only 44 “of the 15,700 fugitives and ... in 2010 alone?

During the 2008 elections, in a comment about the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, he said that he believes:

“‘[T]hat the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right.’”

I’m sorry. If he admits that the “Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms” isn’t the next part of his statement a bit contradictory with the rest of the Second Amendment’? You know, that part that says “shall not be infringed? Either we have the full right, un-infringed or we do not have it at all. It’s not a half and half thing. (And since when did our rights get “conferred” upon us? Those delineated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights come from GOD as the Founding Fathers acknowledged.)

The Founding Fathers, in backing the Second Amendment said things like,

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that th...

That’s Alexander Hamilton, who later added,

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.”

Sounds to me more as if the Founding Fathers — and the words they chose — meant for the people to be able to defend themselves against the government! That’s who “the representatives of the people” are: the President, the House and Senate, the Courts and the State and local governments. So the President’s assertions that it “does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right. [my italics]” is not just wrong, it’s in direct opposition to what Alexander Hamilton and other Founders have said!

Now the President is using the Sandy Hook massacre to further his cause via using the parents as backdrops, and one of them taking his place in the weekly radio address (and traveling at our expense to do his bidding). Their grief, difficult as it is to say anything negative about it, is being used to stoke fear into the hearts of the rest of us. It happened to their children. It could happen to ours. Thus, “gun control” must be the answer. We must take the guns away from everyone.

No. They don’t start there. They start with alleged “assault rifles” and high capacity magazines, then they go to other weapons and their ultimate goal: no one will have guns but the government. (Oh, and the people they say can have guns: celebrity body guards, gangsta-rappers; you know. People who need them.)

The President using fear — and, yes, grief — to try to control those who do not know their rights, do not think for themselves, do not do their own investigating of the facts, is (to me) despicable. He’s relying on the least informed, least educated and weakest of us to be able to control the rest of us, pitting one set against the other. Divide and conquer is his forte and he has used it for quite a while now. No, I’m not saying the parents of Sandy Hook are the least informed, etc. I’m saying that the parents’ loss is being used against those who are least informed, etc.

When a President uses tragedies of the Sandy Hook sort to start the process of disarming the people he has an agenda that cannot be good for the people. When he uses a tragedy like Sandy Hook’s parents’ loss as a backdrop and a selling point, he’s selling fear. When he uses fear…

“Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.” — John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

He tells us who he really is.

Comment by PHILIP SCHNEIDER on April 15, 2013 at 1:34am: CNN and MSNBC on the wrong side of another issue with We the People . . . . what a surprise.

Comment by Gordon Ray Kissinger on April 14, 2013 at 4:45pm: CNN, MSNBC hype false al-Qaida claims on 'assault rifles'

Terror group's inaccurate video promoted in push for gun control

Aaron Klein

In a clear push for gun control, CNN and MSNBC yesterday hyped false claims by an al-Qaida spokesman that America is awash with easily obtainable, fully automatic “assault rifles.”

The networks played an al-Qaida propaganda video from June 2011 that until now has received little news media attention.

In the video, American al-Qaida spokesman and operative Adam Gadahn urged jihadists to obtain automatic rifles at U.S. gun shows, wrongly claiming those weapons are sold without background checks.

Stated Gadahn in the video: “America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?”

The video was aired yesterday by CNN as part of a two-day report on gun background checks.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/cnn-msnbc-hype-false-al-qaida-claims-on-...

CNN’s Brook Baldwin introduces the video by stating: “Al-Qaida already thinks America’s gun control system is weak. An Al-Qaida spokesman says it is so easy to get guns in America that wannabe terrorists should take advantage of it.”

The segment went on to claim that gun legislation being proposed is not strong enough to stop al-Qaida from obtaining firearms.

The video was used yesterday by MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough to push for gun control.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/cnn-msnbc-hype-false-al-qaida-claims-on-...

After the video was aired, co-host Mika Brzezinski stated, “Yeah, we’ll show you something and then we’ll let you talk. You know your background check system is weak when even al-Qaida makes a video pointing out how easily attainable guns are in the U.S.”

Neither CNN nor MSNBC pointed out that the al-Qaida claim about obtaining fully automatic assault rifles is false.

When the al-Qaida video was first released, National Review deputy editor Kevin D. Williamson debunked the claim.

He noted that if that civilian is not a federally licensed firearms dealer, “owning a fully automatic weapon manufactured after 1986 is categorically illegal.”

Scarborough discussed the video again today:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/cnn-msnbc-hype-false-al-qaida-claims-on-...

Continued Williamson: “Fully automatic weapons that were legally owned and registered with the federal government before 1986 may be transferred to a qualified buyer with the approval of federal and local law-enforcement authorities, a rigorous background check, and, of course, a sign-off from the U.S. Treasury Department: there’s a couple hundred bucks in fees and taxes involved.”

Williamson warned that selling a fully automatic weapon to an unlicensed party, at a gun show or anywhere else, “is a very excellent way to land yourself in prison for a good long while.”

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., discusses the video on “Morning Joe”:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/cnn-msnbc-hype-false-al-qaida-claims-on-...

With research by Joshua Klein

Comment by Gordon Ray Kissinger on April 14, 2013 at 4:39pm: ‘Evangelicals, Catholics Could be put on Watch List, Denied Guns’

14 Apr 2013

by Tony Perkins

Photo Credit: WND

Citing recent “inflammatory rhetoric” by Army officials, the head of the Family Research Council is warning supporters that President Obama could put evangelical Christians and Catholics on a “watch list” to prevent them from purchasing guns.

FRC President Tony Perkins said on his “Washington Watch” radio broadcast Wednesday that the Senate’s bipartisan proposal requiring background checks for Internet gun sales is “very concerning given the fact that the United States military has been increasingly showing hostility toward evangelicals and Catholics as being somehow threats to national security and people that need to be watched.”

In an email today to FRC supporters, Perkins explained that a recent Army briefing on “religious extremism” declared evangelical Christians and Catholics are among the biggest threats to America, along with Islamic supremacist groups such as al-Qaida and Hamas.

Perkins said it was also discovered that, in an email, Army Lt. Col. Jack Rich highlighted FRC and the American Family Association as groups that do not share “our Army Values.”

In his broadcast Wednesday, Perkins tied together the Army rhetoric with the proposed Senate legislation.
Read more from this story HERE.

Comment by Gordon Ray Kissinger on April 14, 2013 at 4:38pm: April 10, 2013 by Leon Puissegur

The UN Small Arms Treaty Is Not About Arms – It’s About Taking Your Freedom

United Nations Small Arms Treaty, this kind of sounds okay if one just looks at it through rose colored glasses. If we begin to break down this so-called treaty, we see ideology which closely resembles the way the Nazi’s took control of Germany, only this is the United Nations and the only free nation not signed on to this treaty is the United States! Is there any wonder why? Just what does this so-called United Nations Small Arms Treaty entail and how would it affect the United States?

To get a general idea of just what the United Nations wants to do, all one has to do is to read their statements. The United Nations specifically states:

“Less information on small arms than on nuclear weapons

Reliable data sets on small arms can only be built if countries provide information on production, holdings, trade, legislation and use. But of all transparency measures on weapons systems, those on small arms are the least developed. According to the Small Arms Survey, “more is known about the number of nuclear warheads, stocks of chemical weapons and transfers of major conventional weapons than about small arms”.

There are no accurate figures for the number of small arms and light weapons currently in circulation globally. Sources estimate the total to be at least 875 million. The majority of small arms – generally the only category of weapons not falling under Government monopoly of possession and use – are in private hands.”

It is very clear that the United Nations wants to see just who owns small arms and in this manner, they can confiscate them when they decide that they have to control all the small arms. This is very troubling since it seems to be just what Barack Obama is saying and just what he wishes to do. As a matter of fact, right after his election he all but signed the United Nations Small Arms treaty on the dotted line. We cannot help but remember that just last week Obama said the one thing “constraining” him from “confiscating” all weapons is the... and he had stated before that he would like to get around the very Constitution that he is supposed to uphold!

It seems as though the United Nations wants to know not just where the small arms are, but who has them and why. They do as the Democrats do, they lay claim that they need to do this because they are trying to track down all the illegally trafficked arms. Take a look at just what the United Nations says in their explanation of the Small Arms Treaty and what they have to do to “track” the arms.

“Marking and tracing

If national law enforcement officials were able to trace small arms back to their last legitimate owner, who might then be held accountable, this would form an effective measure against illicit trade and diversion. For that purpose, it is essential that the weapon be marked upon production and import, and that appropriate records be kept. Existing stocks should also be marked. Although many weapons are marked upon production and import, international cooperation in marking and tracing of small arms is in its infancy.”

The United Nations wants to “mark and track” all small arms back to their original owner. Does this sound like they just wish to see who had the gun last or does this sound more like a way to track down all small arms to confiscate them? We show this to you so you can decide just what benefit would this have to the legal gun owners in the United States and if this were to happen, what would our Second Amendment protect if the United Nations has a right to trace all weapons back to the original owner? It does not sound like a Second Amendment friendly idea!

In an article by Tim Brown, in which he referenced a Reuters article, he stated the following:

“The month-long talks at U.N. headquarters broke off after the United States – along with Russia and other major arms producers – said it had problems with the draft treaty and asked for more time.

But the U.N. General Assembly’s disarmament committee moved quickly after Obama’s win to approve a resolution calling for a new round of talks March 18-28. It passed with 157 votes in favor, none against and 18 abstentions.”

Note in the underlined part above that this is in relation to the “Disarmament Committee.” Take note that it does not say background checks, or anything of the like. It is very clear, it states, “Disarmament Committee”! This also shows that Obama would not discuss this until after the election. So was this what he was heard talking to Russia about stating he would have more flexibility after the election? It seems to indicate that Obama held off any ideas of disarmament until after the election and it shows here that it was done due to political reasons. Now how is it that the President, who is supposed to hold the Constitution higher than the United Nations, seems to have bowed down to them after the election?

Even the Catholic Church is being attacked by Obama’s socialist agenda. In a recent video the narrator speaks of just how much Obama has aligned his ideology with those of Stalin, Hitler and others that have worked to bring forth the Socialist ideology into the free world. Catholics have exposed the socialist agenda for what it is and Obama is very good at dividing this nation and the Catholics. In a confirmation to what we are speaking about, watch this brief video.

Once you view this video you will understand what this nation and Christians are up against with Obama! The United Nations Small Arms Treaty is but a small part of this entire plan because once they take the guns away, they obtain all the control and then they begin to tear this nation down and even those who now love Obama will pay the ultimate price because they will be nothing more than pawns in his aim to become the first “king” of the United States, or maybe the first “Dictator” of the United States. In either case, the United Nations Small Arms Treaty figures into this master plan as a major part to eliminate the ownership of any sort of gun. The United Nations has courted Obama on this issue and Obama has fallen in line with the United Nations, but the Constitution remains the chief obstacle in Obama’s wish to join the World in banning people from having weapons. This can be seen from what is below from Hot Air:

“The United Nations’ overwhelming approval Tuesday of an arms trade treaty opposed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) sets up a showdown between President Obama and the powerful gun lobby’s friends on Capitol Hill.

President Obama is expected to sign the treaty within the next few months after the United States joined 153 other countries in supporting the treaty.”

Only State Attorney General Greg Abbot from Texas has come to the forefront on this issue. If the rest of the States would join in with him on this, it would send a very clear message to Obama that his ideology does not fit into that of the United States and maybe if Obama wants to rule like that he should resign as President and move to Venezuela where he could become a dictator without any constraints upon him! Mr. Abbot presented the following regarding the United Nations Small Arms treaty.

“As the United States has required from the outset of these negotiations, nothing in this treaty could ever infringe on the rights of American citizens under our domestic law or the Constitution, including the Second Amendment,” the statement said.

Greg Abbott, the Texas attorney general, urged Obama not to sign the treaty. He said it could “draw law-abiding gun owners and gun store operators into a complex web of bureaucratic red tape created by a new department at the UN devoted to overseeing the treaty.”

Abbot writes, “when the Constitution says, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” it means no one—including the UN—can infringe that right.”

Now the entire idea of any sort of treaty with the United Nations especially when it seems to ‘infringe” upon our Constitutional rights, not only does not make any sense, but it borders upon treason itself! Wake up people and take a very close look at this. It is not about small arms. It is about the very freedom of our nation. It is about the very fabric of our society. It is about our Constitution and what it does! If you do not stand against this treaty, you do not stand next to the United States Constitution!

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/04/the-un-small-arms-treaty-is-not-a...

Comment by Gordon Ray Kissinger on April 14, 2013 at 4:09pm: TIME TO BOYCOTT REMINGTON

Back in February, several gun manufacturers decided to boycott law enforcement in states that are hostile to the Second Amendment, states like New York for instance. They would not be providing weapons or ammunition. Within a week that number had grown by over 700%.

In the first article I provided information for several gun manufacturers that could be contacted to come on board with this boycott, including Glock, Sig Sauer, Smith & Wesson and Remington. Well, now we know where Remington stands. They stand on the side of government as they have let it be known that they will be staying in New York and they have now acquired a government contract worth $80 million.

Remington informed New York state lawmakers that they were planning to spend $20 million to upgrade their manufacturing facility in Mohawk Valley. The word was that they were considering moving if New York implemented stricter gun control laws as they have in the NY SAFE Act. Remington had been approached by several states to move.

Lawmakers spoke with Remington about their expansion. The company has received $5.5 million in state incentives over the past five years.

While that is in the past, news has come out from New York Congressman Richard Hanna regarding an $80 million contract. According to his website:

UTICA, N.Y. – U.S. Representative Richard Hanna today announced that Remington Arms has been awarded a nearly $80 million contract to produce more than 5,000 sniper rifles for the U.S. military. The work will be done in Ilion by Mohawk Valley employees.

The federal contract comes from the Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), a division of the U.S. Department of Defense. The contract will be awarded over the course of 10 years.

“The award of this contract to Remington Defense further shows that they are the premier manufacturer of sniper rifles for our Armed Forces,” Rep. Hanna said. “I have full confidence that this contract will be fulfilled with the high quality and standards that define our Ilion workforce. I fully support Remington Arms and will continue working to ensure that the company and its dedicated employees can thrive in Herkimer County for generations to come.”

Sniper rifles for the military, eh? At $80 million, that comes out to $16,000 per rifle over the next ten years. This comes on the heels of Serbu firearms saying they would not be providing their .50 caliber sniper rifles to the New York Police Department.

While these rifles are being manufactured for the U.S. military, one does wonder if this would also keep channels open to provide firearms to New York Police as well.

The irony in all of this is that New York, which has a clearly anti-gun government, will profit tens of millions of dollars from the production of guns through employee’s taxes, sales tax and more.

While I own at least one Remington firearm, I will not be purchasing further products by Remington, including ammunition.

Freedom Group owns Remington, along with several other gun manufacturers, including Marlin, DPMS, Para, and Bushmaster.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/04/remington-sells-out-to-ny-for-80-...

Comment by Gordon Ray Kissinger on April 14, 2013 at 4:08pm: Feinstein: Private Guns Sales Play Into Terrorists’ Hands

During an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said expanded background checks are “not enough,” and private gun sales cannot continue because they allow terrorists to buy guns in the United States.

“Can a terrorist currently buy a gun in this country? Yes. Can a felon? Yes. You go to a gun show and virtually no questions are asked,” Feinstein claimed.

Joe Scarborough chimed in later in the segment to echo Feinstein’s claim, asserting, “So now we have al Qaeda terrorists saying, ‘Kill Americans, it’s easy, just go to gun shows, get an assault weapon.’”

In addition, Feinstein believes the failure of the filibuster threat against Senate gun control opens the door to her “assault weapons” ban once again.

Post Continues on www.breitbart.com

Comment by Gordon Ray Kissinger on April 14, 2013 at 4:06pm: Police, ‘anti-gun’ prosecutor clash with soldiers in area around Fort Hood [VIDEO]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/12/police-anti-gun-prosecutor-clash-...

Patrick Howley

Investigative Reporter

The conflict between law enforcement and armed military personnel in the community around Fort Hood, one of America’s largest military bases, has recently and repeatedly involved the issue of gun control — and the tension has been exacerbated in part by an Obama-supporting prosecutor described as a “bandleader” of anti-gun efforts in the heavily conservative community.

The conflict reached a fever pitch last month, when Texas police arrested an active-duty Army sergeant for “rudely displaying” a hunting rifle. The sergeant, C.J. Grisham, established an online legal defense fund after he was, in his words, “illegally arrested and disarmed” for carrying the firearm.

“While out hiking with my son through backcountry roads to help him earn his Eagle Scout rank, I was illegally arrested and disarmed without cause. I was thrown in jail and my lawfully owned weapons were confiscated without receipt or notice,” Grisham wrote on the website for the defense fund.

Video of the incident obtained by The Daily Caller shows officers defending their behavior to Grisham while restraining him.

“In this day and age, [people] are alarmed when they see someone with what you have,” one of the officers tells Grisham in the video. “They don’t care what the law is.”

Grisham, who is stationed at Fort Hood, was arrested in his hometown of Temple, Texas, east of the base, after police stopped him for carrying an unconcealed rifle slung over his shoulder. Texas is a right-to-carry state, and law-abiding gun permit owners can carry rifles and hunting weapons openly, so long as the weapons are not being carried in a threatening way.

But one of the Temple police officers told Grisham that anyone holding a gun is considered dangerous, according to the video.

“When you alarm people, and they call us,” one of the officers in the video begins to say, after Grisham asks why the officiers failed to ask for his concealed-carry permit.

“And did you explain to them what the law is, sir?” Grisham asks.

“They don’t care what the law is,” the officer replies. Graham then shoots back, “Do you care what the law is?”

“In this day and age, they’re alarmed when they see somebody with what you have,” the officer replies.

“Just because a guy has got a firearm, he’s dangerous?” Grisham asks, drawing the reply, “Yes, sir.”

One of the officers tells Grisham he was “rudely displaying” the rifle.

Temple police, who did not respond to a request to comment for this story, said in a statement to the local press that Grisham refused to hand over his weapon when asked, forcing them to make the arrest.

Officers placed Grisham in handcuffs, took him into custody and escorted his 15-year old son home. Grisham was booked for resisting arrest. He then made bond and retained an attorney.

His charge was later reduced from resisting arrest to the class B misdemeanor of “interrupting, disrupting, impeding and interfering with a peace officer while performing a duty.”

Texas private investigator Tony Garcia, who has been retained by Grisham’s attorney, Kurt Glass, told TheDC that Grisham’s arrest was the result of “a little incident on the outskirts of town.”

“People see guns that are not on a police officer, and they don’t think it’s right,” Garcia said.

Grisham’s case is yet another result of an apparently longstanding problem in Bell County, which incorporates both Fort Hood and the residential city of Temple. County law enforcement officials and active-duty soldiers have frequently sparred over traffic stops and other incidents, including ones related to gun laws, according to several observers.

“The military is young guys, a lot of adrenaline. So you have the normal friction that’s going to happen. Sometimes the soldier is a little higher-ranking, and they generally know the law. So it gets to be, when the officer on the street makes contact with him, the officer has got to make split-second decisions. It tends to be more of an ego thing,” Grisham attorney Glass told TheDC.

According to Glass, Grisham’s case is reminiscent of an incident involving another of his clients, an Iraq War veteran named Nathaniel Sampson, who was arrested in Bell County for carrying a concealed firearm into Mextroplex Hospital after his wife was taken there by ambulance for an adverse reaction to an over-the-counter pain medication.

Sampson, a staff sergeant with three tours of duty in Iraq, drove behind the ambulance carrying his wife to the hospital. Immediately inside the hospital, he was stopped by security and admitted that he was carrying a concealed firearm, for which he had a permit. Sampson was arrested by police inside his wife’s hospital room and then charged with unlawful carry, on the grounds that it is illegal to concealed carry in a hospital.

“I didn’t even have a chance to talk to her. I couldn’t even check on her status,” Sampson told TheDC.

“One of the officers said to my face that he was unsure about whether or not I could have the weapon. He told me he was going to go find out. Before he came back, they arrested me anyway,” Sampson said. “One of the officers then apparently walked back and antagonized my wife as I was going to jail.”

Bell County prosecutor Ken Kalafut, described by multiple sources as one of the few recognizable liberals in the heavily Republican area, took on the case.

“The prosecutor in that case [Kalafut] has a picture of President Obama behind him in his office, and he sits there and tells me, ‘I will make sure that gun does not fall into anyone else’s hands. I will have that gun destroyed,’” Glass said.

Kalafut declined to be interviewed for this story. Private investigator Garcia told TheDC that Kalafut is “probably the bandleader” of gun-control efforts in the community.

“There was no evidence against me. The reason the prosecutor wouldn’t drop the case is because he’s a huge, huge, gun-control advocate,” Sampson said.

Glass said he forced Kalafut to drop the case in a process that took 10 months, first arguing that Metroplex Hospital did not have signs posted informing people that concealed carry was forbidden.

“According to penal code 30.06, you must have a sign with one-inch block letters. We call it a thirty-aught-six sign, like the rifle,” Glass said.

“Police make mistakes,” Glass said. “Well, eight months later [Kalafut] says, ‘I’m going to charge him with being intoxicated. I said, ‘He didn’t blow. He never took a field sobriety test.’ The prosecutor said, ‘Yeah, but this makes the case stronger.’”

Prosecutors dropped the case after Glass leaked audio of Sampson’s 911 call to a local reporter, who provided the audio to prosecutors. The audio proved that Sampson was “stone-cold sober,” according to Glass.

“[Prosecutors] wadded up the piece of paper with their signatures on it and stuck it in my mailbox. I’ve framed it. It’s in the hallway here in the office,” Glass said.

Sampson, upset by his 10-month legal experience and the fact that he lost an additional duty title with the military as a result of his charge, asked Glass to file lawsuits against Metroplex Hospital, prompting local business leaders to come to the hospital’s defense behind the scenes.

“Bell County is a real small community. We started talking about a lawsuit, and all of the big firms have represented the hospital in a number of ways, so they called the hospital and told them they’re liable to get sued. So the hospital slapped up some signs,” Glass said.

“I’m a law-abiding citizen. People are being discriminated against,” Sampson said.

Though Grisham faces charges in Bell County, where Sampson endured his legal battle with Kalafut, it is unclear whether Grisham will have a similarly difficult experience.

Grisham has already raised $8,443 through his online legal defense fund, which puts him well on his way to reaching his $11,000 goal.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/12/police-anti-gun-prosecutor-clash-...