When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns!

[PHILIP SCHNEIDER]

`

`

Save us from Barbara Feinstein!

HIT THE DECK!!!

HER FINGERS ON THE TRIGGER!!!

[Jeffery Glenn Scism]

"Sharpton said, “Absolutely, I mean if you look at the Second Amendment it was that you would have militia to protect yourself in case the government came and attacked citizens. First of all, if the government were to come to disarm you, you would not be able to use an automatic weapon to defend yourself. Let's be serious. We're in a world of drones now so the Second Amendment would not help you in that area. It is absurd to try to cite that.”"

We should disarm ourselves because the Government has drones, and we are out-gunned. Wonderful logic.

[Jeffery Glenn Scism]

Nobody taught her  gun safety?

1. There's no such thing as an unloaded gun.

2. Never put your  finger on the trigger UNTIL you are about to shoot.3. Do not wavea weapon around and towards people. Always aim in a safe direction.

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

What would Reagan do – with guns?

Video claims he would support law restricting 2nd Amendment

by Garth Kant

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/what-would-reagan-do-with-guns/#ooid=FpO...

s support for laws restricting Second Amendment rights drops, gun-control activists are trying to use the Gipper to drum up enthusiasm to create a gun-free society.

A video by a group called United Network of Rational Americans uses footage of the assassination attempt against Reagan on March 30, 1981, as well as a snippet from an op-ed piece he wrote for the New York Times in 1991.

“This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now – the Brady bill – had been law back in 1981,” the video quotes Reagan, referring to the attempt on his life that seriously injured him, Press Secretary James Brady, Washington police officer Thomas Delahanty and Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy.

Reagan also wrote, “since many handguns are acquired in the heat of passion (to settle a quarrel, for example) or at times of depression brought on by potential suicide, the Brady bill would provide a cooling-off period that would certainly have the effect of reducing the number of handgun deaths.”

On this, at least, Reagan may have been wrong. A 2003 study by a professor who favors gun-control and was “regarded as the nation’s foremost authority on gun control” showed no drop in guns deaths after the Brady Bill became law.

The study by Philip J. Cook, Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology showed a gradual decline in gun homicides from 1993 to 2003, but he noted that was a trend that had begun before Brady became law.

“Control and treatment states had the same gun homicide rates before and after the Brady law passed,” Cook said. “It made no discernable difference. There is no statistically significant effect.”

The Brady Bill was signed by President Clinton in 1993 and went into effect on February 28, 1994. It required background checks on anyone buying a handgun from a federally licensed dealer. The law was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1997 as an infringement on states’ rights. A new version covering all guns passed in 1998.

The Senate will consider legislation next month to expand background checks to private and gun show sales. Senators will also consider measures to increase penalties for gun trafficking and provide more money for school safety. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., decided to drop a bill by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to ban so-called assault weapons, when he decided it would not have sufficient support. Feinstein has vowed to offer her ban as an amendment.

Reagan’s writings on gun control before the op-ed piece may cast doubt on whether he would support sweeping gun-control measures.

He penned a comprehensive article in 1967 for Guns and Ammo that evidenced a passionate support for Second Amendment rights.

He wrote:

“In my opinion, proposals to outlaw or confiscate guns are simply unrealistic panacea. We are never going to prevent murder; we are never going to eliminate crime; we are never going to end violent action by the criminals and the crazies–with or without guns.

“The Second Amendment is clear, or ought to be. It appears to leave little, if any, leeway for the gun control advocate.

“We may not have a well-regulated militia, but it does not necessarily follow that we should not be prepared to have one. The day could easily come when we need one.

“The Second Amendment gives the individual citizen a means of protection against the despotism of the state.

“Now I believe our nation’s leaders are good and well-meaning people. I do not believe that they have any desire to impose a dictatorship upon us. But this does not mean that such will always be the case. A nation rent internally, as ours has been in recent years, is always ripe for a ‘man on a white horse.’ A deterrent to that man, or to any man seeking unlawful power, is the knowledge that those who oppose him are not helpless.”

At the White House yesterday, Obama asked supporters to pressure Congress to pass stricter background checks.

“If they’re not part of that 90 percent that agree that we should make it harder for a criminal or someone with a severe mental illness to get a gun, you should ask them why not,” Obama said.

The figure he stated of 90 percent would seem to conflict dramatically with the results of a CBS News poll released three days ago that found support for stricter gun-control measures has dropped 10 percent since the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December.

It found, “support for stricter gun control laws stands at 47 percent today, down from a high of 57 percent just after the shootings. Thirty-nine percent want those laws kept as they are, and another 11 percent want them made less strict.”

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

GUN OWNERS: FIGHTING WITH AN UNLOADED GUN

By: Devvy
March 30, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

Since the unspeakable horror in Newtown, CT, last December, the lackeys who serve the ruling elite have stepped up efforts to ban specific types of weapons. There has never been any question the desired goal is to disarm we the people because the Second Amendment is the only thing standing between us and those who wish to rule us with an iron fist.

Efforts to nullify the Second Amendment have been stepped up with the usual cast of clowns releasing more flatulence than a massive herd of cattle:

• Rev. Jackson: Some 'Anti-American People' Arming Themselves in U.S.Have 'Confeder...
• Michael Moore: ‘Calm Down, White People, and Put Away Your Guns’
• Politico Reporter: LaPierre Is ‘Tired, Old White Guy That Is Clingi... (Another empty-headed female)
• Belafonte blasts 'white America' for black gun crimes -NAACP forum ...

Al Sharpton: “People Do Not Have The Right To Unregulated Rights In This Country”

"Sharpton and other black leaders were meeting and then held a press conference. In that press conference, Sharpton said, “Absolutely, I mean if you look at the Second Amendment it was that you would have militia to protect yourself in case the government came and attacked citizens. First of all, if the government were to come to disarm you, you would not be able to use an automatic weapon to defend yourself. Let's be serious. We're in a world of drones now so the Second Amendment would not help you in that area. It is absurd to try to cite that.”

What's absurd is that buffoon speaking on an issue he knows nothing about.

Then, we have victims of mind melt; their brain has been washed by the relentless propaganda dished out to Americans on a daily basis for decades:

Des Moines Register publishes gun-ban column advocating deadly violence against NRA, GOP leaders

"In a column that appeared after the shooting with the headline "Kaul: Nation needs a new agenda on guns," he proposed a new liberal agenda: repeal the Second Amendment, declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal, and well, make violent threats to Republican leaders and NRA members. The Des Moines Register published this junk on December 29.

"I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control," he wrote. Is that a threatening James Byrd reference? "And if that didn't work, I’d adopt radical measures," he continued. This was how he spelled out the other agenda items, which included killing NRA members who wouldn't surrender their arms:" (Rest at link above)

Naturally, Butch Napolitano's thugs from the Department of Fatherland Security ignored promoting the murder of NRA members.

Over the past few years, great effort has been made to reach out to sheriffs across the country as the tyranny coming out of the Outlaw Congress and various unconstitutional agencies continue to terrorize Americans over things like raw milk. Actually, Jack McLamb's association, Police & Military Against The New World Order, has been at it for more than a decade. Jack is a former police officer himself; a real gentleman. Former sheriff, Richard Mack, has been out there working hard, reaching out to sheriffs around the country.

They have been very successful. So successful, in fact, the carnival barker WH press secretary, Jay Carney, spewed this vomit with a straight face:

"CNSNews.com asked, “There have been 381 sheriffs that have signed on saying they would not enforce gun laws they believed were unconstitutional. Would the administration have a problem if local law enforcement did not enforce whatever gun package were to pass?”

"Carney responded that he had not seen the list of sheriffs. “I think as a general proposition we think that people ought to follow the law,” Carney told CNSNews.com. “As an absolute matter of fact in my view, and I think many other constitutional experts, there's not a single measure in this package of proposals the president has put forward that in anyway violates the Constitution. In fact, they reflect the president's commitment to our Second Amendment rights.”

I sincerely appreciate the work of Jack, Richard and all the sheriffs in this country who have stepped forward to show their support for the Second Amendment. However, the word sheriff appears no where in the U.S. Constitution making that office vulnerable to politicians who react with hysterical emotion instead of reason and logic.

Delaware leads nationwide move to strip county sheriffs of power

Law would fire sheriffs for defying gun control measures - Texas:

"The first effort emerged in Texas. Legislation proposed by Dallas DemocraticRep. Yvonne Davis would remove any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal laws. What's more, it would remove any elected or appointed law enforcement officer for simply stating or signing any document stating that they will not obey federal orders. A gun lobbyist told Secrets, "Beware because once something like this is introduced in one state, it will be followed very quickly in several other states."

The bill is H.B. 2127. Pray tell, Ms. Davis - just how do you intend to remove any sheriff in this state? They are elected by the people. One can hope that since our state legislature is controlled by Republicans, both houses, with a Republican governor, that bill won't stand a chance. Texans might want to call their state rep and tell him/her you're outraged Ms. Davis has introduced such a bill.

It's not just a nationwide effort to limit their power, but to abolish the office of sheriff altogether. Mark my words, it's coming.

Then, there are the imbeciles who have zero understanding of the meaning of the Second Amendment:

Utah Governor: "Utah Will Adhere to the Law" and Obey Federal Gun Laws

"As courageous state legislators enlist in the fight to repel the federal government's assault on the Second Amendment, the governor of one western state is telling a liberty-minded state representative to stand down. Governor Gary Herbert of Utah recently called a pro-gun rights bill sponsored by a Utah state representative “an exaggeration” and encouraged the lawmaker to “adhere to the law.” This is not the level of support citizens of the Beehive State would expect from the man they elected to lead their state."

Since 2005, Dr. Edwin Vieira has been trying to educate gun onwers and lawmakers about the constitutional militia. I've been trying, but running into a brick wall from individuals who simply ignore the history of the militia and the true meaning of the Second Amendment. Responses I get from private militia members here and in other states is "we don't need the stinking state". Such geniuses. I hate to break it to you fellas, but as "private" militias, you have zero legal authority to do anything other than target practice.

Last summer I wrote four working papers and one bill for our state legislature.One of the working papers is to reconstitute the constitutional mil.... They were given to members of the legislature. Did I get any support from the militia groups in Texas? Not one that I'm aware of; after all, "We don't need the state."

Our legislature is going to do nothing about a constitutional sound money bill, Agenda 21, revitalizing the constitutional militia or the Seventeenth Amendment. I sent every Republican (they control both houses) a letter directing them to those working papers and the one bill I wrote .I included Dr. Vieria's nine page presentation to the Montana banking committee on a constitutional sound money bill. It cost me about $350.00 for the printing and postage. I might as well have burned the money and not wasted my time. Despite efforts to get the word out to active groups here in Texas, few did anything in contacting state legislators and senators to get three bills written; I wrote one with the working paper. Because there was no pressure, those four issues will not be addressed by our legislature this session. Our legislature goes out of session May 27, 2013, until January 6, 2015. By then it will be too late.Don't Mess With Texas is nothing but empty words.

I'll say it again: militias around the country are doing great work in planning and preparing for disasters to help first responders. They are responsible, patriotic folks. But, there is a difference between the constitutional militia and private ones:

Are you doing your constitutional duty for "homeland security"?

"All this is no merely quaint story-telling about men attired in knee-britches and three-cornered hats, or the anachronistic and academic stuff of Colonial re-enactors and museums at Lexington and Concord. This is what "the Militia of the several States" actually were, codified in every relevant statute of every Colony and independent State throughout a period of almost 150 years prior to ratification of the Constitution. And therefore this is what "the Militia of the several States" still are, because that term incorporated in the Constitution must be interpreted in light of its historical antecedents as known to the Founding Fathers, and continue to be given the selfsame construction until the Constitution is amended (which, with the assistance of Providence, in this particular it never will be). See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920). The only possible difference to be countenanced today actually amounts to an expansion: Now, with the legal emancipation of women, "the Militia of the several States" arguably includes all able-bodied females, who might be called to serve in some capacities in the most critical, last-ditch situations of State and National defense, freeing men for more arduous duties.

"So, constitutionally YOU very likely--indeed, almost surely--are a member of "the Militia of the several States" in the State in which you live. And, if so, the Constitution imposes a duty on YOU to keep and bear arms in the Militia for the defense of your State and Nation, because that is the meaning of the Militia: the people in arms, and therefore the people with arms. And, most importantly, their own arms: their own private property in their own personal possession.

"Moreover, because the duty to keep and bear arms is of constitutional stature, each individual enjoys an absolute constitutional right as against every level, department, or branch of government--National, State, and local--to fulfill that duty. Inasmuch as the Constitution requires all of We the People eligible for the Militia to possess their own private arms in their capacity as a governmental institution, then on no account, for no reason, and by the application of no power can any level of government disarm any of them. Indeed, to argue that any other branch of government may disarm the one branch of government that the Constitution specifically requires to be armed is so illogical as to verge on insanity."

Private militia have no power despite the nasty, patronizing emails...:

"Although some of these private “militias” claim “common law” as their basis, they cannot stand on such a foundation. For “common law” had nothing whatsoever to do with the formation and operation of the Militia in any of the Colonies or independent States prior to ratification of the Constitution. All of those Militia were the products of charters or statutes. And in none of them did judges or sheriffs play any directing role. Under the Constitution, therefore, the same pattern must obtain today. As wholly private organizations with no legal authority peculiar to themselves—for certainly not a single one of them has been empowered by a State statute to participate in the activities they have taken upon themselves—these “militias” are necessarily not parts of the government of any State or Locality."

"The Militia of the Several States" Guarantee the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

"Although the Constitution recognizes "the Militia of the several States" as State institutions, the States themselves cannot dispense with the Militia, in whole or material part, because the Constitution presupposes the permanence of the Militia, and the Constitution is "the supreme Law of the Land", which all State officials "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support". Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3.....

"The Constitution reserves to the States "the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress". Article I, Section 8, Clause 16. If Congress fails to "prescribe[ ]" such "discipline", and in all cases where any Congressionally mandated "discipline" does not apply, the States do not need Congress's permission to administer their Militia as they may judge to be necessary and proper. Prior to ratification of the Constitution, the States' powers over their Militia were plenary. The Constitution delegated to Congress certain limited powers with respect to the Militia--which powers, if Congress properly exercises them, are "the supreme Law of the Land" that supersede conflicting State laws. Article VI, Clause 2. Otherwise, the States retain a concurrent power to enact laws to govern their Militia. Amendment X."

Sadly, even state lawmakers don't understand the true militia:

South Carolina Unorganized Militia And Assault Weapons to Repel Federal Tyranny

"As a warning shot over the bow, South Carolina is poised to take action to protect the rights of its citizens. Congratulations, you are a member of South Carolina's “unorganized militia.” Now that you know that, state Sen. Tom Corbin, R-Greenville, wants to make sure you have access to guns in case the governor ever calls on you to defend the state. Corbin has proposed a new state law — unanimously approved Wednesday by a Senate subcommittee — that would guarantee all members of the unorganized militia “shall have the right, at his own expense, to acquire, possess, keep, and bear all firearms that could be legally acquired or possessed by a citizen of South Carolina as of December 31, 2012.”

"Translated that means — barring an almost certain constitutional challenge if the proposal becomes law — you can buy an assault weapon, regardless of whether the federal government bans them, as President Barack Obama and others have proposed. The proposed law is based on a state law, dating back to 1881, that refers to an “unorganized militia” made up of “all able bodied persons over 17 years of age.”

Would Sen. Corbin please tell me where in the Second Amendment it says unorganized militia? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." While I appreciate Sen. Corbin's effort, it doesn't solve the problem of the current push to ban certain weapons. This latest is just another incremental step.

Ted Nugent took some actor named Jim Carrey to the woodshed over an anti-Second Amendment video he apparently made. But, why hasn't Ted Nugent stepped up to the plate to support revitalizing the constitutional militia? His voice would activate a whole lot of gun owners.

Keep sending your money to the NRA. But remember this: Wayne LaPierre talks the big talk, but without the NRA's big money, Harry Reid can't keep getting reelected. Wayne LaPierre is a friend of Comrade Reid: Video: NRA’s Wayne Lapierre Praises Anti-Gun Harry Reid. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. Harry Reid has treaded carefully regarding the so-called assault weapons ban. Like any hooker on a street corner, he knows where his next buck comes from - your membership dues.

Getting Gun Owners' Information Is the NRA's Business. "It kind of makes you wonder if there isn't someone in the NRA's membership department who fantasizes about how much easier their job would be if there really was a national gun registry."

Oath Keepers are doing a bang up job in trying to educate Americans, gun owners or not, about the constitutional militia: Oath Keepers group issues nationwide call to support militia docume.... I don't know how many of their members have been working as some of us tried here in Texas to revitalize the militia in their respective states.

For the life of me, I still cannot fathom why a fine organization like Gun Owners of America hasn't mobilized their millions of members to work towards the only real solution to stopping gun control. GOA has a full page of all of Dr. Edwin Vieira's militia columns here. If they put out a special mailing to their millions of members outlining a game plan for the state houses, just think of what could happen!

I say this to the gun owners in this country who continue to ignore the only real solution: You keep fighting this war with an unloaded gun and you're going to continue to lose.

If gun owners think for one minute this push to disarm us is going away, you're in denial. Throwing money at "conservatives" in the Outlaw Congress or signing petitions to get some bill passed in the Outlaw Congress to "protect our Second Amendment rights" has done NOTHING to stop what's going on. Throwing more money at the NRA or other gun groups to stop the never ending legislation in state houses and the Outlaw Congress has done NOTHING to stop what's going on. Remember the old saying: Doing the same thing over and over again is a form of insanity.

If gun owners in this country don't stand up as a whole and go after their state legislatures, we will continue to see this: Court deals blow to NRA, Second Amendment in gun case

If gun owners in this country really wanted to stop the constant attack on the Second Amendment, they would have rallies at their state capitol with thousands demanding their legislature revitalize the constitutional militia. If you don't think that will do the trick, let me remind folks about how the patriots of Tennessee defeated the effort to enact a state sales tax:

Tennesseans stage tax revolt - Massive revolt at state Capitol stop... (June 2000)

"As protesters began to gather outside the legislative chambers Monday evening, several legislators were taken away by ambulance and hospitalized for blood pressure and heart problems as tensions rose and tempers flared. By Tuesday morning, tax protesters were brandishing signs reading, “Let's send them all to the ER!”

"Trouble began brewing Friday evening as the state income tax proposal emerged from a legislative conference committee considering the state budget after local news shows had already aired. Legislators supporting the income tax had hoped that a vote would be taken on the proposal Saturday morning to avoid giving anti-tax groups time to mount a repeat of the tax revolt that occurred last November, when an earlier income-tax measure died as taxpayers besieged legislative offices with tens of thousands of calls and e-mails every hour. But the hopes of income-tax supporters were dashed when two of Nashville’s competing talk radio stations, WLAC and WTN, joined forces and served as the catalyst for opposition to the legislative proposal."

I hope you read the full article. It's also how we, led by Jodi Waters out in California, beat the biggest oil companies in the world over the MTBE gasoline additive disaster. It is no longer in any gasoline in the country. We took our angry voices to the state house and we won.

The patriots of Tennessee won. How about gun owners in this country? More donations, petitions, endless lawsuits or raising hell at your state capitol until your legislators "get it"? Put up or shut up as they say.

Links:

City looks to make gun ownership mandatory
Several columns by Dr. Edwin Vieira on the constitutional militia f....
President George Washington Structured The Militia
System To Prevent Treason And Tyranny By Public Officials.
Gun Control, the Dick Act of 1902, Bills of Attainder and Ex Post F...
'Our civilian-military face-off' (Sacramento Bee, November 30, 1997).
"Bill of Rights No Obstacle for the [Marine] Corps.

Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.

 

---

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party.

Devvy's regularly posted new columns are on her site at: www.devvy.com. You can also sign up for her free email alerts.

E-mail is: [e-mail]

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

Obama uses executive power to move gun control agenda forward

By Jordy Yager - 03/29/13 06:00 AM ET

 

President Obama is quietly moving forward on gun control.

The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

The executive steps will give federal law enforcement officials access to more data about guns and their owners, help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, and lay the groundwork for future legislative efforts.
 
It is unclear whether the National Rifle Association (NRA) will challenge any of the executive actions in court. A spokesman for the NRA did not return a request for comment.

The moves, which have not been widely touted by the administration, come as Obama ups his pressure on Congress to take action on gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. The Senate is expected to begin floor consideration of legislation when it returns in April.

Efforts to renew a ban in semi-automatic weapons with military-style features and high-capacity magazines have stalled in Congress. Democratic senators still hope to move gun control legislation that includes tougher background checks, but conservative Republican senators have threatened to filibuster it.

If approved by the Senate, any bill would then face tough sledding in the GOP-controlled House.

Gun control groups say Obama’s piecemeal approach falls short of what could be accomplished by legislation overhauling the nation’s gun laws. Still, they argue the actions remain important and will reduce gun violence.

“They’ve taken direct aim at some of the bigger problems in the regulatory part of the issue and they’re doing it in the right way and that’s going to be very helpful,” said Mark Glaze, the director of Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns group.

“Ultimately you need to close the loopholes in the law that will continue to undermine enforcement, but what they’re doing is precisely right.”

They also illustrate the administration’s power to change gun laws despite inaction on Capitol Hill, a practice the president may need to duplicate in other policy areas amid congressional gridlock.

Obama’s steps began the same day he unveiled his 23 gun control proposals in January, when he issued a memorandum requiring all nine federal law enforcement agencies to submit guns they confiscate to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing.

According to a notice sent by Attorney General Eric Holder last month, the agencies will have to submit a report to the Justice Department (DOJ) within the next month showing they are compliant.

The move, and several more like it, is aimed at strengthening the quality and quantity of records contained within the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), according to a DOJ spokeswoman.

For years, federal law enforcement officials and gun control advocates have complained that the NICS gun records are not complete, making it easier for people with criminal records and mental illnesses to buy guns. 

A key factor in strengthening the NICS database, they say, is getting states to report more information on mental health and criminal history records.

Earlier this month, the DOJ announced a $20 million grant program aimed at incentivizing states to submit more mental health and criminal history information into the NICS database.

Also this month, the White House Office of Management and Budget said it would consider changing rules to make it easier for states to share mental health records with the NICS.

Through these moves, Glaze said the administration has addressed two of the main reasons for incomplete trace data: a lack of money and privacy concerns.

“By taking direct aim at the two biggest problems inhibiting the database, they are taking a significant chunk out of 50 percent of the system’s weaknesses,” said Glaze.

In January, Obama directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to begin studying the causes of gun violence for the first time since Congress, at the behest of the NRA, began blocking funding for such research in 1996.

The CDC has since awarded a contract to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), which this spring will soon begin looking at the role video games and social media play in gun violence, as well as whether gun technologies and access to guns can be used to reduce violence.

The aim is to affect future legislation by giving lawmakers empirical data on an area that has been largely bereft for nearly two decades. Without government research, gun control advocates say they are forced to rely on private studies, which do not hold the same clout on Capitol Hill.

“You can’t make good policy without good data, and for a generation the NRA has been throwing dirt in the eyes of Congress so they can’t actually see what’s going on around them," said Glaze.

As part of the agency’s preliminary research, the CDC and IOM will host an all-day conference on April 23 in Washington, D.C., to hear from firearm and gun violence experts; researchers; and advocates on both sides of the issue, according to Richard Feldman, a former NRA lobbyist who now leads the Independent Firearm Owners Association.

Feldman said he questions whether the CDC can lawfully spend money on studies that Congress has barred, but he plans to attend and noted that the NRA’s former research director, Paul Blackman, has been invited to the event as well.

In another administrative move, Obama directed the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to examine the efficacy of existing gun trigger locks and firearm safe standards to determine if they need to be improved. The CPSC has partnered with the American Society for Testing and Materials International, but does not have a firm timeline for when its examination will be finished, according to a spokesman.

Separately, the administration has given $1 million to the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) to create, produce and distribute a nationwide multimedia ad campaign on safe gun ownership and storage. The campaign is heading into the research phase and is expected to air by the early fall, according to a NCPC spokeswoman.

And regional offices with the General Services Administration have begun to reach out to local schools, advising them about the agency’s “Cooperative Purchasing” program, which gives discounted rates to schools on security equipment including: surveillance cameras, emergency communication systems, security design and support, and employee background check systems.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/290885-obama-uses-execut...
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

State grants Secret Service vast new powers

Soon will be able to enforce Obama gun laws without sheriffs' help

by Jack Minor

A bill is heading to Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper’s desk that Republican lawmakers say would give members of the Secret Service broad arrest powers in the state and could provide a framework for federal agents eventually to enforce gun restrictions.

“This is absolutely insane,” Rep. Lori Saine, R-Dacono, said. “In theory if a Secret Service agent is in a county where the sheriff has refused to enforce some of the recent unenforceable gun laws, the agent could arrest an individual if he believes the law has been broken.”

The idea actually aligns with an Obama agenda to create vast new restrictions and regulations on guns. WND has reported that hundreds of sheriffs nationwide, including many in Colorado, have said they cannot enforce federal restrictions that would violate the Second Amendment.

In Colorado, Weld County Sheriff John Cooke said he and many other county sheriffs “won’t bother” with several laws poised to go into effect in Colorado because they would be impossible to enforce.

One of the laws would require private sellers to do a background check on purchasers in private gun transaction, but the sheriffs wonder how to keep track of whether gun owners are meeting the new requirements.

Cooke said many new gun laws are “feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable” and would “give a false sense of security.”

Cooke said he and other sheriffs are considering filing a lawsuit to block the laws. And sheriffs in other parts of the nation agree, with more than 340 already banding together to promise to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

The Colorado Legislature also passed a bill putting a 15-round limit on ammunition magazines.

What’s really RIGHT about America these days? Find out in “America the Beautiful” by Dr. Ben Carson.

The new bill regarding the Secret Service, SB-13-013, passed on a nearly party line vote in the Democrat-controlled House and is now awaiting the governor’s signature. The bill grants members of the Secret Service arrest powers by considering them to be a peace officer, putting them on a par with state law-enforcement officials with respect to arrest authority.

The legislation does not only apply to agents guarding the president or other government officials but also to special agents, uniformed division officers, physical security technicians, physical security specialists and special officers of the United States Secret Service.

Republican lawmakers say that when they asked why the bill was needed they were given a series of conflicting answers.

Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, said he was told the purpose of the bill was to make it easier to hold a person for mental health reasons.

“When I asked in committee why they need this I was told it was so we can exercise 72-hour mental holds on our own citizens,” Lundberg said.

“I found it curious that this was the big reason they thought they needed it. Currently a police officer, doctor, psychiatrists, registered nurses and other professionals just on the strength of their word can say they want a person taken against their will and put in a mental institution for up to three business days, meaning it could be even longer if it was over the weekend, for an evaluation as to whether they are mentally sane or a danger to themselves or others.”

Sen. Vicki Marble, R-Fort Collins, said despite the bill being sponsored by a fellow Republican, the 72-hour mental hold caught the attention of several Republicans in the Senate.

“This was one of the big flags for us in the bill,” Marble said. “It’s very suspicious because we have the separation of federal, state and even the local police services. Everyone has their own jurisdiction, and there is a special reason for keeping federal agents away.

“No federal authority should have the ability to detain somebody for 72 hours,” she said. “If there is a legitimate reason for doing so for someone who is mentally ill, that should come at the local level where people in the community know one another.”

Marble said the mental hold was the reason the bill slipped under the radar.

“The mental health hold was what they testified to in committee, and that was the big thing they didn’t want to get out, but it does give them the authority to put that hold on people.”

Lundberg said the big concern is that the bill essentially places members of the Secret Service on an equal footing with law-enforcement, without being constrained by jurisdictional issues.

“If you look at the bill, it says they can operate alongside of local police authorities and function as equals you might say,” he said. “However, when you read it carefully it basically gives them state police power so whatever power a regular policeman such as the state patrol, sheriff’s office or local police has they will have also.”

However, in debate on the House side, Saine said she was given a different reason for why legislators needed to pass the bill.

“Rep. Jared Wright was talking about how when he was in committee he asked several times why they needed it, and the reason given was if there was a motorcade and something happened during the procession the Secret Service needed the authority to arrest the perpetrators,” Saine said.

“Then we were told by the sponsor that’s not it, it’s because they were going to help our local law enforcement and sheriffs with check and wire fraud. However, check and wire fraud are not mentioned anywhere in the bill,” she said.

The bill states that the agents are automatically granted peace officer status when several conditions apply. For instance, if the agent is responding to a non-federal felony or misdemeanor being committed in their presence, he has the full authority to arrest any Colorado citizen.

The bill also gives the Secret Service agents wide discretion to arrest citizens based merely on probable cause that a non-federal felony or misdemeanor involving injury or threat of injury to a person or property has been or is being committed.

Lundberg said one of the problems with bills like this is they start out by giving broad authority to a government agency or entity, then they place language later in the bill that appears to restrict that authority in an attempt to provide cover for those expressing alarm about the language.

“Often in laws like this they will give broad authority in one section, then later in another section they will have wording which appears to restrict the authority,” he explained. “Unlike the state’s law enforcement, the Secret Service would not have any jurisdictional concerns. Under this bill they can go anywhere in the state of Colorado regardless of jurisdiction.”

But Wright, a former law-enforcement official, told Marble the Secret Service told him their current policies would prohibit them from arresting Colorado citizens under the bill’s provisions.

“They told Jared that making an arrest of a Colorado citizen for a misdemeanor crime unrelated to their own duties would actually violate their own guidelines,” Marble said. “So his question was why are we passing a law that violates their own internal policies.”

In Texas, a Democrat in the state legislature has proposed a bill that would allow the state to remove an elected sheriff for refusing to enforce the law. The bill defines law as including any rule, regulation, executive order, court order, statute or constitutional provision.

After the passage of a several gun control laws, which would among other things restrict magazine size and prohibit private sales between individuals without a background check, several sheriffs have said the laws are unenforceable and they will not enforce what they call unconstitutional laws.

Under Colorado law, the only individual with the authority to arrest a sheriff is the coroner.

Saine said she believes the bill is intended to be used as a foundation for later legislation that will surrender still greater control to federal officials.

“There’ve been so many explanations for the reasons they really need this bill passed. So what is it really?” Saine asked. “I believe it is intended to be used for setting up a framework so that at some other time they could expand it to possibly include being able to arrest a sheriff who is refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws. They would justify it by saying that since we’ve already given the Secret Service this ability, why not give them just one more?”

Lundberg said he agrees with Saine’s assessment that the bill could be used to expand federal power beyond what is stated in its language.

“It does give Secret Service powers in a broad sense, but I’m not sure the changes as stated will automatically change things significantly. It’s not a broad overreach, but it is an overreach. It’s one more step in the wrong direction.”

Lundberg said rather than expanding the ability of federal officials, state and local officials should be looking for opportunities to stand up against federal intervention in local affairs.

“I believe sheriffs can enforce their authority,” Lundberg said. “I also think we need to draw the line as clearly as we can and at every opportunity to say the states are in charge, not the federal government.”

WND has reported that sheriffs across the country are expressing concern that they cannot enforce a Washington mandate that clearly violates the Second Amendment.

A growing list of now more than 340 sheriffs who have reportedly vowed to uphold the Constitution against efforts to undermine Americans’ gun rights is being accumulated by the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers....

As WND also reported, Cooke said he is getting political pressure to support the laws. He said he received an email chain pointing out that Senate Majority Leader John Morse, a Democrat, said if a salary bill were introduced, it would not be until late in the session, after the gun-control bills had been voted on.

Cooke said while he’s not willing to conclude the emails meet the legal definition of extortion, it was apparent that was the intent.

“When you look at the email, I don’t see how you could look at it any other way,” Cooke said. “It definitely implied the reason a pay raise bill was being held up was to punish us for our stance against these gun bills. Then they had another email suggesting if we were to support this bill, it would look better for us and maybe we can get a bill introduced for a raise.

“To me, that didn’t sit well at all. I’m not willing to say its extortion yet, but it just looked bad. We were not willing to compromise on our principles. We felt the bill was bad, and we were not going to support it.”

The sheriff’s pushback against the gun measures is significant because Democratic lawmakers are crafting similar bills in other states.

“The bills are a model for what they’ll try to push in Congress,” said Independence Institute research director and Denver University...

“Colorado is a pawn for the Obama-Biden plan,” he added.

In fact, Vice-President Joe Biden called undecided Democrats and pushed for passage of the bills. Obama is scheduled to visit the state in just a few days.

While some see the measures as models for other states, laws that preserve gun rights are gaining momentum.

The first of these was the Firearms Freedom Act passed in Montana, which says any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.

Lawmakers in other states are now following suit.

Two senators in Ohio have introduced a bill which would prohibit firearms seizures, registration and bans in their state.

A bill in Kentucky would prohibit the state from enforcing new federal gun-control laws, if enacted.

Idaho’s House passed a bill that would criminalize enforcing any new federal laws that ban, restrict, confiscate or require registration of firearms or ammunition in violation of the state’s constitution.

A bill in Louisiana would prohibit the enforcement of federal restrictions regarding the ownership or possession of semi-automatic firearms.

A bill that would prohibit the enforcement of federal gun laws passed in the House Public Safety Committee in Oklahoma.

The Texas House is considering a measure to prevent state and local police from enforcing new federal gun-control measures.

A bill in Arizona would make it a felony for the federal government to enforce new laws or regulations on guns, accessories and ammunition owned or manufactured in the state.

And a bill in Michigan would exempt firearms and firearms accessories made and sold exclusively in Michigan from federal gun restrictions.

Some of the strongest language to that effect has come from Utah, where 28 of the state’s 29 elected sheriffs signed a letter to President Obama warning him not to send federal agents to start confiscating guns.

Similarly, in New Mexico in January, 30 of the state’s 33 county sheriffs paid a visit to the state house, reminding the governor and state congressmen that a sheriff’s job is to defend the Constitution, including the Second Amendment.