NEVER TOLERATE TYRANNY!....Conservative voices from the GRASSROOTS.
Apr. 11, 2013 10:22am
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/09/a-form-of-gun-confiscation-has-reportedly-begun-in-new-york-state-heres-the-justification-being-used/"; target="_blank">confiscated the guns and suspended the permit of an Erie County resident</a> on the grounds of mental health." data-key="iasmh" data-num="1">In a surprising turnaround, New York State Police have admitted that they made a mistake when they confiscated the guns and suspended the permit of an Erie County res... on the grounds of mental health.
Late Wednesday, Erie County, NY, released a statement (posted below) blaming the New York State Police for giving them bad information regarding the suspension of a pistol permit and demand to surrender firearms sent to Amherst resident David Lewis.
(Mr. Lewis was not identified in our original story, his name has since been released in conjunction with court documents filed by his attorney, Jim Tresmond.)
“Erie County Clerk Chris Jacobs said that late today he received a call from the New York State Police informing him that they had provided information on the wrong person when they notified his office of someone whose permit should be suspended because of the new mental health provisions in New York’s SAFE Act,” the release begins.
“When the State Police called to tell us they made a mistake and had the wrong person … it become clear that the state did not do their job here and now we all look foolish,” the release went on to say in a quote from Clerk Jacobs.
Jacobs appeared on WBEN radio in Buffalo on Thursday morning and explained the details of this administrative debacle. Mr. Jacobs also delivered some pointed comments about how the law was written so badly that mistakes like this were bound to happen. He closed with some fairly damning statements and also asked the state to consider scrapping the bill and re-writing it.
“When you write a piece of legislation in a vacuum, without having hearings, without talking to people about how it’s going to implemented in the real world — without jeopardizing people’s rights, and putting an individual like this through a nightmarish experience, and infringe on their rights, you have to go back to the drawing board,” he said. “And I encourage the legislative leadership here and mostly our governor to take a step back and say ‘we didn’t get it right’ and let’s change this.”
http://www.wben.com/Jacobs--Wrong-Person-Told-To-Turn-In-Guns/16021389"; target="_blank">here</a>." data-key="rwfjh" data-num="10">Read WBEN’s full story on Jacobs here.
After the press release was issued by the state, TheBlaze spoke with one of Mr. Lewis’ attorney, Max Tresmond.
“We won round one,” he said, “round two will be a suit against the state for what they did to our client and his reputation.”
Here is the press release admitting to the error in this gun confiscation:
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/PressRelease_JacobsMHL9.46-479x620.jpg"; alt="New York State Police Admits It Got Wrong Man in Gun Confiscation Case" height="620" width="479">" data-key="" data-num="14">
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/PressRelease_JacobsMHL9.46-479x620.jpg"; alt="New York State Police Admits It Got Wrong Man in Gun Confiscation Case" height="620" width="479">" data-key="" data-num="14">http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/11/oops-new-york-state-poli...
WASHINGTON – The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, “will only be ratified if the Senate votes to, which will not happen so long as I am breathing in the U.S. Senate,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told WND.
Lee describes the treaty as “extending far beyond the basic purposes for which the U.N. was created,” adding that the sole purpose of the U.N. is to be a “forum to discuss and resolve international problems.”
The ATT creates universal standards for the transfer of any type of weapon and munitions and requires countries to evaluate cross-border arms contracts in an effort to prevent violations of human rights and hinder terrorists.
However, many senators have grave concerns about the treaty infringing upon America’s ability to sell weapons to its allies, such as Israel and South Korea. Additionally, many fear that it could serve as a precursor to domestic gun confiscation here at home.
Lee called the United Nations “a threat to our sovereignty” and said legislation development should not rest with the international body of the U.N. General Assembly or the Security Council, but rather, “We should be legislating through our own body.”
Lee said he also believes it’s time the United States “should start cutting funding to the United Nations,” claiming “the United Nations is not consistent with American values” where “national sovereignty is destroyed incrementally.”
WND has reported on the actions of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which is attempting “to work toward the criminalization of the criticism of Islam in U.S. law” via U.N. legislation with considerable approval from the U.S. State Department.
However, until the U.S. Senate determines to alter America’s relationship with the United Nations, Lee said we should “keep a careful watch over the U.N.’s activities.”
The ATT passed the U.N. General Assembly following a 154-to-3 vote, with 23 abstentions. The three nations voting against the ATT were Iran, Syria and North Korea, while some of the abstaining nations included Russia, China, Cuba, India, Sudan and Saudi Arabia.
President Obama supported the ATT, and America’s U.N. ambassador voted in favor of the treaty. However, it will not apply to the United States until the U.S. Senate ratified the treaty.
In discussing the president’s relationship with the United Nations, Lee said he won’t “judge the president’s motivations.” Nonetheless, he said “the president’s affection” with the U.N. and the ATT “certainly” makes him nervous.
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., in a recent interview with WND, also took a massive swipe at the president’s relationship with the U.N., saying Obama’s “happiest days are when he is in front of the United Nations,” adding “that he does these types of things to advance an ‘internationalist agenda.’”
Inhofe said he sees the president’s relationship with the U.N. and his “leftist” ideology as wanting “to erode our sovereignty, and he does it every day. I cannot think of one U.N. treaty that he has not supported.”
Bloomberg reports today that in California they are seizing guns from formerly legal gun owners who no longer qualify to own them because of criminal charges or commitment to a mental hospital. Taking guns from criminals? Good. Taking guns from the mentally ill and unstable? Also good, since they make up 99.9% of those who have committed mass murder with guns in the United States. But with a government that is pushing for increasing measures to disarm citizens and Obamacare in control of medicine, how long before the sane gun-owning citizens are deemed mentally unstable in the name of gun control?
According to the article, Lynette Phillips was the subject of such a gun seizure due to a two-day involuntary commitment to a mental hospital. The alarming part is her assertion that, “the nurse who admitted her had exaggerated the magnitude of her condition.” Now, we don’t know the circumstances, why she was thought to be crazy or what behavior made the nurse think Phillips should be committed. And of course, the crazy don’t think they’re crazy. If one is involuntarily committed, one has an opportunity to contest the decision before a judge, but it is permanently on the record. But this raises an important question because judgments on another person’s sanity are made by individuals – fallible, subjective humans. Those individuals make a determination nearly impossible to disprove that now affects one’s Constitutional right to own a firearm.
Under Obamacare doctors, nurses and other medical staff are no longer beholden to their patients, they are beholden to The State. It holds the taxpayer-funded purse that allocates budgets and it controls the standards and directives by which medical staff and facilities must operate. If doctors and nurses answer to the State, and the State wants to enact gun control, what’s to stop them from dictating judgments of insanity for those they want to disarm? A doctor’s job, a hospital’s budget might depend on compliance with, for example, a new directive on what behavior indicates insanity or potential future violence. Do you oppose this Administration’s policies? You may be hostile. You may be a danger to yourself or others. The Administration certainly thinks so, and now they write the doctor’s checks.
The idea of a doctor asking a patient the question “Are there any guns in your house?” was raised after the Sandy Hook massacre when Obama proposed 23 executive orders to limit the use of guns. Of these order 16 states, “…the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes,” and according to the White House fact sheet on the orders, “…no federal law prevents health care providers from warning law enforcement authorities about threats of violence.” Obama wants doctors to be able to get information on the firearms one owns, and under Obamacare he also controls the staff who diagnose things like mental stability and illness.
We know that gun ownership and conservative values overlap heavily across the United States. With the help and compliance of the mass media this Administration has tried to defame and marginalize anyone who opposes its policies and doesn’t agree with its ideology. We also know whom the government deems to be a threat – the new Enemy of the People. It’s not Islamic terrorists who scream “Allahu Akhbar” as they murder innocent civilians. Those are the justified “freedom fighters” of the “religion of peace.” Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland “Security” has said that all returning Veterans are potential terrorists, that those who are against aborting babies are extremists, and we all know how they characterize the Tea Party in particular and conservatives in general. Now they have ubiquitous control over the medical staff to dole out judgments of insanity. What better way to further nullify your enemy than to declare them crazy – one gun-clinger at a time?
Whatever state lawmakers or members of Congress come up with for new gun bans, limits, regulations and restrictions, remember that Barack Obama wants “total gun control.”
That’s according to a forensic profiler who worked on the disappearance of Natalie Holloway and the double-murder case against O.J. Simpson.
Andrew G. Hodges, M.D., who wrote “The Obama Confession: Secret Fear, Secret Fury,” explained in an analysis of the president’s statements for WND that Obama’s words suggest the unconscious message that “one day the government’s coming for our guns.”
Hodges previously said Obama’s statement “I am not a dictator” actually meant, “I am ... and concluded Obama unconsciously confessed to stealing the 2012 election.
On Hodges’ website, Steven A. Egger, associate professor of criminology at the University of Houston, Clear Lake, has written that Hodges’ technique is “becoming the cutting edge of forensic science.”
“Dr. Hodges’ investigation of forensic documents in the Natalee Holloway case indicates that his ‘thoughtprint decoding method’ and ‘reading between the lines’ is, in fact, becoming a major contribution to law enforcement tools used by criminal investigators,” wrote Egger.
Hodges is not new to the field, already having identified killers by studying ransom notes, emails, letters and police interviews to spot secret confessions. He decoded Simpson’s “suicide note” to confirm Simpson had committed a double murder. He deciphered the JonBenet Ramsey ransom note in Boulder, Colo., to identify the child’s killer. He decrypted letters from BTK to predict that he was about to kill again – the only profiler to do so. He studied statements by Joran van der Sloot and Deepak Kalpoe to tie them to the slaying of Holloway. He showed how Casey Anthony secretly confessed to killing her daughter in 200 letters written to a jail mate. He even decoded Bill Clinton’s comments about Monica Lewinsky.
See all the details in Hodges’ book “The Obama Confession.”
Hodges now has looked at Obama’s recent statements about gun control, especially his April 3 appearance in Denver where he insisted on being surrounded by law enforcement officers, leading some police department members to protest they were being used for a political agenda.
“We again pay close attention to his ‘right-brain’ images and his denials for unconscious warnings from his super intelligence, his deeper moral compass which must tell the truth and spot any deception. Deep down his mind’s eye constantly monitors his true motivations,” Hodges explained.
He noted Obama’s statement, “ginned up fear among gun owners that have… nuttin’ to do with the facts but feed into fears about the government.”
“His denial accompanied by images of ‘fear among gun owners’ and ‘facts that feed into fear about the government’ suggest the unconscious message: the facts about Obama indeed lead to fear about the government,” Hodges wrote. “His image of ‘ginned up fear’ suggests his primary tactic in proposing more gun control which, in truth, has nothing to do with the facts.
“We find a key message marker: ‘you hear’ implying ‘hear my deeper message’ – pay close attention to what comes next. The unconscious mind often uses key communication images (e.g. ‘hear’) to underscore a vital message. When he follows with (you hear) ‘I need a gun to protect myself from the government,’ the image itself strongly suggests the Second Amendment to the Constitution – as in citizens need to be armed in case of ‘a government gone wild.’”
Hodges wrote that Obama denies any reason to worry about the government “but we must keep in mind that denial attached to an idea can tell us to keep an eye on that particular idea and consider deception. Denying the very plan he secretly has in mind. For this reason we always contemplate denial as a revelation of the real truth with the cover-up, ‘Let me tell you what I’m not going to do – ‘wink-wink.”
“Obama follows with a second comment of denial and ridicule, ‘(you hear) we can’t do background checks because the government’s going to come take my guns away.’ Again read his condescending denial as a warning of the possibility one day the government’s coming for our guns,” he wrote.
Hodges said, “Read through his denial ‘can’t do background checks’ as an unconscious instruction: do background checks on Obama to see if he personally has intentions for extreme gun control. We can even read the entire sentence as an unconscious confession – no background checks on Obama about gun control because it would reveal his wishes to take our guns away. Indeed it is publicly known from a former fellow law professor at the University of Chicago who Obama dubbed ‘the gun guy’ that Obama doesn’t believe anybody should own a gun,” Hodges wrote.
The proflier said, “Obama’s repetitive denial tells us what’s on his mind deep down: total gun control. While he could not get away with such a plan now we must ‘know our opponent’ – to whom we must stick closer than a friend. Understand Obama has a deep need stemming from his powerless background to take power away from others.”
Hodges also points out how Obama’s statements suggest he considers himself “the government.”
“Obama dramatically assures us in another full-fledged denial of exactly why citizens have no cause for worry about extreme gun control – because ‘the government’s us.’ Stop here. What comes to mind? Think back quickly to his recent sequester press conference on March 1 when he presented such images as ‘dictator…president,’ ‘apocalypse,’ ‘Jedi ‘mind-meld’ trick,” and having ‘the Secret Service block the door’ to Republicans. One image after another of government control,” Hodges wrote. “Now read the message ‘the government’s us’ as the ‘government is me, Barack Obama.’
“Such declarations are utterly frightening when paired with his previous spontaneous image in the sequester speech of ‘horns on his head.’”
And Obama’s references to officials who are elected suggests “a denial of his belief in the Constitution, a central reason our forefathers put the Second Amendment in the foundation document,” Hodges said.
“Obama has never been constrained by the Constitution and has ridiculed it by his actions and his words, telling us that it should be revised since it limits us to what ‘we can’t do.’ Despite giving it lip service on the surface, he has manipulated the Constitution left and right.
“Ask yourself if he carried out an illegal presidency and participated in election fraud what would he be capable of when it came to gun control?” Hodges wrote.
Hodges’ earlier analysis revealed questions about Obama’s goals since the government under his direction has purchased billions of rounds of ammunition and there are now at estimated 145,000 federal agents with firearm-carry authority.
And he noted a report that a Minnesota company was selling to the federal government cutout targets “designed to ‘desensitize police’ to ‘nontraditional threat targets.”
The targets included pregnant women, children, older people and other civilians in neighborhood settings – all holding guns. The company reported law enforcement designed and ordered the targets.
“In your wildest imagination, who in law enforcement needs desensitization to such targets?”
Hodges noted that even activists on the left have expressed concern. Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the left-wing Code Pink, in a recent WABC radio interview with host Aaron Klein, called the potential abuse by the Obama administration’s huge domestic police power “extremely troubling.”
“Recall Obama’s earlier words which, importantly, he made spontaneously, strongly pointing toward an unconscious confession. ‘We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the military].’
“What exactly was he thinking and why? Undeniably this was extreme: a civilian force just as well funded and strong as our military – implying majorly armed. The question is what exactly was Obama secretly confessing about his future plans? His unconscious super intelligence suggests a warning from a very dangerous Obama,” Hodges contends.
Apr. 10, 2013 5:20pm
BRISTOL (TheBlaze/AP) — A Connecticut gun-maker has announced Wednesday it intends to leave the state following the passage of gun control legislation it says tramples on the rights of citizens and does not show enough consideration for the industry.
Bristol-based PTR says in a statement posted on its website that it has not decided where it will move, but it has commitments from most employees to relocate. The company makes military-style rifles and employs more than 40 people.
PTR Vice President John McNamara said Wednesday that it expects to make a more formal announcement about a move within six weeks. The company encouraged other gun manufacturers to follow suit
“We feel that our industry as a whole will continue to be threatened so long as it remains in a state where its elected leaders have no regard for the rights of those who produce and manufacture its wealth,” the statement reads.
“We are making a call to all involved in our industry to leave this state, close your doors and show our politicians the true consequences of their hasty and uninformed actions. We encourage those in our industry to abandon this state as its leaders have abandoned the proud heritage that forged our freedom.”
Several Connecticut gun manufacturers have indicated they are thinking about moving after Gov. Dannel P. Malloy last week signed the law imposing new restrictions on weapons and large-capacity magazines. The state’s new laws have been heralded by Malloy as the toughest in the nation.
More from Business Insider:
Larry Keane, the senior vice president of the National Sports Shooting Foundation, the powerful gun lobby located in Newtown, Conn., warned that the new laws could entice additional gun manufacturers to move out of the state. He also hinted that there could be a legal challenge to the laws.
Connecticut is home to a large number of gun and ammunition companies, including the iconic Colt Manufacturing Co.
Keane told Business Insider that the CEO of at least one other gun company besides PTR had expressed a desire to move. He thinks that more manufacturers are looking to get out of what many perceive as an increasingly hostile environment to gun owners, noting comments made by Malloy last weekend comparing NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre to “one of the clowns at the circus.”
The move by PTR may surprise some lawmakers, like U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who haven’t been taking gun makers’ threats seriously.
“Gun manufacturers are like other businesses in looking for the highest quality workforce, the best business environment in terms of transportation and taxes and other features unrelated to any regulatory action,” Blumenthal said in an interview last week.
“Their markets are national. What happens in Connecticut affects only purchases here,” he added.
© 2023 Created by Your Uncle Sam. Powered by
You need to be a member of REAL CONSERVATIVES to add comments!
Join REAL CONSERVATIVES