NEVER TOLERATE TYRANNY!....Conservative voices from the GRASSROOTS.
Senate Judiciary Committee Begins Consideration of Feinstein's "Assault Weapons" Bill
Posted on March 8, 2013
On March 7, the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), began consideration of several bills, including anti-gun Sen. Dianne Feinstein's S. 150--the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013."
The controversial bill has already been met with much resistance. During debate on the bill, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) pointed out that "Congress and President Clinton tried a so-called assault weapons ban 19 years ago and we have the benefit of hindsight as well as some research to examine the lackluster results of that decade-long experiment. According to the Department of Justice's own study it was completely ineffectual in reducing murder or violent crime rates."
Cornyn continued, "So, are we really going to pass another law that will have zero effect, and pat ourselves on the back and say 'We've accomplished something wonderful?' Well, we tried this experiment once and it failed, and I think it promotes symbolism over seriousness to repeat that mistake."
Sen. Cornyn also offered an amendment to exempt all U.S. military personnel and veterans from Feinstein's proposed ban, but the measure was rejected by a 9-9 party-line vote. During this portion of debate, Feinstein argued that a military veteran could be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (which she bizarrely claimed was a "new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq war"), and suggested that they should therefore be prevented from buying or "having a weapon like this."
Feinstein, herself, was quoted as saying, "I've been very concerned because the calls have been coming in as if this is some kind of wild eyed scheme." We couldn't agree more.
The committee recessed in the midst of debating the bill and will resume markup of the bill next Thursday, March 14.
Please continue to contact your Senators and tell them to oppose S. 150--the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013." To identify and contact your legislators in Washington, D.C., you can use the "Write Your Reps" feature at www.NRAILA.org, or you can reach your member of Congress by phone at 202-224-3121.
Almost One-Third of State Sheriffs' Organizations Now Oppose Obama Gun Control
Posted on March 8, 2013
According to a recent Washington Examiner article, a total of 14 sheriffs' associations now oppose President Obama's proposed gun control measures.
The article notes that sheriffs' associations in South Carolina, California and, most recently, Nevada, have joined the growing group of other state associations in demanding that Obama stop going after law-abiding gun owners and instead focus on improving the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
"We have all seen what persons who have mental illness, who are users of illegal controlled substances, or are members of criminal gangs can do with weapons in their hands; any weapons, not just firearms. As it currently stands, many of these individuals are not entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for a whole variety of reasons. This must be addressed at the national, state and local levels," said the Nevada sheriffs.
"The sheriffs of the state of Nevada do not believe that the answer to this issue includes making criminals out of otherwise law-abiding individuals. As the old saying goes, 'As guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.' The answer lies within a myriad of approaches including education, addressing violence, keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill, criminal gang members, and illegal controlled substance users, as well as prosecuting and incarcerating those who would use firearms to commit crimes."
You Can Help Defeat Proposed U.N. Arms Trade Treaty
Posted on March 8, 2013
Just as NRA warned would happen, following last November's presidential election, the Obama administration immediately moved forward with its plans to support a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. On Wednesday November 7, the U.S. Mission to the U.N. made clear its support for renewed ATT negotiations, casting a vote in favor of a resolution that calls for a "Final United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty" to be held in New York City from March 18-28.
If signed, the ATT would be a legally binding treaty that would require parties to the treaty to adhere to the treaty's provisions, many of which (as proposed in a month-long meeting last July) are incompatible with our Second Amendment rights. For the treaty to be ratified it would have to be approved by a two-thirds vote in the U.S. Senate. During the July ATT conference, NRA conducted a successful campaign to stop the treaty.
The latest resolution notes that at the March conference, the last draft from the July conference will be the starting point for new talks.
On November 13, U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) introduced his own resolution strongly urging President Obama not to sign the ATT.
In a November 16 press release, Rep. Kelly said, "There is considerable cause for alarm regarding the UN’s renewed efforts to forge an Arms Trade Treaty that could trample the constitutional rights of Americans, and could seriously compromise our national security and the security of our allies, whom we will be less able to arm and less quick to defend due to the restrictions placed on us by the ATT. My colleagues and I stand committed to fighting this threat to our sovereignty and to standing up for the U.S. Constitution, which we are all sworn to support and defend.”
Rep. Kelly now has an online petition that you can sign to help protect our Second Amendment rights by urging the president to reject the proposed U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. Again, the final ATT conference starts in less than two weeks! Please take a moment--right now--to sign the petition by clicking here. It’s time to stand together to defeat the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty!
Gun Rights Legal Action
You are likely seeing posts about the coming “right-wing attack,” meant to foment more support for gun control. But what the government isn’t going to allow the lamestream media to tell you is, it is they who are planning an attack. Patriotic citizens just go about their daily lives until WE come under attack. The attack has been subtle. A slow encroachment on our civil rights, so tiny that we hardly notice. Innocuous things like telling you how much water should be in your toilet or how bright a light-bulb is. Then government ups the ante, and forces you to buy medical insurance in an obvious money grab for their dark and devious desires.
Government then implements the final phase, which is to get our guns. This has been done so many times in so many other countries with devastating results to the population, it’s amazing they would have the guts to try it; but they do.
The radical left isn’t just at war with guns, it’s after those who use them, in this case hunters. Long-time animal liberation loon Gary Yourofsky came out with the latest, saying “Hunters are terrorists of animal world,” in a March 8, 2013 piece.
Got that? Hunters are Bambi’s al Qaeda.
Yourofsky, who calls himself the press officer of the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, went on to bemoan hunting and calling hunters “animal killers.” “Hunting is blood lust and dominance. Hunting is hatred and violence. Hunting is murder. And it’s obscene,” he ranted.
In his diatribe, he quoted both Pythagoras and rocker/hunter Ted Nugent to make points against violence against animals. But he seems OK with violence against humans.
If you can’t ban ‘em, tax ‘em.
Lawmakers looking to more tightly regulate firearms in the wake of the Newtown school shooting and other massacres are moving at the state and federal levels to introduce new taxes on firearms and ammunition.
The proposals range from the modest — a proposed 5 percent tax in New Jersey — to the steep — a proposed 50 percent ammo tax in Maryland. The bills follow efforts to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and expand background checks, measures that have had mixed success at the state level.
The taxes — much like so-called “sin taxes,” like those on cigarettes — serve a dual purpose. They can deter buyers, while using the extra revenue for favored programs. In this case, the sponsors want to direct the money toward mental health services, police training and victims’ treatment.
U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) offered an amendment to exempt all U.S. military personnel and veterans from a proposed ban on “assault weapons”. The committee briefly discussed the future of American gun ownership.
Cornyn highlighted the contradiction and inequality of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. The sponsors had deemed assault weapons too dangerous for civilian self-defensive purchase over safety and training concerns. But under the Feinstein Law, government employees and retired law enforcement are exempt from the assault weapons ban while hundreds of millions of Americans are not.
Coryn questioned this unnecessary, peculiar new division of property rights and self-defense. An entire new market would emerge from such a ban. If American history of the 21st century proves correct, violence would skyrocket. This congressional edict creates a foreign set of powerful rules for equal Americans.
The most dangerous phase in the fight to defeat the gun grabbers’ all-out assault on our Second Amendment freedoms is upon us.
I’m talking about the gun grabbers’ “Plan B” alternative – a triple threat designed to sound more “reasonable” to the public than a total gun ban.
But don’t be fooled, there’s nothing reasonable about this new scheme. It’s every bit as destructive to our gun rights as everything else the gun grabbers put forth.
After I explain why this “Plan B” triple threat is so dangerous, I need you to take IMMEDIATE action by signing your “No Gun Deals” petition.
If you’ve already signed your petition, please consider chipping in $10 or $20 to help alert more Americans to the gun grabbers’ “Plan B” triple threat.
Then, I need you to forward this email to every pro-gun person you know and ask them to help fight back by signing their “No Gun Deals” petition, as well.
The "Plan B" alternative has three components: Fictitious “gun trafficking” legislation, so-called “mental health screenings” and “expanded background checks.”
And all are equally dangerous and designed with one goal in mind: national gun registration.
So-called “Gun trafficking” is the gun grabbers’ latest scheme, and it’s flying fast under the radar.
The ultimate goal is to hand Obama's ATF goons the power to terrorize gun owners via sting operations, and get gun owners to start screaming for a national gun registry.
There’s Senator Patrick Leahy’s so-called Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013 (S. 443) and Kristin Gillibrand’s Gun Trafficking Prevention Act (S. 179) in the Senate, and then there’s the Scott Rigell/Carolyn Maloney Gun Trafficking Prevention Act (H.R. 452) in the House.
Unfortunately, S. 443 cleared the Judiciary Committee and could be on the Senate floor any day now.
More properly referred to as the Forced Gun Owner Registration Act, S. 443 imposes harsh sentences on gun owners – up to 15 years in prison – for buying a firearm to sell our give a "prohibited person."
Already, 150,000 of our nation’s veterans are considered “prohibited” just because they acknowledged stress on returning from war.
So just buying a shotgun for a son returning home from Afghanistan - so you could spend some time in the woods together hunting like the old days - could be enough to land you in jail for 15 years.
And since Barack Obama just issued an Executive Order calling on Attorney General Eric Holder to “review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun,” the definition of “prohibited” could change any day.
While there is some language claiming to protect folks who sell to "prohibited persons," it will almost be assuredly be abused by ATF agents anxious to nail gun owners to the wall.
The only way for law-abiding Second Amendment supporters to ultimately prove their innocence would be if every firearms transfer is signed off on by the Federal Government -- paving the way for a national gun registry.
And you and I both know so-called “gun registration” is the first step toward TOTAL GUN CONFISCATION!
The gun grabbers love to twist words to advance gun control. And “mental health screening” is just a ruse for creating a National No Gun Database.
Of course, the gun grabbers are willing to use virtually any excuse they can conjure up to put as many Americans as possible on their “mental health” list.
Have you ever served in the military or experienced a traumatic family situation like a death in the family?
If you’re prescribed anything at all - or even if you complain of stress to the wrong person - that could be enough for you to lose your Second Amendment rights.
38 states have some sort of mental health database, and they're already being used to strip law-abiding Americans of their Second Amendment rights.
In fact, studies show that over 100,000 military veterans have been stripped of their gun rights already just from acknowledging stress on returning from war.
And one former Surgeon General estimated that 46.4% of Americans will have mental health issues at some point in their lives!
That should give you some idea of just how many law-abiding Americans can be stripped of their gun rights with "mental health" charges alone.
Do we really want to strip nearly half of all Americans of their gun rights?
Of course not.
But you can bet President Obama does.
That’s why President Obama is planning to use provisions of his “Obamacare” bill to create the “mental health” database the gun grabbers’ want.
Not only that, but a number of Barack Obama’s 23 Executive Orders on “gun violence” have to do with developing ways to get the mental health records of every American into a national database - accessible by the ATF, FBI and other government agencies.
To the gun-grabbers, disarming half of America for life with a simple “mental health” database within a year or two’s time sounds like a dream come true!
The bad news is, this dangerous scheme has bipartisan support.
Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake are “eyeing” legislation that would FORCE states to turn over mental health records to the federal government to be put into Barack Obama’s National No Gun Database.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the only way to enforce “background checks” is to hand the feds a record of EVERY firearm transferred through a Federal Firearms Licensee.
Of course, the gun grabbers claim federal officials destroy every record in the system after a set time, but do you really trust Barack Obama or Eric Holder to do so?
For example, in Pennsylvania, state officials were caught violating the law by keeping permanent records of “background checks” including the name of the gun owner and the specific gun purchased.
To call “background checks” anything but gun registration is a lie - and everyone knows gun registration leads to gun confiscation!
Besides, “expanding background checks” has nothing to do with the recent tragedy in Newtown.
A Justice Department survey found that 93% of handgun predators obtained their guns “off-the-record,” commonly by stealing them as the Connecticut shooter did.
None of these schemes are about stopping actual criminals.
They’re about taking away your rights.
Gordon, this “Plan B” alternative is the gun grabbers’ new Triple Threat to take away your God-given right to keep and bear arms.
That’s why it’s critical you sign your “No Gun Deals” petition right away.
As I’ve told you, the National Association for Gun Rights will not sit by while the gun-grabbers assault our Second Amendment rights.
Instead, NAGR will EXPOSE them every step of the way. And right now, the National Association for Gun Rights is doing exactly that.
The good news is, anti-gun politicians in BOTH parties are feeling the heat.
They don’t know what to think about so many pro-gun Americans who have suddenly wised up to their games.
But the gun grabbers are trying to catch us sleeping.
That’s why it’s never been more important to stand up and fight back by signing your “No Gun Deals” petition IMMEDIATELY.
Your signed petition will send a loud-and-clear message to your Congressman and Senators that you won’t be fooled by the gun grabbers’ carefully crafted, sneaky anti-gun scheme.
So please sign your “No Gun Deals” petition IMMEDIATELY.
If you’ve already signed your petition, please consider chipping in $10 or $20 to help alert more Americans to the gun grabbers’ “Plan B” triple threat.
Then I need you to forward this email to every pro-gun person you know and ask them to help fight back by signing their “No Gun Deals” petition, as well.
So please sign your “No Gun Control” petition at once, and consider chipping in $10 or $20 to help the National Association for Gun Rights alert as many pro-gun Americans as possible to this dangerous triple threat.
Please act today!
Executive Vice President
P.S. The most dangerous phase in the fight to defeat the gun grabbers’ all-out assault on our Second Amendment freedoms is upon us.
I’m talking about the gun control lobby’s “Plan B” – a clever scheme designed to sound more “reasonable” to the public than a total gun ban.
That’s why it’s never it’s never been more important that you sing your “No Gun Deals” petition IMMEDIATELY.
Your signed petition will send a loud-and-clear message to your Congressman and Senators that you won’t be fooled by the gun grabbers’ carefully crafted, sneaky anti-gun scheme.
Written on Tuesday, March 12, 2013 by Tad Cronn
The other day, I got to watch a public discussion about the election results in Los Angeles turn into a shouting match because someone brought up the subject of gun control.
The speaker, a former newspaper editor, was asked a question that was completely tangential to the discussion, and he tried to respond with a very measured answer that the Second Amendment is important, but no amendments are absolute and some “reasonable restrictions” could be appropriate.
That roused the ire of the questioner, who was a constitutional absolutist, and several other audience members.
Without judging who’s right or wrong on the issue, it occurred to me that the fundamental obstacle in trying to have a serious discussion about guns is one of trust.
Essentially it will always come down to the fact that while I trust myself to properly own, maintain and use any weapon up to and including a rocket launcher, I’m not so sure I can trust you even with a paintball gun. I’m sure other people feel the same way about me.
It’s a symptom of fear. We’re all worried that “someone” will sneak up behind us and do terrible things.
The rational response to that fear is to be prepared in case something ever does happen, and that’s where gun ownership comes in. Nobody sane wants to kill anybody, but responsible people understand that there are situations where that may be the only way to stop great evil.
The irrational response, which seems to be the one preferred universally by liberals, is to try to take away the bad guns, as if a villain couldn’t fix a couple of nails to a bat and go to town. In their fear, they can’t distinguish between law-abiding and criminal, and they can’t see the tautological sense in accepting that criminals don’t follow laws, therefore gun laws only affect the law-abiding.
Liberals don’t trust their fellow citizens, and many of them don’t even trust themselves. That’s why they look to someone else wearing the mantel of authority to take care of their problems.
It wasn’t always like this in America. In Colonial times, towns typically had a “powder house” near the center of business where residents could store what guns, shot and powder they didn’t keep at home for themselves. The powder house was the town’s armory, used to supplement what was already available to private owners.
So important was gun ownership that if a man was too poor to afford a weapon or powder, the local authorities would give him one or two and whatever shot and gear he needed. Every man of age was part of the militia and was expected to be ready to come to his town’s defense at a moment’s notice.
It wasn’t until much later in history that local police forces began to form, gun ownership became less common and crime became the normal course of events in big cities.
But even in those Colonial times, I’m sure that many folks didn’t trust their neighbors, just like today. But they do seem to have trusted in the fact that there were enough good people in the world to keep the bad at bay and the only way to do that was for every person to make his family’s and community’s safety his business.
Americans need to get back to that notion of trust in ourselves and our communities, and stop letting the power-hungry prey on our fears.
Posted by UnSlaveMe on March 11, 2013 at 8:29am
The Denver Post, on February 15th, ran an Associated Press article entitled Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6b rounds of ammo, to far too little notice. It confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security has issued an open purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. As elsewhere reported, much of this purchase order is for rounds forbidden by international law for use in war plus a frightening amount specialized for snipers. Also reported elsewhere, at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending fewer than 6 million rounds a month. 1.6 billion rounds, therefore, would be enough to sustain a hot war for 20+ years. In America.
Add to this perplexingly outré purchase of ammo, DHS now is showing off its acquisition of heavily armored personnel carriers, repatriated from the Iraqi and Afghani theaters of operation. As observed by “paramilblogger” Ken Jorgustin last September:
“[T]he Department of Homeland Security is apparently taking delivery (apparently through the Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico VA, via the manufacturer – Navistar Defense LLC) of an undetermined number of the recently retrofitted 2,717 ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ MaxxPro MRAP vehicles for service on the streets of the United States.” …
“These MRAP’s ARE BEING SEEN ON U.S. STREETS all across America by verified observers with photos, videos, and descriptions.
“Regardless of the exact number of MRAP’s being delivered to DHS (and evidently some to POLICE via DHS, as has been observed), why would they need such over-the-top vehicles on U.S. streets to withstand IEDs, mine blasts, and 50 caliber hits to bullet-proof glass? In a war zone… yes, definitely. Let’s protect our men and women. On the streets of America… ?
“They all have gun ports… Gun Ports? In the theater of war, yes. On the streets of America…?
“Seriously, why would DHS need such a vehicle on our streets?”
Why indeed? It is utterly inconceivable that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is planning a coup d’etat against President Obama, and the Congress, to install herself as Supreme Ruler of the United States of America. There, however, are real signs that the Department bureaucrats are running amok. About 20 years ago this columnist worked, for two years, in the U.S. Department of Energy’s general counsel’s office in its procurement and finance division. And is wise to the ways. The answer to “why would DHS need such a vehicle?” almost certainly is this: it’s a cool toy and these (reportedly) million dollar toys are being recycled, without much of a impact on the DHS budget. So… why not?
Why, indeed, should the federal government not be deploying armored personnel carriers and stockpiling enough ammo for a 20-year war in the homeland? Because it’s wrong in every way. President Obama has an opportunity, now, to live up to some of his rhetoric by helping the federal government set a noble example in a matter very close to his heart (and that of his Progressive base), one not inimical to the Bill of Rights: gun control. The federal government can (for a nice change)begin practicing what it preaches by controlling itself.
And … remember the … Sequester? The president is claiming its budget cuts will inconvenience travelers by squeezing essential services provided by the (opulently armed and stylishly uniformed) DHS. Quality ammunition is not cheap. (Of course, news reports that DHS is about to spend $50 million on new uniforms suggests a certain cavalier attitude toward government frugality.)
Spending money this way is beyond absurd well into perverse. According to the AP story a DHS spokesperson justifies this acquisition to “help the government get a low price for a big purchase.” Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center: “The training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.”
At 15 million rounds (which, in itself, is pretty extraordinary and sounds more like fun target-shooting-at-taxpayer-expense than a sensible training exercise) … that’s a stockpile that would last DHS over a century. To claim that it’s to “get a low price” for a ridiculously wasteful amount is an argument that could only fool a career civil servant.
Meanwhile, Senator Diane Feinstein, with the support of President Obama, is attempting to ban 100 capacity magazine clips. Doing a little apples-to-oranges comparison, here, 1.6 billion rounds is … 16 million times more objectionable.
Mr. Obama has a long history of disdain toward gun ownership. According to Prof. John Lott, in Debacle, a book he co-authored with iconic conservative strategist Grover Norquist,
“When I was first introduced to Obama (when both worked at the University of Chicago LawSchool, where Lott was famous for his analysis of firearms possession), he said, ‘Oh, you’re the gun guy.’
“I responded: ‘Yes, I guess so.’
“’I don’t believe that people should own guns,’ Obama replied.
“I then replied that it might be fun to have lunch and talk about that statement some time.
“He simply grimaced and turned away. …
“Unlike other liberal academics who usually enjoyed discussing opposing ideas, Obama showed disdain.”
Mr. Obama? Where’s the disdain now? Cancelling, or at minimum, drastically scaling back — by 90% or even 99%, the DHS order for ammo, and its receipt and deployment of armored personnel carriers, would be a “fourfer.”
If Obama doesn’t show any leadership on this matter it’s an opportunity for. Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, to summon Secretary Napolitano over for a little … national conversation. Madame Secretary? Buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammo and deploying armored personnel carriers runs contrary, in every way, to what “homeland security” really means. Discuss.
by Bob Unruh
The Obama administration insists it’s routine for officials to send out letters informing veterans that an unidentified “report” indicates they may be declared incompetent and consequently stripped of their Second Amendment rights.
It’s the same administration that in 2009 warned that “returning veterans possess combat skills and experienc...
The 2009 report, from the Department of Homeland Security, was called “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” It also said Obama’s governmental managers were “concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.”
So when hundreds, perhaps thousands, of veterans began receiving letters like the one dispatched from the Portland, Ore., office of the Department of Veterans Affairs, alarm bells went off.
WND reported only days ago that a veteran in Oregon received a letter informing him of “a report from Portland VA Medical Center on December 3, 2012.”
Evidence already in
The letter warned the vet that “evidence indicates that you are not able to handle your VA benefit payments because of a physical or mental condition.”
“We propose to rate you incompetent for VA purposes. This means we must decide if you are able to handle your VA benefit payments. We will base our decision on all the evidence we already have including any other evidence you sent to us.”
Completion of the incompetency determination would mean a “fiduciary” would be appointed to manage the veteran’s payments.
The VA also warned: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both.”
The letter then offered the veteran an opportunity to “request a personal hearing within 30 days from the date at the top of this letter to present evidence or argument on any important point in your claim.”
But it said the VA will not pay some of the expenses of the hearing.
“If we don’t hear from you within the next 60 days, we will assume you have no additional evidence and do not want a hearing. After those 60 days we will make our decision using the evidence we already have and tell you our decision.”
The letter was signed by K. Kalama, Veterans Service Center manager in the Oregon Department of Veterans Affairs. But it didn’t present the “evidence,” the source of the evidence or why the veteran’s competency even was questioned.
The veteran contacted the United States Justice Foundation, which defends civil and religious rights, and now that organization reports a flood of similar concerns expressed by veterans across the country.
In a statement on the organization’s website, Executive Director Michael Connelly said his organization is pursuing a Freedom of Information Act request with the Department of Veterans Affairs to “force them to disclose the criteria they are using to place veterans on the background check list that keeps them from exercising their Second Amendment rights.”
“Then we will take whatever legal steps are necessary to protect our American warriors,” he wrote.
WND contacted the Department of Veterans Affairs, and spokesman Randy Noller responded with a statement that the letters were no more than routine. But questions about why the letters are being sent, what evidence is used to determine a veteran is incapable of managing his or her affairs, who provides that information and why it is provided remain unanswered.
“The Department of Veterans Affairs’ policy to inform veterans of their rights regarding the Brady Act has not changed,” the statement said. “As has been policy for multiple administrations, VA acts in accordance with federal law and works with the Department of Justice to properly maintain the NICS database. VA notifies any veteran who may be deemed by VA to be mentally incapable of managing his or her own funds of the opportunity to contest this determination and also to seek relief from the reporting requirements under the Brady Act, as required by law.”
Also unanswered were who makes the decision to put in motion the department’s decision to “deem” veterans “mentally incapable” and protections are recognized for veterans before their constitutional rights are withdrawn.
The VA did include some background that the law allows such actions for those who “have been ‘adjudicated as a mental defective.’” But the VA declined to provide information about any adjudication process.
It only said, “Before VA makes determinations of incompetency it affords the affected individuals due process – advance notice and an opportunity to be heard and submit evidence of their ability to manage funds.”
The letters, apparently, comprise the notice.
But all does not sit well with Connelly, whose organization is digging now into matter.
The Oregon letter, he said, sounds “like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world.”
“Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me,” he said. “It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes.”
Connelly noted the letter “provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA.”
“In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent,” he explained.
“This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall ‘be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.’
“Obviously, the Department of Veterans Affairs can’t be bothered by such impediments as the Constitution, particularly since they are clearly pushing to fulfill one of Obama’s main goals, the disarming of the American people. Janet Napolitano has already warned law enforcement that some of the most dangerous among us are America’s heroes, our veterans, and now according to this letter from the VA they can be prohibited from buying or even possessing a firearm because of a physical or mental disability,” Connelly wrote.
Connelly argued there “are no clear criteria for the VA to declare a veteran incompetent.”
“It can be the loss of a limb in combat, a head injury, a diagnosis of PTSD, or even a soldier just telling someone at the VA that he or she is depressed over the loss of a buddy in combat. In none of these situations has the person been found to be a danger to themselves or others. If that was the case than all of the Americans who have suffered from PTSD following the loss of a loved one or from being in a car accident would also have to be disqualified from owning firearms. It would also mean that everyone who has ever been depressed for any reason should be disarmed. In fact, many of the veterans being deprived of their rights have no idea why it is happening,” Connelly said.
He said the issue raises another huge question.
“We have to ask who will be next. If you are receiving a Social Security check will you get one of these letters? Will the government declare that you are incompetent because of your age and therefore banned from firearm ownership. It certainly fits in with the philosophy and plans of the Obama administration,” he wrote.
Read the letter:
Bob Maginnis, senior fellow for national security at Family Research Council, which was attacked by an unstable left-winger with a gun just last year, told WND there is a legitimate concern that some veterans affected by the stress and violence of war may not be good candidates to possess arms caches.
There are processes, however, that should be followed, he said.
Maginnis is a retired Army lieutenant colonel and senior strategist with the Army and has served in study groups for the Army chief of staff.
He notes that of those veterans returning from Middle East conflicts, battle wounds and skeleton issues are the top two reasons for their departure. Third is mental issues.
And it’s a fact that suicide among veterans is higher than the general population, he said.
Big Brother? Read all about him, in “One Nation Under Surveillance.”
“It would not be hard to conclude that perhaps people who have been in combat and have now had to go find medical assistance … could potentially be a marker for problems,” he said.
“Look at the veteran population that is homeless. That’s a marker as well.”
But he also said for the government “to suggest they’re going to come in and take over financial situation without a court order; I’m very concerned about that.”
Rees Lloyd, a longtime civil rights attorney who is past commander and judge advocate for the American Legion in California, told WND the issue is not that complicated: A government power is announcing to veterans they will be stripped of their rights unless they can prove themselves innocent.
“I don’t know of any other class of Americans being deemed to be guilty rather than presumed to be innocent,” he told WND. “What the VA is doing, and has done consistently, is treat American veterans if we are the enemy, instead of the defenders of America.”
He said the issue was being brought to the attention of the Legion.
“I would think it’s very likely there will be a resolution soon,” he said.
“I don’t know any of other Americans ‘deemed’ to be incompetent because of [war injuries and stress,]” he said. “I have stress every time I read of the latest government atrocities. They haven’t classified me yet that I can’t obtain a weapon.”
He called it the “bureaucratic version of racial profiling.”
“If you have stress and you’re a vet, you can’t own a weapon,” he said.
WND previously reported DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano made terrorists portrayed in a public service announcement look Caucasian.
The PSA depicted a typical woman terrorist would be Caucasian, in her late 20s or early 30s, with brunette hair, stylish clothing, high heels and a shoulder bag. A man? About the same age, short hair, wearing a shirt and slacks and familiar with technology, as he’s wearing an earpiece cellphone. And Caucasian.
The PSA asks that people watch out for those types of individuals and report them to authorities.
As WND reported, a West Point study released by the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center linked those with “fundamental” positions, such as opposing abortion, to terror.
The study, “Challenges from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far... says the major far-right threats are from “a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.”
Author Arie Perliger cites “anti-abortionists” as an active threat for terrorist activity.
“The anti-abortionists have been extremely productive during the last two decades, amassing 227 attacks, many of them perpetrated without the responsible perpetrators identified or caught,” Perliger wrote. “And while, in both cases, the 1990s were more violent than the last decade, in the case of anti-abortion, the trend is much more extreme, as 90 percent of attacks were perpetrated before 2001.”
American Life League President Judie Brown believes this is a smear tactic.
“I can see exactly what is going on with reference to the pro-life movement. The use of two words expose the bias and hatred for what we stand for as a movement. Those words are ‘attacks’ and ‘violence’,” Brown said.
Herb Titus, a constitutional law professor, former dean of the Regent University School of Law and distinguished fellow with the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Tho..., says it’s an attempt to link conservative thought with violence.
“Professor Perliger has adopted the strategy of many left-wing members of the professoriate, concentrating on the behavior of a few in order to discredit many who hold similar views but who do not engage in any form of violence,” Titus said.
“His theory is that of the iceberg, that which as seen may be small, but it hides what is a much larger threat just below the surface. Obviously, the professor disagrees with those who favor small government, cutting back of federal government encroachments upon the powers of the state and to discredit this movement focuses on a few gun-toting militia,” Titus said.
Titus turns his attention to who he believes is the source of the study.
“Like so many in the Obama administration, Perliger does not want to engage in any dialogue on the issues, but just discredit an entire political movement by ad hominem charged words,” Titus said. “Perliger is not a serious scholar, but a propagandist for the existing regime.”
Said Connelly about the developing controversy with veterans: “The reality is that Obama will not get all of the gun control measures he wants through Congress, and they wouldn’t be enough for him anyway. He wants a totally disarmed America so there will be no resistance to his plans to rob us of our nation.”
Democrats in the Colorado legislature are pushing "high capacity" magazine bans, bans on private firearm sales, new taxes on firearm sales, and a repeal of a law allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry a firearm for self-defense on a university campus.
They are also seeking to dissuade "assault weapons" ownership via SB 13-196, which allows "assault weapons" manufacturers to be sued for the illegal use of the firearms.
As he has done in pro-gun control testimony before the U.S. Congress in recent months, Kelly voiced support for this Democrat-led push for more gun control. He intimated that the gun control push could keep us all safer by keeping "dangerous people" from getting guns.
Ironically, on March 5--the day after giving his pro-gun control testimony in Col.--Kelly purchased a 1911-style semi-automatic pistol and an "assault rifle" at Diamondback Police Supply in Tucson, AZ.
Witnesses in the store claim he also bought "high capacity" magazines.
Schakowsky evidently did not recognize Mattera, a conservative video journalist and senior investigative reporter for Talk Radio Network, who infamously confronted Vice President Joe Biden in the Capitol. (Mattera introduced himself to Schakowsky by name but did not indicate that he was filming or that he is conservative.) She spoke to Mattera as if he were a fellow gun control enthusiast--and Mattera played along, eliciting answers about Schakowsky’s enthusiasm for gun control.
“We want everything on the table,” Schakowsky told Mattera. “This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it.”
One poignant exchange was as follows:
Schakowsky: We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the--you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.
Mattera: So the assault weapons ban is just the beginning?
Schakowsky: Oh absolutely. I mean, I’m against handguns. We have, in Illinois, the Council Against Handgun... something [Violence]. Yeah, I’m a member of that. So, absolutely.
In another exchange, Schakowsky proposed allowances for states and municipalities to ban guns--though such laws have been repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court:
Mattera: We’ll never get a handgun ban with the Second Amendment as stated.
Schakowsky: I don’t know. I don’t know that we can’t. And there may be an allowance, once again, for communities--I have communities in my district that prohibited handguns within their borders. The rights of municipalities and states to view that as a sensible way to keep people safe--I don’t think it’s precluded.
When Mattera asked why legislators were not pressing for a handgun ban, given that most murders are committed with handguns, Schakowsky replied: “Because we’re not going to be able to win that. Not now.” She went on to explain why background checks were a useful interim policy, arguing that they would “address any kind of weapon.”
Schakowsky’s remarks about plans for broader gun control are not the first time she has revealed the long-term goal behind short-term policy debates. She has a tendency to do so when speaking to apparently sympathetic audiences. In 2009, she told a crowd that the goal of Obamacare would be to “put the private insurance industry out of business.”
Officially, Democrats--including Schakowsky--hew to the party line as laid down by the president, which pledges support for the Second Amendment and for gun ownership in rural communities where hunting and shooting are viewed as traditional pastimes.
Gun owners fear that the Sandy Hook-inspired gun control measures before Congress--none of which would have stopped the mass shooting at Sandy Hook--are a prelude to broader regulations, including the banning of handguns and the eventual registration and confiscation of firearms, despite earnest assurances by Democrats to the contrary.
The Democratic Party has taken a hard line on guns recently, with President Obama’s strategist, David Axelrod, joining New York mayor Michael Bloomberg in backing gun control enthusiast Robin Kelly over former Rep. Debbie Halvorson, who has an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association, in the recent primary to replace former Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. of Illinois. Kelly has promised to be a “leader” in “banning guns.”
© 2023 Created by Your Uncle Sam. Powered by
You need to be a member of REAL CONSERVATIVES to add comments!
Join REAL CONSERVATIVES