Tag Archives: assault weapons ban

Obama pivots to spanish language television after failures on budget, guns, healthcare

President Obama failureThe President is scheduled for sit-down interviews with Spanish language television networks Telemundo and Univision in an attempt to refocus American’s attention from his failures on the budget and gun control and the growing negative view Americans have on Obamacare.

President Obama is likely to focus on immigration reform – something that is much more likely to yield bi-partisan support than most of the items he focused on during his two terms. The White House is confident that growing numbers of Hispanic voters, many who watch Spanish language television, will help to pressure Congress into passing an immigration reform bill.

Obama has publicly supported legislation that would seek a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the United States.

Obama had spent most of the first part of 2013 trying to paint sequestration as a doomsday device put in-play by Republicans despite press reports and noted journalist Bob Woodward’s expose demonstrating that the White House pushed for sequestration. Recently, the White House cancelled tours of “The People’s House” and threatened the East Lawn Easter Egg Hunt pointing to sequestration as the cause – all while Joe Biden had been taking weekend trips back home, the Obama’s continued to vacation like Hollywood elites, and the Vice President blew over a half-million on a hotel stay in Paris.

The Administration’s attempts to show that budget cuts are painful failed miserably. Sequestration didn’t actually cut the budget, it only reduced the size of recent increases in federal spending of tax payer dollars. With only minuscule cutbacks coming from sequestration, no real change to services or the economy are palpable. Obama’s credibility has taken a tremendous hit as his fiscal cliff turns into a non-event.

The President had also spent the last few months pushing for an outright Federal gun ban. Limitations on shotguns, pistols and incorrectly-labelled “assault weapons” were desired by the Commander-in-Chief – until now. With Harry Reid not wanting to lose his seat as Senate Majority Leader, he was forced to pull the gun ban from the gun bill – instead focusing on background checks and enforcement. Sen. Reid did not want to force Democrats from rural states to have to vote on a gun ban bill which would just about guarantee lost Democrat Senate seats and a Republican Majority Leader come 2014.

This month, even more negative impacts of Obamacare have been brought to the attention of Americans. More doctors are retiring early, fewer are seeking medical careers, the costs of the legislation are skyrocketing, healthcare claims costs will rise 32% on average and more than 80% in some states.

Obamacare, gun control and the budget – all important and highly-visible issues with voters. All issues the President would have liked to have define his Presidency. All of them not headed in directions in Obama’s favor. But not all of them the most important.

According to a March 26th Gallup poll, the economy, federal spending and healthcare are the top three issues with American voters. Obama is now pivoting away from federal spending, trying to pretend Obamacare isn’t really as bad as recent press says it is and has been failing on the economy overall since taking office.

Obama approval ratingServing in his second term, President Obama presides over a nation more divided than any time since the 1960’s.  Racial tensions, class warfare, and an economy taking much longer than expected to recover have left America with a melting pot in shambles. Hoping to prevent a two-term legacy of outright failure, Obama is seeking to use Spanish language television to get at least one thing accomplished that may be looked upon favorably in history’s eyes.

Are Gun Rights Safe from a dead Assault Weapons Ban in U.S. Senate

Save America Gun rights advocates rally for Second Amendment in Utah

Save America Gun rights advocates rally for Second Amendment in Utah

 Round one of the gun control battle on Capitol Hill has been seemingly won by default by the protectors and supporters of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. This win for gun rights advocates became obvious to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) this week. He ordered Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to pull the so-called assault weapons provision from the bill. This bill had been passed by the Democrat controlled Judiciary Committee.

This comes on the heels of what appeared by many vote counters inside the Washington D.C. Beltway to be headed for total defeat. Even Reid’s own count reportedly indicated the most Democrat votes, that could be mustered to support the assault weapons ban was only 40. This is far less than the 60 votes President Obama needed to prevent a Republican filibuster of the bill. This is a victory for gun rights in the continuing congressional gun control battle

For the hysterical claims and attacks raised by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s in an attempt to strong arm national gun rights supporters with their bluster, it is a bitter defeat. This is also an important set back to the hysterical theatrics that the president displayed as he attempted to use his bully pulpit to force congress to submit to his will after the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

Despite the facts that demonstrate the shooter Adam Lanza, was suffering from apparent severe mental illness issues, Obama resorted to scare tactics to pin the blame on gun rights. This is where he failed to exercise true presidential leadership. He clearly purposed his focused on fear mongering because it was what the liberal media hysteria machine wanted and craved. After all, who would be able to sustain the withering assaults from the main stream media, he had to reason.

But, Obama and the alphabet soup of media networks underestimated the commitment of gun rights and constitutional advocates who were unwilling to witness nor permit the undoing of those basic rights Americans who dear. When the president felt he was falling back on what he thought was an easy target, gun owners, gun owners and supporters instead locked arms and moved forward!

Even former astronaut Mark Kelly’s recent cheap trick to spur on support against gun owners did not prevail. He tried to resurrect the legitimate sincere sympathy Americans felt over the attack upon his wife, former congresswoman Gabby Giffords. She had survived a vicious attack in an armed assault against her which resulted in the tragic deaths of six victims in Tucson, Arizona in January 2011.

Kelly tried in vain, in March to dramatize that the legal buying of an AR-15 style weapon was somehow a national news story special bulletin about the evils of assault style weapons. It fell flat, because Kelly had purchased the gun legally and had gone through the proper legal guidelines to register the weapon. So where was the story and where was the news if everything he did was legal?

Guess what Kelly, there is no news, just because you and the mainstream media want to gin up hysteria. America does not need you to tell them what parts of their constitutional Second Amendment rights are legitimate and what are not. Get a clue Kelly, all of the rights are legitimate and not open to debate, discussion or compromise.

What does this abandonment of the assault weapons ban portent for the president? After all, in his February State of the Union remarks, he stressed how parents and families of the victims of Sandy Hook Elementary School deserved a vote that included an assault weapons ban? Obama skipped away, clean out of the country on this one, and all the way to Israel.

It points to the very clear principle that Obama stands on, which is, his word has no honor and no value even for his supporters. He seeks the coward’s approach, which was to duck and hide overseas in Israel while his handlers take the hit from his support base. Not a surprise for a person who has been perpetrating a fraud on the American people on other issues since he took office in 2009.

In truth, Obama has no clear principles and his behavior in previous armed assaults by lunatic madmen with weapons proves as much. He game is to merely whisper sad condolences into the ear of victim survivors of tragedies, from purported deranged shooters like James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado, or Jared Lee Loughner in Tucson, Arizona or even from Major Nidal Hasan in the Fort Hood’s massacre.

The reality is that Obama does not seek true solutions to the gun violence which has taken a tragic toll on innocent American victims. He ducks and dodges the true solution which is to reform and tighten rules which govern a failing and severely crippled mental health care system. He would rather tap dance on the convenient stage provided by the liberal main stream media to attack, attack and attack again the sovereign rights of citizens and states. Obama wants to strip rights from the U.S. Constitution, not strengthen those very rights and protections.

So what of the crocodile tears that Obama apparently shed for the national media as he spoke that wintry night in Newtown in front of the family and friends who suffered a loss in the shooting? He assured them as he swiped tears from his eyes that he would commit the full weight of his presidential office to securing justice for them.

Of course he did not mean it. Even though the survivor’s tears were real, his tears were clearly manufactured, there and in his White House comments later. The bottom line, is that Obama did not see a pathway where he could further his political ambition to demoralize the conservatives and republicans by continuing to support an assault weapons ban that his own democrats in the senate did not back.

Now, the die is cast for Obama to try yet another avenue to assault the gun rights of Americans, but at least on this day, Obama and his fanatical gun control supporters have lost a fight to blow a hole in Americans’ constitutional gun rights protections.

( Let me know what you think )

VIDEO: A Lesson In Firearms

IMG_2854The testimony from Rob Doar at the Minnesota House Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee Hearing was a lesson in firearms that every gun control advocate needs to see. Unfortunately, several Democrat legislators, including the author of the bill to ban such firearms and equipment, felt it was unnecessary to be a part of the discussion.

Doar is a firearms expert and testified in opposition to proposed legislation that would ban certain firearms, limit ammunition capacities, require additional annual background checks and in-home gun storage inspections, firearm confiscation, as well as other measures to restrict the lawful possession of firearms in Minnesota.

Hundreds of pro-Second Amendment activists have attended the Public Safety Committee hearings that will wrap up Thursday evening. Representative Michael Paymar (D), Chair of the committee, has said that all of the gun control bills being discussed will be “laid over” for inclusion into a larger omnibus bill later in the month.
Read more on gun control! NRA Publishes List of Gun Control Advocates
Follow me on Twitter! www.twitter.com/erinhaust

What no one is telling us about Feinstein’s gun legislation – Part 1

Dianne_Feinstein_gun_banSen. Dianne Feinstein has been on a mission since the original Clinton gun ban failed to meet her expectations – the complete and total revocation of the second amendment rights for any and all private persons.

Right after the Sandy Hook tragedy, she was able to pull out an all-encompassing piece of gun legislation that went much further than Clinton dared while using the murder of innocents to affect her political agenda. The question everyone should be asking is – what’s in it? (and no, we shouldn’t wait until they pass it to ask – we know what happens when they do that.)

The intermediate goal of the bill is apparent in section 1: ‘This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Assault Weapons Ban of 2013’’’ – the long term goal is up to the reader to discern. The question is what do they intend next?

The way that Congress tries to bury the details is by only showing the amendments to existing U.S. code and/or bills, amendments and laws. We’ll spend the time to show you the existing codified law referenced in the Senators’ bill so you can best judge what the changes mean. Otherwise, the bill seems harmless…

First, is how the Senator and her compatriots choose to define things. Several types of firearms definitions are added to section 921(a) of the U.S. code, which is the definitions section.

Their first change is to add “semiautomatic pistol” to the list of definitions just after paragraph 29. Previously, only “handguns” were defined in this section of the U.S. code. Even though the bill is supposedly about assault rifles, this new definition is included :

(1) by inserting after paragraph (29) the following:

(30) The term ‘semiautomatic pistol’ means any re-peating pistol that

(A) utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round; and

(B) requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.

Why is the new definition of a semi-auto pistols necessary if the bill isn’t about them? In chess, one must not take a single move at its face value – the player must calculate what moves the first makes possible. Many further actions are possible once a simple definition is codified. To make something evil, first you have to define it. Then everyone knows what they should hate when you use that well-defined term – kind of like “assault rifle”.

Next, Feinstein takes care of to define semiautomatic shoguns. Is this necessary in an assault gun ban? Of course not, but that would assume the bill is totally about keeping schools safe or theaters or some other public space. The bill adds paragraph 31, just after the semi-auto handgun definition in 921(a) as:

The term ‘semiautomatic shotgun’ means any repeating shotgun that—

(A) utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round; and
(B) requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.’’

The Senator’s bill takes care to define semi-automatic shotguns like those used by duck and goose hunters, for home defense or by competitive shooters . Even some skeet shooters use “auto-loaders” – right Mr. President?

What comes next is the most confusing definition in the history of gun terminology. “Semautomatic assault weapon” is to be added to paragraph 36 of 921(a). Which is it? A Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle is no more an assault rifle than any other detachable magazine rifle. Under certain circumstances – your semiauto will be considered a “Semiautomatic assault weapon” under paragraph 36 of U.S. Code 921(a). Those who do not understand the law are destined to get run over by it. I’ll have to break this up in several parts to clarify what each part means.

The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:

(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:

(i) A pistol grip.
(ii) A forward grip.
(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
(iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.
(v) A barrel shroud.
(vi) A threaded barrel.

Sub paragraph A above is where the “single military characteristic” rule comes in. In the prior ban, two or more of these characteristics had to be present in order to meet the definition.

(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device de-signed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

This next section should cause many gun owners to take pause:

(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.

Sub paragraph C is open to interpretation. Would a certain buffer spring, buffer, lighter bolt or carrier be considered one of these devices? Could this be used to take a grandfathered (we’ll get to this later) rifle and make it un-grandfathered?

(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:

(i) A threaded barrel.

(ii) A second pistol grip.

(iii) A barrel shroud

(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip

(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

And now we know why they had to define semiautomatic handguns. So they could then turn them into banned weapons.

(E) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(F) A semiautomatic shotgun that has any of the following:

(i) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
(ii) A pistol grip.
(iii) A fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds.
(iv) The ability to accept a detachable magazine.
(v) A forward grip.
(vi) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.

This makes shotguns popular with 3-gun competitors illegal. It also explains why they had to define semiauto shotguns – so they could ban them. A semiauto with more than 5 shot capacity is a popular choice for home defense. These defense shotguns are almost always configured with collapsible stock, pistol grip and 7+ round capacity.

(G) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
(H) All of the following rifles, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof: (the list is expansive – we’ll put it up as a separate post here)

There are several things that should get the attention of current gun owners. “Barrel Shroud” is defined as “(A) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel.” That’s right, your shotgun’s forend, your rifles handgaurd or any other device that keeps you from the heat of a gun barrel is now one of the things that defines a banned gun. Don’t think they won’t refine these definitions to include even more innocuous guns. While they may not be trying to limit the guns you like today – they won’t stop at just these. Soon, the evil guns you like will be limited.

This bill goes after guns that weren’t previously thought evil: hadguns and shotguns used for personal defense and competitive shooting. The bill is not as innocuous as the mainstream media would have us believe – probably because they don’t understand it.

There are several more terms defined by the Democrat sponsors of this bill (Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, Whitehouse, Blumenthal, Levin, Rockefeller, Mikulski, Boxer, Reed, Lautenberg, Menendez –alleged child prostitute user?), Carden, Gillibrand, Schatz, Murphy, and Warren) – it’s time to think deeper about what our public servants are pushing.

Understand that politicians are only starting with gun sales. In Colorado they believe that the ownership of a gun is, in itself a dangerous action. They seek to force gun owners, sporting goods store owners and manufacturers of sporting goods to be liable should anyone use their products to commit a crime. It is as if all gun owners seek to attack schools, theaters or whatever.

America is losing the belief in itself and its people. Government officials believe they are better people than the average citizen and should therefore decide for us how we should live – the same things that King George III believed. Either we are different than that or we are the same. If we are the same, we are negating the risk that our forefathers took to allow a freer nation, a true Republic – our America.

Ceding any right to the Federal is a weakening of the individual. Believe wholly or believe not at all. The belief in human rights is absolute – not relativistic. When you hear your government officials disparaging the absolute, they are taking a bite out of your absolutely guaranteed human rights in order to give them greater power and profit. The enemy is not the top earners – it is the elitists in government.

We’ll continue tearing apart this dangerous legislation in parts 2 and 3 where we’ll discuss: grandfathering, who can and can’t acquire banned weapons, serializing of magazines, seizure of large capacity magazines, some guns exempted by the bill and more.

Firearms specifically banned by Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s bill

There is a section of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s bill that defines specific firearms (several that aren’t even used by ANY military) that should be banned. Here is that section:

(H) All of the following rifles, copies, dupli-
20 cates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capa-
21 bility of any such weapon thereof:
22 ‘‘(i) All AK types, including the following:
23 ‘‘(I) AK, AK47, AK47S, AK–74,
25 NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR– 5
OLL13052 S.L.C.
1 47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47,
2 VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM.
3 ‘‘(II) IZHMASH Saiga AK.
4 ‘‘(III) MAADI AK47 and ARM.
5 ‘‘(IV) Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and
6 86S.
7 ‘‘(V) Poly Technologies AK47 and
8 AKS.
9 ‘‘(ii) All AR types, including the following:
10 ‘‘(I) AR–10.
11 ‘‘(II) AR–15.
12 ‘‘(III) Armalite M15 22LR Carbine.
13 ‘‘(IV) Armalite M15–T.
14 ‘‘(V) Barrett REC7.
15 ‘‘(VI) Beretta AR–70.
16 ‘‘(VII) Bushmaster ACR.
17 ‘‘(VIII) Bushmaster Carbon 15.
18 ‘‘(IX) Bushmaster MOE series.
19 ‘‘(X) Bushmaster XM15.
20 ‘‘(XI) Colt Match Target Rifles.
21 ‘‘(XII) DoubleStar AR rifles.
22 ‘‘(XIII) DPMS Tactical Rifles.
23 ‘‘(XIV) Heckler & Koch MR556.
24 ‘‘(XV) Olympic Arms.
25 ‘‘(XVI) Remington R–15 rifles. 6
OLL13052 S.L.C.
1 ‘‘(XVII) Rock River Arms LAR–15.
2 ‘‘(XVIII) Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles.
3 ‘‘(XIX) Smith & Wesson M&P15 Ri-
4 fles.
5 ‘‘(XX) Stag Arms AR rifles.
6 ‘‘(XXI) Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556
7 rifles.
8 ‘‘(iii) Barrett M107A1.
9 ‘‘(iv) Barrett M82A1.
10 ‘‘(v) Beretta CX4 Storm.
11 ‘‘(vi) Calico Liberty Series.
12 ‘‘(vii) CETME Sporter.
13 ‘‘(viii) Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2,
14 AR 100, and AR 110C.
15 ‘‘(ix) Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal
16 FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1
17 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000.
18 ‘‘(x) Feather Industries AT–9.
19 ‘‘(xi) Galil Model AR and Model ARM.
20 ‘‘(xii) Hi-Point Carbine.
21 ‘‘(xiii) HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–
22 PSG–1, and HK USC.
23 ‘‘(xiv) Kel-Tec Sub–2000, SU–16, and
24 RFB. 7
OLL13052 S.L.C.
1 ‘‘(xv) SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer
2 SG 550, and Sig Sauer SG 551.
3 ‘‘(xvi) Springfield Armory SAR–48.
4 ‘‘(xvii) Steyr AUG.
5 ‘‘(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical
6 Rife M–14/20CF.
7 ‘‘(xix) All Thompson rifles, including the
8 following:
9 ‘‘(I) Thompson M1SB.
10 ‘‘(II) Thompson T1100D.
11 ‘‘(III) Thompson T150D.
12 ‘‘(IV) Thompson T1B.
13 ‘‘(V) Thompson T1B100D.
14 ‘‘(VI) Thompson T1B50D.
15 ‘‘(VII) Thompson T1BSB.
16 ‘‘(VIII) Thompson T1–C.
17 ‘‘(IX) Thompson T1D.
18 ‘‘(X) Thompson T1SB.
19 ‘‘(XI) Thompson T5.
20 ‘‘(XII) Thompson T5100D.
21 ‘‘(XIII) Thompson TM1.
22 ‘‘(XIV) Thompson TM1C.
23 ‘‘(xx) UMAREX UZI Rifle.
24 ‘‘(xxi) UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A
25 Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine. 8
OLL13052 S.L.C.
1 ‘‘(xxii) Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78.
2 ‘‘(xxiii) Vector Arms UZI Type.
3 ‘‘(xxiv) Weaver Arms Nighthawk.
4 ‘‘(xxv) Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.
5 ‘‘(I) All of the following pistols, copies, dupli-
6 cates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capa-
7 bility of any such weapon thereof:
8 ‘‘(i) All AK–47 types, including the fol-
9 lowing:
10 ‘‘(I) Centurion 39 AK pistol.
11 ‘‘(II) Draco AK–47 pistol.
12 ‘‘(III) HCR AK–47 pistol.
13 ‘‘(IV) IO Inc. Hellpup AK–47 pistol.
14 ‘‘(V) Krinkov pistol.
15 ‘‘(VI) Mini Draco AK–47 pistol.
16 ‘‘(VII) Yugo Krebs Krink pistol.
17 ‘‘(ii) All AR–15 types, including the fol-
18 lowing:
19 ‘‘(I) American Spirit AR–15 pistol.
20 ‘‘(II) Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol.
21 ‘‘(III) DoubleStar Corporation AR
22 pistol.
23 ‘‘(IV) DPMS AR–15 pistol.
24 ‘‘(V) Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol. 9
OLL13052 S.L.C.
1 ‘‘(VI) Rock River Arms LAR 15 pis-
2 tol.
3 ‘‘(iii) Calico Liberty pistols.
4 ‘‘(iv) DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol.
5 ‘‘(v) Encom MP–9 and MP–45.
6 ‘‘(vi) Heckler & Koch model SP-89 pistol.
7 ‘‘(vii) Intratec AB–10, TEC–22 Scorpion,
8 TEC–9, and TEC–DC9.
9 ‘‘(viii) Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol.
10 ‘‘(ix) The following MAC types:
11 ‘‘(I) MAC–10.
12 ‘‘(II) MAC–11.
13 ‘‘(III) Masterpiece Arms MPA A930
14 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical
15 Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol.
16 ‘‘(IV) Military Armament Corp.
17 Ingram M–11.
18 ‘‘(V) Velocity Arms VMAC.
19 ‘‘(x) Sig Sauer P556 pistol.
20 ‘‘(xi) Sites Spectre.
21 ‘‘(xii) All Thompson types, including the
22 following:
23 ‘‘(I) Thompson TA510D.
24 ‘‘(II) Thompson TA5.
25 ‘‘(xiii) All UZI types, including Micro-UZI. 10
OLL13052 S.L.C.
1 ‘‘(J) All of the following shotguns, copies, dupli-
2 cates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capa-
3 bility of any such weapon thereof:
4 ‘‘(i) Franchi LAW–12 and SPAS 12.
5 ‘‘(ii) All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, in-
6 cluding the following:
7 ‘‘(I) IZHMASH Saiga 12.
8 ‘‘(II) IZHMASH Saiga 12S.
9 ‘‘(III) IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP–
10 01.
11 ‘‘(IV) IZHMASH Saiga 12K.
12 ‘‘(V) IZHMASH Saiga 12K–030.
13 ‘‘(VI) IZHMASH Saiga 12K–040
14 Taktika.
15 ‘‘(iii) Streetsweeper.
16 ‘‘(iv) Striker 12.
17 ‘‘(K) All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms, in-
18 cluding TNW M2HB.
19 ‘‘(L) Any combination of parts from which a
20 firearm described in subparagraphs (A) through (K)
21 can be assembled.
22 ‘‘(M) The frame or receiver of a rifle or shot-
23 gun described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (F),
24 (G), (H), (J), or (K).

Will you support your state and sheriff that defy Obama Gun Control Orders

Obama uses Executive Orders to Strip Gun Owners of legal Constitutional Gun  Weapons Rights

Obama uses Executive Orders to Strip Gun Owners of legal Constitutional Gun Weapons Rights

Where do you draw the line in the sand in defense of your life, your family and your community? What happens when the President of the United States, determines that it is illegal for you to use the very guns which are constitutionally protected because he issues an executive order against ownership? What alternative are you left with, and who can you turn to?

Your weapons which are constitutionally protected may need a local sheriff who will stand against the federal tidal wave of unconstitutional White House directives to protect gun rights!

States and local sheriffs in several jurisdictions are leading a resurgent awakening in the nation in protecting the gun rights of citizens from being quashed by federal edicts. In fact, some of these states which are considering legislation to criminalize efforts of federal employees that attempt to enforce gun control executive orders. Some of these states considering legislation action include Alabama, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, Texas, and Wyoming, among others.

Reaction to the proposed legislative edicts by President Obama for a reinstated sticker assault-weapons ban and a 10-round limit on magazines is raising concerns by local law enforcement officials. According to CNS News, Oregon, Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller has already told Vice President Biden in a letter, that he will not enforce any recommended gun laws he deemed unconstitutional.

Another sheriff has joined the growing effort to prevent the assault on legal law abiding citizen’s Second Amendment rights in the state of Kentucky. According to Breitbart, Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky stated recently, “My office will not comply with any federal action which violates the United States Constitution or the Kentucky Constitution which I swore uphold.”

A state legislative leader in Texas is tackling this gun control overreach by the Obama administration and gun control advocates. Rep. Steve Toth (R) is planning legislative action to make it illegal for the state of Texas to enforce any federal laws that restrict the constitutional rights of its citizens to own semi-automatic firearms or the size of gun magazines.

Is this not the legal obligation of all local sheriffs and state legislative officials to uphold the dictates of the U.S. Constitution as well as their own state constitution? Is this not their oath of office? In fact, it makes perfect sense that every county, parish and borough in America has a sheriff or law enforcement officials who has taken such an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

This means that in all 3009 counties, 64 parishes and 16 boroughs in America, gun owners and those who support the upholding of Second Amendment rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution must get active now. They should be demanding that these officials protect those rights against federal intervention by President Obama or congress.

Take the opportunity to begin a petition effort in your county to request your local sheriff or legislator to protect your Second Amendment rights against Obama’s executive order or congressional intervention. Use Saturday January 19th’s Gun Appreciation Day to rally for this cause or begin your own letter writing campaign.

On January 19th go to your local gun range, gun store or gun show and bring your American Flag and a ‘Hands off my Guns’ sign to show your support!

This day is your way of demonstrating that constitutional gun rights do matter. This is your opportunity to stand up and acknowledge that a nation that fought a War of Independence to be free from tyranny of an imperial elite will not bow on bended knee to a 21st century version of that now residing in the White House.

Embrace this national day of gun appreciation as a measure of respect for the Second Amendment that millions of Americans hold dear. The gun control activists want a dialogue in America, but only if it is based on discussing ways to disarm citizens. Show America that this is your answer to a national dialogue.

Send the nation a clear concise message: “We will stand and fight!”

( Click – let me know what you think )