Tuesday, June 30, 2015

The first American-made Kalashnikovs are now for sale

h/t Wirecutter

 kalashnikov usa

They're not just Russian anymore.

Kalashnikov USA announced on Tuesday that it is now selling AK-47 assault rifles and shotguns that have been manufactured at a U.S. factory.
The Kalashnikov USA web site provides a menu of two rifles and two shotguns, all semiautomatics. One of the rifles features a curved, banana-style high-capacity magazine with 30 rounds.
Thomas McCrossin, CEO of Kalashnikov USA, told CNNMoney in January, at the SHOT Show in Las Vegas, that his company was going to manufacture the guns in America as soon as a factory was established. The company has not told CNNMoney where that factory is located.

 The Kalashnikov USA brand is owned by RWC in Pennsylvania. The company's slogan is, "Russian heritage, American innovation."

 The company was established by the original, Moscow-based Kalashnikov Concern to export its guns into the U.S. But that plan was stymied by President Obama's anti-Russian sanctions, to punish Russian businesses for President Putin's war in Ukraine.
The firearms made Kalashnikovs a hot commodity in the U.S., since there was a finite supply. McCrossin told CNNMoney that his company would fix that problem by making the guns in the U.S.
The AK-47 was invented by Mikhail Kalashnikov in the former Soviet Union in 1947. Its durability and reliability in combat has made it the most popular assault rifle in the world, rivaling even the AR-15.
AK-style rifles are manufactured all over the world, including in the U.S. But this is the first time official Kalashnikov-brand guns have been produced in the U.S. They will be available at a number of retails outlets.

Source   http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/30/news/companies/kalashnikov-usa/index.html

What to Do When Your Doctor Asks About Your Guns

Have you had the experience of going to your doctor for a particular problem, let’s say headaches, and been surprised by the doctor asking you about a completely unrelated subject—whether you have a gun in your home?
It’s no accident that doctors’ or health plans’ questions about guns in your home have become routine. In the 1980s and 1990s medical professional organizations declared a culture war on gun ownership in America. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) developed an official policy (2012 version here) urging pediatricians to probe their young patients’ parents about guns in their homes.
Claiming only to be concerned about “gun safety”, the latest code term for gun control, the AAP pushed its member doctors to advise families to get rid of their guns. One of the authors of the original AAP anti-gun policy, Dr. Katherine Christoffel, was quoted in an AMA journal as saying “Guns are a virus that must be eradicated.”
The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American College of Physicians (ACP) have also mounted aggressive and highly publicized campaigns against gun ownership and advised their member physicians to pressure their patients to get rid of their guns. Other physician specialty groups have done the same.
Many people are rightly outraged by this unprofessional behavior of some physicians. Several states, most notably Florida, have passed laws to stop doctors and other health care professionals from misusing their patients’ trust to push a political agenda of gun control. Such abuse of authority and trust by a physician is called an ethical boundary violation.
You may encounter the question in your health plan’s standard health appraisal questionnaire. Even though it may not be of your doctor’s making, it’s still part of your permanent medical record. Or your doctor may have a personal prejudice against gun ownership, shaped by her training in medical school or residency. Either way, it is important for people to know some very important facts:
• Doctors receive absolutely no training about firearm safety, mechanics, or tactics in medical school or residency. They are completely unqualified by their training to advise anyone about guns.
• Gun ownership is a civil right. A doctor’s abuse of his position of trust to pressure you to give up that civil right is professionally and morally wrong. In some states it is illegal. You DO NOT have to tolerate it.
• You as a consumer have great power in the doctor-patient relationship. Do not be afraid to use it.
Let’s be clear. We’re not talking about a doctor who casually talks with you about guns out of a common interest you both may have. If you and your doc get to comparing notes about your favorite hunting rifles or latest trip to the gun range, that is a world apart from a calculated effort to prejudice you against gun ownership.
So what can you do when your doctor or your health plan starts asking you about guns in your home? Your doctor may very likely just be going along with the guidelines of his or her gun-hating medical organization, such as the AAP or ACP. One survey showed that although many doctors agree that guns are a public health problem, only a minority feel it’s right to ask their patients about guns in their homes. Many doctors sense that it’s wrong and don’t allow themselves to be recruited as gun control activists by their medical organizations.
A range of options is available to you, some sending a more powerful message than others. These are updated from DRGO’s original recommendations, since the medical profession has changed so much in the last two decades.
1) Politely refuse to answer the doctor’s question or the health plan’s questionnaire item about guns. You can either explain your discomfort with the question or decline to give a reason.
2) If the gun question(s) appears on your health plan’s routine health assessment questionnaire, file a formal written complaint with the health plan. Every health plan has a member complaint process, often prescribed by law. Your complaint will be registered and the health plan will respond.
3) If the health plan responds with the excuse that their questions about your guns are standard medical practice that they must follow, you can take the complaint to the next step—file a written complaint with your state agency that regulates health plans. For example, in California you would follow the complaint procedure on the Department of Managed Health Care web site. It’s your right as a patient under California law.
4) If your doctor persists in asking intrusive questions about guns in your home, you can also file a complaint specifically against him or her with your health plan. Such complaints are taken seriously, and the doctor will be called to account for it. Having one or more complaints about ethical boundary violations on her record will make her think twice about doing it again.
5) Internet consumer rating sites have created another way doctors can be publicly rated on the basis of service, attitude, and behavior. Some commonly used rating sites are Yelp.com, Healthgrades.com, Vitals.com, and RateMDs.
6) Increasingly, doctors’ pay from Medicare and insurance companies is tied to how they score on patient satisfaction surveys. These are often sent randomly to patients, but you can request one to fill out. You can have a powerful impact on a doctor’s conduct by reporting the doctor’s unethical questioning about your guns.
7) If the doctor’s conduct is especially offensive, as was the case with this Florida pediatrician, you have the right to submit a complaint to the doctor’s licensing board. This is an agency in your state government that holds the ultimate power of licensure over your doctor. A quick internet search for “medical board” in your state should take you to the official form for filing a complaint. This is a step that should not be taken lightly.
Remember when writing your complaint to be polite. Explain why you find the doctor’s or health plan’s behavior unacceptable. Include the powerful points we’ve discussed:
• Your doctor is professionally unqualified to give expert advice on firearms
• Your right to own firearms is a civil right that is none of your doctor’s business
• A doctor misusing his or her authority and trust to push a political agenda of gun control is an ethical boundary violation. Such unprofessional conduct is not acceptable.
Your right to own a firearm is enshrined in the Constitution. Don’t let any doctor or health plan intimidate you into giving up your civil rights.
Download the DRGO Resource Document “What to Do When Your Doctor Asks About Your Guns” here 

Via  http://www.drgo.us/?p=1621

Love of Power Wins – Now the Yezhovschina Can Begin

The Secret Police in Orwell’s dystopian society were employed by the Ministry of Love. In that ironic designation we find the genuine meaning of the insistent refrain that “love” triumphed when the US Supreme Court consummated the long campaign to bring the most intimate human institution fully under the state’s control.
Those presently celebrating the state’s “affirmation” of same-sex relationships are intoxicated by the knowledge that they are the “who” rather than the “whom” in Lenin’s famous formula (which defines the essential political question as “who does what to whom”). Like countless others they have been beguiled into believing that “liberation” is achieved by identifying with the exercise of state power, rather than being protected against it.
The Stonewall Riot occurred because a minority rebelled against the routine abuses committed by police who used the leverage provided by liquor licenses to justify harassment of people who privately engaged consensual behavior. The movement that coalesced after Stonewall loudly proclaimed the desire to be left alone, even as it was co-opted by the institutionalized “civil rights” movement, which seeks to abolish freedom of association
That movement is now pursuing that objective with unprecedented vigor.  
As the New York Times reports, “gay rights leaders have turned their sights to what they see as the next big battle: obtaining federal, state and local legal protections in employment, housing, commerce and other arenas” – a crusade that will mean constricting the exercise of religious liberty and other elements of property rights.
In 1993, the ACLU supported the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which the group recently invoked in a successful defense of the religious liberties of a Sikh serviceman.  That case was decided shortly before the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26 ruling on same-sex marriage, which made it clear that the who/whom polarity had shifted. The ACLU is now demanding modification of the RFRA to allow the federal government to punish businessmen, clergymen, and other people whose exercise of religious freedom is deemed “discriminatory” by the state-licensed custodians of correct sentiments, at least some of whom aren’t content with the piecemeal approach.
Within hours of the Obergefell ruling, New York Times contributor Mark Oppenheimer used a Time magazine op-ed column to demand enactment of a measure that would “abolish, or greatly diminish” the tax-exempt status “for organizations that dissent from settled public policy on matters of race or sexuality.” Invoking the standard collectivist fallacy that the State subsidizes anyone it doesn’t dispossess outright, Oppenheimer groused that conservative churches are among the “rich organizations [that] horde plentiful assets in the midst of poverty.”
Only those organizations offering “an indispensable, and noncontroversial, public good” should be exempt, decrees Commissar Oppenheimer, who like his comrades is serenely confident that the present who/whom alignment can be made permanent.
To him and those of his persuasion, the services of an abortion clinic would likely be regarded as “indispensable and noncontroversial,” and thus worthy of an exemption. Those provided by a crisis pregnancy center offering material aid and moral encouragement to women choosing to give birth would be neither, and thus subject to being pillaged by the IRS -- and, most likely, regulated out of existence. Similar outcomes would be imposed on contending activist groups deployed on opposing sides of every culture war fault line.
The power to tax is the power to destroy, and withdrawing the exemption would effectively extinguish religious liberty by replacing it with a revocable state-issued license.  The ultimate objective is not co-existence with conservative or traditionalist religious believers, but their subjugation – in the name of “love,” naturally. “Hate” is already being defined as disagreement with “settled public policy,” and it would have no legitimate place in public discourse – or refuge in private life, once privacy had been effectively abolished.

Monday, June 29, 2015

It's Coming Soon...


From freedom to fascism in a few easy steps


“Politicians know this ruse well: If they want to put something illegal or immoral upon the people, they simply create names that convey something good and/or operate in secret to cover their chicanery.”
“So here we have Congress legislating away American sovereignty through stealth and deception, aided and abetted by the distractive clamor over a Confederate battle flag flying in South Carolina.
And over there we have new calls for gun control under the guise of “bipartisanship” from Sens. Pat Toomey and Joe Manchin following the shooting of nine Christians worshiping in a church. Never mind that the shooter, a deranged, bigoted, drug-addled psychopath broke no fewer than 10 laws in the process of committing his heinous crime. The elites tell us another gun law would have certainly stopped him in his tracks, and removing the flag aforetime would have certainly ended his bigoted notions.”

Read the whole thing @  http://personalliberty.com/from-freedom-to-fascism-in-a-few-easy-steps/

Do More PT !

Saturday, June 27, 2015

Confederate Flag Kills 7 At Alabama Shopping Mall

via NC Renegade- via Brock  thanks to both of you-this is outstanding !

Seven people were killed this morning when a Confederate flag walked into an Alabama shopping mall and started shooting.
According to local reports, the flag entered Cherrywood Mall outside Huntsville armed with two AK-47 assault rifles, a P 228 handgun and several grenades. It immediately proceeded to unload its ordinance on unsuspecting shoppers.
In addition to those killed, 23 people were injured and are currently being treated in area emergency rooms. Several are in critical condition and not expected to survive.
The flag’s motivations are uncertain at the moment. However, according to witnesses the flag did specifically target White people with Northern accents.
“The flag chased us down the hallway screaming ‘Die, Yankees Die!’, says Justin Anderson, a aeronautical engineer originally from New Hampshire. “Luckily flags don’t move very fast, so my girlfriend and I managed to outrun it.”
Lucy Patterson, a homemaker from New Jersey wasn’t so lucky. Both her legs were blown off when the flag lobbed a hand grenade at her feet.
“It looked straight into my eyes, pulled the pin, and threw a deathball my way,” she says. “It was so cold-blooded. Almost as if it wasn’t human.”
Shortly thereafter the flag turned the gun on itself, shooting itself in the pole several times. Rushed to Huntsville Beth-Israel Medical Center, it was pronounced dead on arrival.
Confederate flags have increasingly been committing mass shootings in the South. Although retailers like Wal-Mart and Amazon have belatedly banned their sale, the existing stockpile of flags should be considered armed and extremely dangerous.
“It’s a real tragedy,” says Brett Michaels, the CEO of retailer Wal-Mart, “We should have stopped selling Confederate flags sooner. Think of how many flag-on-human shootings we could have prevented.”

NEW School Prayer

Now I sit me down in school Where praying is against the rule For this great nation under God Finds mention of Him very odd.
If scripture now the class recites, It violates the Bill of Rights. And anytime my head I bow Becomes a Federal matter now.
Our hair can be purple, orange or green, That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.. The law is specific, the law is precise. Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
For praying in a public hall Might offend someone with no faith at all.. In silence alone we must meditate, God's name is prohibited by the State..
We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks, And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks... They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible. To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen, And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King. It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong, We're taught that such 'judgments' do not belong..
We can get our condoms and birth controls, Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles... But the Ten Commandments are not allowed, No word of God must reach this crowd.
It's scary here I must confess, When chaos reigns the school's a mess. So, Lord, this silent plea I make: Should I be shot; My soul please take! Amen.

Gun-banners are after more than the 2nd Amendment


By Donald L. Cline. June 24th, 2015

I am a Constitutional scholar and a pro-right to keep and bear arms activist. I am writing today to bring to the attention of the ----NRA members and leadership a fundamental issue everyone seems to be ignoring: The right to keep and bear arms is not the only right being assaulted today by the anti-rights gun-banners, and we are helping them accomplish their objective! It is time to stop helping our enemies.
When the Brady Act of 1993 was proposed, with its attended Form 4473 interrogation and NICS check, the NRA leadership thought it was a good idea. Apparently the NRA leadership did not realize it was a stalking horse. The object was not to reduce violent crime or criminal access to firearms, and its backers knew it. And in fact it has not reduce violent crime or criminal access to firearms. Not one bit. The object was to sucker gun owners into supporting destruction of their Fourth Amendment-guaranteed right to be secure from unwarranted interrogation and search in the absence of probable cause of criminal conduct.
The object was also to confiscate from citizens their right to keep and bear arms without due process, and replace it with a government-issued privilege which could be permitted or denied by a faceless bureaucrat in some FBI basement boileroom.
The object was also to further erode – let’s face it, destroy, once and for all – our 10th Amendment-guaranteed right to a federal government exercising only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and a State government exercising only those powers not prohibited to it by the Constitution.
  •   Interrogation and search and seizure of rights without probable cause: The purchase or transfer of a firearm is not probable cause of criminal conduct.
  •   The taking our RIGHT to keep and bear arms without due process: A compelled interrogation and search under color of bogus law is not due process.
  •   The federal government doesn’t even have the authority to license gun dealers or commission ATF agents or to monitor, notice, oversee, infringe upon or interfere with our right to keep and bear arms in any way.
  •   Government does not have the lawful power to command the waiver of a right as a precondition to allowing you to exercise a right.
  •   In fact, government does not have the lawful power to allow or deny the exercise of a right in the first place: State government have the Police Power to regulate the USE of arms – when, where, under what safety regulations, under what criteria for self-defense (so long as self-defense is not prohibited) – but under the 2nd Amendment and the prohibition clause of the 10th Amendment, even State governments have no lawful power to ‘regulate’ the right to keep and bear arms.
  •   Article VI of the U.S. Constitution binds the judges to the supreme Law of the Constitution, the laws or Constitution of any State notwithstanding.
People are actually proud of the fact they have met government criteria to allow them to exercise a right government has no authority to allow or deny, when in fact they have waived their right to keep and bear arms AND their right to be secure from interrogation and search in the absence of probable cause AND their right to due process. When government decides to confiscate firearms, gun owners won’t have anything to say about it: They have waived their rights. ALL of their rights under the Rule of Law.
The have rendered the first nation in the history of the planet to establish the rights of citizens superior to the arbitrary whims of kings and princes and neighborhood warlords irrelevant and moot.
Compelled background checks is and was a stalking horse: Now the next step is being undertaken: Constitutional subversive Michael Bloomberg and his wealthy cronies are going around the country buying voter initiatives to expand these bogus background checks into what they call “Universal Background Checks.” The law is now in effect in Washington State, Oregon and Colorado, and is about to be voted on in Nevada and Arizona and Maine. Once this color of law is entrenched, whether it is enforced or not, the next step will be to require background checks for anyone wishing to speak out against government tyranny. Compelled background checks for anyone wishing to exercise their right to march in a protest rally. Compelled background checks for anyone petitioning government for redress of grievances. You must prove your ideas are not a threat to government, don’tcha know?
Background checks MUST be voted down. And the illegal, bogus, unconstitutional color of law known as the Brady Act of 1993 must be struck down with extreme prejudice. Not one crime has ever been prevented by the Brady Act.

Friday, June 26, 2015

SMEAR MERCHANTS: Southern Poverty Law Center smears Project Appleseed (!!)

 h/t Madd Medic

The Southern Poverty Law Center group was founded to advocate for the civil rights for the poor and minorities, and file lawsuits on behalf of victims of the Klan and other hate groups.
Today, the SPLC has been perverted into a far-leftist organization, in part thanks to its leftist zealot head Mark Potok.  It brands conservative groups and websites as “hate groups” and “hate speech”.   Example, you ask?  Dr. Ben Carson was placed on one of the SPLC’s “Extremist” watch lists earlier this year.  After an far-reaching outcry, his name was removed and an apology issued.
Their latest target?  Would you believe Project Appleseed?
(SPLC) – A man with ties to militia organizations and nationwide assault rifle training program faces a murder charge in Washington state in a case that began with the attempted eviction of house squatters.
…In 2010, Faire was identified as a trainer for the “Appleseed Project,” a militia-based training program that urged every citizen to own an AR-15 assault rifle with the goal of “teaching every American how to fire a bullet through a man-size target out to 500 yards.”
Below-Mark Potok,the man who believes anyone to the right of Stalin is a "right wing extremist"

 Photo via UCLA
Anyone who has been to an Appleseed event has probably groaned by now, and maybe even face-palmed themselves.
Jack Dailey, head of Appleseed, wrote in an email to Bob Owens of BearingArms.com that Faire was briefly an Instructor-in-training in 2009 before he was dismissed from the program.
Appleseed teaches basic rifle marksmanship skills, in addition to a teaching a history lesson about April 19, 1775 – the day the American Revolution began.  The events are non-political but they do encourage people to “get off the couch” and get involved in the political process.
They don’t urge people to buy any guns – not even America’s favorite rifle, the AR-15 police patrol-type rifle.  They recommend .22 caliber “Liberty Training Rifles” – typically Ruger 10/22 or Marlin 795 rimfire rifles to learn the fundamentals with affordable (where you can find it) .22 long rifle ammunition.  Yes, the goal of the events is for a person to shoot to the “Rifleman’s Standard”, 4 minutes of angle.  Yes, 4 minutes of angle translates to 20″ at 500 yards.  I suppose you could say that’s the width of a human torso.
Fair disclosure:  I’m an Appleseed Instructor-in-training.
Trust me:  There’s nothing “militia” about Project Appleseed.
It’s just another freedom and liberty-promoting group smeared by the far leftists at SPLC.
As flawed as the SPLC’s “research” is, it’s still endeared by leftists in the mainstream media.
Unfortunately, their work isn’t harmless.
The North Carolina leftist moonbat who killed three Muslims earlier this year was a fan of the SPLC on his Facebook page.
An even more direct link was the Family Research Council attacker, who planned on executing multiple mass killings using the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate map”.
(Washington Examiner) – The Family Research Council shooter, who pleaded guilty today to a terrorism charge, picked his target off a “hate map” on the website of the ultra-liberal Southern Poverty Law Center which is upset with the conservative group’s opposition to gay rights.
[Scumbag’s name redacted] pleaded guilty to three charges including a charge of committing an act of terrorism related to the August 15, 2012 injuring of FRC’s guard. He told the FBI that he wanted to kill anti-gay targets and went to the law center’s website for ideas.
The SPLC has fallen a long way from its noble beginnings.

Source  http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=17278

Gun blogger, others sue ATF over records request

 Via David Codrea

Three gun rights advocates sued the ATF on Tuesday after filing a records request they say wasn’t fulfilled by the federal agency.   
David Codrea, a pro-gun blogger, Len Savage, a federally-licensed gun dealer and the FFL Defense Research Center, a not-for-profit corporation that defends federal firearms license holders, claim the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives failed to fulfill a Freedom of Information Act request filed in March.
The FOIA request asked for clarification on how the ATF classifies firearms receivers, specifically how complete the component must be to be considered a firearm.
“Phrased otherwise, the point when a ‘receiver blank’ becomes a ‘receiver.’ … We have heard reference to ’80% complete’ as the standard, but whether this is correct, and if so, what features make it so complete, we cannot find,” the complaint read.
Codrea called the ATF’s determination process contradictory.
“The information requested is critical to ensure that citizens don’t suffer penalties due to conflicting rulings. Without clear policies, enforcing compliance and demanding accountability can become inconsistent and arbitrary,” Codrea wrote on Thursday.
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs filed the request  March 12 and the federal agency failed to provide the documentation within the mandatory 20-day period, which expired April 13.
The ATF declined to comment citing the lawsuit and the federal agency’s policy against commenting on litigation.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

America as a Dangerous Flailing Beast


From John Chuckman, a former chief economist for a large Canadian oil company, as posted on theburningplatform.com, with a preliminary comment from by Stucky from that site:
I like this article. Not that it has a lot of new stuff. Rather, it’s a wonderful collection of old important stuff in one place. Also, the author does not go off the deep end in histrionics as authors of such doom&gloom articles are sometimes wont to do in order to attract readers. Just a nice, reasonable approach. “Just the facts, Ma’am” …. and man, are we fucked six ways to Sunday.
America as Dangerous Flailing Beast
Despite pretty talk about “democracy” and “human rights,” U.S. leaders have become the world’s chief purveyors of chaos and death – from Vietnam through Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine and many other unfortunate nations, a dangerous dilemma addressed by John Chuckman.
When I think of America’s place in the world today, the image that comes to mind is of a very large animal, perhaps a huge bull elephant or even prehistoric mammoth, which long roamed as the unchallenged king of its domain but has become trapped by its own missteps, as caught in a tar pit or some quicksand, and it is violently flailing about, making a terrifying noises in its effort to free itself and re-establish its authority.
Read the rest @ http://straightlinelogic.com/2015/06/25/america-as-a-dangerous-flailing-beast-by-john-chuckman/

Rifle Tips: How to Combine Shooting Sticks and a Bipod for Extra Stability

 Via Outdoor Life

I recently attended a class on long distance shooting hosted by Smith & Wesson and Hornady. During the class Justin Richins (builder of fine custom rifles, shooting instructor, and big game guide) showed me a technique that revolutionized the way I think about bipods and shooting sticks. While I’ve frequently employed bipods or shooting sticks when hunting, I’ve never used them together.
Shooting off of a bipod provides a super steady rest when prone. And shooting with cross-sticks lifts your game to a whole new level from the sitting position. But neither works great for both positions. Enter the bipod wrap.
This technique is suitable for any rifle that you can mount a bipod under. Justin prefers lightweight packable shooting sticks from Stoney Point in conjunction with a good bipod.
Sit against something solid such as a tree or rock to lean back against. Deploy both your bipod and your sticks and lay your rifle atop the sticks with your bipod just in front of them. Wrap your bipod into the sticks as shown on the video. This will support the rifle at your shoulder and allow you to rest against the tree or rock while you wait for your shot. Raising your rifle from your lap and into position is now obsolete; this technique keeps you ready to fire at a moment’s notice.
Check out Richin’s custom rifles, shooting classes, and western big game hunting at submoafirearms.com and thehuntingcompany.com. And, if you ever find yourself without a bipod or shooting sticks, make sure you know how to find a suitable rest in the field.

Video here http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/game-changers/rifle-tips-how-combine-shooting-sticks-and-bipod-extra-stability#ooid=1jajZxdTrIeisifpuvbfHq0Mpr4v0VBL

Story The Top 5 Most Beloved US Service Handguns

Military and police firearms carry a weight that few other guns can match. This is due in part to the fact that these firearms have actually been tested in the field, which not only strengthens their reputation but also forms an unique bond between user and firearm. When you are forced to trust a gun with your life, it is hard not to grow fond of it.
Unless, of course, its shoddy quality is what puts your life at risk in the first place.
In this list, we recount the top five most popular military and police service handguns in US history. Despite being commonly referred to as service pistols, we specifically phrased it as handguns because surprise, there’s a few revolvers on this list. What other guns do you want to see on this list if it was expanded to a top 10?

Read the rest @ http://www.outdoorhub.com/stories/2015/06/23/top-5-beloved-us-service-handguns/

An de Tar Baby, he don sa Nothin …

Via NC Renegade-read the rest @ http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/an-de-tarbaby-he-don-sa-nothin/

Obama, Senators Want to Resurrect Gun Ban



-- Seek to blame all gun owners for actions of a lone Dirt Bag

“The President wants to blame an inanimate object — the gun,” [said] Erich Pratt, spokesman for the Gun Owners of America. “But that just deflects blame away from the real culprit: gun-control policies that leave people defenseless in the face of evil perpetrators who are never effectively prevented from acquiring weapons.” -- Newsmax, June 20, 2015
They’re coming for you.
Anti-gun Senators Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey just announced they want to bring back their toxic legislation stripping Americans of their gun rights without due process of law.
And the President is ready to sign this gun ban into law.
You may recall our battle against the Manchin-Toomey language in 2013. Their legislation sought to BAN private sales of firearms, forcing all gun buyers to run to a dealer and submit to a background check before purchasing a firearm from their neighbor.
Thankfully, Senators Toomey and Manchin failed because Gun Owners of America and its members got in their way. According to the New York Times, and other liberal media outlets, GOA was able to put enough heat on the Senate to defeat this pernicious legislation.
The new Toomey-Manchin proposal will be an infringement of Second Amendment rights, and it will do nothing to stop real criminals from getting guns.
Realize that this background check expansion is just a ploy to erect more obstacles to owning guns. The more that people have to seek permission to buy a gun, the easier it becomes for gun control advocates to find reasons to deny them.
We’ve already seen this in the way veterans have been targeted and prevented from owning guns because they suffer from PTSD -- symptoms related to their service for our country.
Ironically, the recent South Carolina shooting demonstrates the FAILURE of gun control. The Charleston gunman bought his gun from a dealer and passed a background check.
The result: Nine people died at the church ... from gunfire ... in a gun-free zone.
Clearly, more gun-free zones and more background checks are NOT the answer.
But making it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed WILL make a difference. That will save lives. And that’s why your Senators should cosponsor S. 498, introduced by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX).
Please note: While The Washington Post is reporting that Senators Manchin and Toomey want to resurrect a new version of their 2013 legislation, they have not introduced it yet. But Senator Manchin says he won’t bring the bill up “until he is sure he has rounded up the necessary votes.”
So that’s where you come in!
ACTION: Use the provided pre-written letter to urge your Senators to OPPOSE the new Manchin-Toomey gun grab.

Another WA Patriot Falsely Arrested, LFA III% Denounces Spokane County Sheriff

by | Jun 25, 2015

Members of the liberty movement continue to be harassed and arrested on false charges in Washington State, as the net tightens for those standing up for liberty.  This week Vitaliy Maksimov, a patriot from the Spokane area, was arrested for “obstructing a police officer.”  His actual “crime”? Refusing to leave two minors alone with two deputies from the Spokane County Sheriff’s Department.  Vitaliy explained what happened on his Facebook page:
Yesterday, as I was riding bikes with a niece and a nephew, two cop cars stopped us regarding some railroad bridge nonsense. I did the standard “I don’t answer questions/Are we free to go”, but they decided to cite the niece for biking w/o a light (she had my phone clipped to her jacket for light, and she was riding b/w us). The cops told me I was free to go, and told me to leave — which I refused to do, since the teens were in my care.
I got handcuffed, driven off to jail, and spent 12 hours in a cold cell, wearing nothing by my wet gym clothes and no socks.
The most interesting thing happened during the attempted booking, when I refused to answer questions. One of the cops asked: “Constitutionalist, right?”
Let’s parse this out a bit, since there’s a lot going on.  In addition, I spoke with Vitaliy by phone, and he filled in some details.
1. They demanded that he leave two minors alone with them.  Would you leave your minor daughter alone with two cops when there is no reason to do so?  Or would you find it odd and highly inappropriate that they demand you leave while they keep the two minors?
2. They arrested him for refusing to endanger the teens.  Think about that.  They arrested him because he refused to give two minors to two deputies, choosing instead to stay with them and ensure their safety.
3. Once they got him to the station and were attempting to book him, they asked if he was a Constitutionalist simply because he asserted his right to counsel and his right to remain silent.  When he took advantage of two very basic Constitutional rights, they slapped a label on him—a label that Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich has had to answer for in the past.  (In recent days, more than one patriot has heard Spokane County deputies on the local scanner refer to people as Constitutionalists as if that is a codeword for “dangerous.”)
4. They told him he could go home, IF he submitted to fingerprinting, having his photo taken, and subjecting himself to questioning about things like his medical history.  When he refused, they said “I guess you want to be a douchebag,” and put him in a jail cell for the rest of the night—in wet clothes with no socks, by the way.
5. They refused him access to an attorney, and stated he could speak with a lawyer after questioning and compliance with their demands.
There are so many issues with this case that it defies reason.  Even the officer who released him admitted that the charges were bogus.  Unfortunately, Spokane County operates with impunity, and so Vitaliy’s wife had to pay $1000 to get her husband out of jail.  He has a court date on 1 July.
This is what’s happening on Ozzie Knezovich’s watch.  These are his men, and this is the conduct he allows and supports from his own deputies.  In case you think this is an isolated incident, let’s go back to May of this year, when a deputy shot and killed someone’s dog.  Then there was the pastor shot by one of Knezovich’s deputies in 2010 (after he hit the pastor in the knees with a baton).  Keep in mind that the deputy was on a lot next to their home in the middle of the night, working on a report.  When the pastor went to investigate what he thought was a prowler, he found the deputy in his car.  Rather than identify himself and/or reassure the man, the deputy told him to get on the ground.  When the pastor refused, the deputy hit him in the knees with his baton, and then shot him.  (The deputy was finally terminated almost five years later, in January of this year.)
Sheriff Knezovich claims to care about the Constitution.  It’s obvious, however, that’s just lipservice.  It’s rather difficult to claim that you and your department support Constitutional rights when you are singling out those who actually do.  By the way, is it normal for your deputies to demand that minor females be left with them without cause?  Is that something you train your men to do?
The deputy in question is Hayes, badge number 591686.  Let’s make him famous…and while we’re at it, let’s hold the sheriff responsible.  It’s about time his deputies stop acting like criminals.
LFA III% calls for Sheriff Knezovich to answer for this conduct, and for Deputy Hayes to, at the very least, be terminated.
For more details, read his firsthand account here.

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Pentagon Releases “War Manual” Claiming Authority to Potentially Murder Journalists they Don’t Like

Washington, D.C. – A new Pentagon legal guide, the “Department of Defense Law of War Manual,” which encompasses the legalities of war for all four branches of the U.S. military, explains legally acceptable methods of killing opposing soldiers.
Shockingly, the manual also notes that journalists can now be labeled “unprivileged belligerents,” a term that replaces “enemy combatant.”
The “Law of War Manual” details acceptable means of killing to include cutting, stabbing, bombing, exploding and shooting the enemy, while the use of poisons or suffocating gasses are strictly prohibited.
Surprisingly, the killing of troops that are retreating was deemed legally acceptable.
Perhaps the most troubling section of the manual relates to the manner in which journalists are treated in a designated war zone.
“In general, journalists are civilians. However, journalists may be members of the armed forces, persons authorized to accompany the armed forces, or unprivileged belligerents,” the “Law of War Manual” asserts.
This new term, “unprivileged belligerents” is now used in the stead of “unlawful enemy combatant,” a catch all Bush-era term which essentially referred to any male over the
age 16 in a designated war zone.
Ambiguous terms such as these are meant to provide legal cover, so that the U.S. military can essentially kill innocent people, without facing any legal repercussions.
In an interview with RT, Georgetown Journalism professor Chris Chambers explained why using these terms seemingly provide legal cover, explaining that the reason is “because the Geneva Convention, other tenets of international law, and even United States law – federal courts have spoken on this – doesn’t have this thing on ‘unprivileged belligerents’.”

Read more @ http://thefreethoughtproject.com/pentagon-releases-war-manual-claiming-authority-potentially-murder-journalists/

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Gun Control Called "Absurd" on Anti-Gun Website

To say the very least, articles questioning the advisability of gun control are few and far between on HuffingtonPost.com. Recently, however, a blogger on the normally anti-gun website expressed views that are liable to work gun control supporters into a tizzy.
In a piece titled In Gun Control Controversy, Can Americans Handle the Truth?, self-described public relations consultant Mario Almonte says that in countries plagued by corrupt governments, violent religious fanatics, and civil war, people would "welcome guns to protect themselves and their families” and would consider gun control "absurd" and its advocates "extraordinarily naïve."
Essentially endorsing gun ownership in the dangerous places that Almonte mentions – the Middle East, Mexico, South America, and some countries in Africa – is one thing. But Almonte goes further, questioning whether Americans can trust "lawmakers of this particular government [to] never choose sides and turn their armies against each other, as they did during the Civil War, to resolve their disagreement over a bitterly disputed topic."
On the other hand, Almonte concludes that "there is no easy answer to the question of gun control," because he thinks data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that "the number of gun deaths in the U.S. continues to rise every year and may soon surpass those from vehicle traffic deaths."
He's mistaken about firearm-related death trends, however. According to the CDC, the annual number of firearm-related deaths has declined one percent, and the per capita rate of such deaths has declined 28 percent, since 1981, the first year for which data are available. As part of those trends, the annual number and per capita rate of firearm homicides have decreased 26 percent and 46 percent, respectively, and the annual number and rate of firearm accident deaths have decreased 73 percent and 81 percent, respectively, since 1981.
It's not what gun control supporters want to hear. But, then again, neither was Almonte's unexpected recognition of the use of firearms for protection of life and liberty.
© 2015 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. This may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

Monday, June 22, 2015

Broken record Gun Control

 Guns and Control

Like a broken record repeating itself the Gun Control puppets repeat their emotional cries for Gun Control. The problem is emotions don’t cure issues.
Even the president and wannabe presidents are salivating over the tragic dead bodies of 9 of our citizens to politicize an issue for self-political gain. Why is it we don’t hear their fabricated empathy for the victims and passion for Gun Control when there hasn’t been a recent mass shooting? The same holds true for the media. Their ratings gain from sensationalizing tragic shooting is an advertising windfall that is exploited for monetary gain. We would be much better served controlling greed and lust for power than focusing on an inert object like a piece of metal and plastic called a gun. Bottom line is those that own our puppet government, the media and most industries that effect our daily lives are owned and controlled by a very few elite. Those very few elite are in fear of an armed populous because our founders foresaw this fear and insured the citizenry had the means to repel the evils of tyranny with the Second Amendment. For this reason the very few elite wish to disarm us.
They have already achieved many of the historically proven methods of control citizens of a nation such as; dumbing down the masses in which the United States now ranks 105 from the top in intelligence, they have maintained a division amongst the people with parties, religion, race and a multitude of diversionary tactics that keep us Americans off the same page. Along with guns they also fear the masses being on the same page because being on the same page leads to the people being in control of their lives instead of a few elite controlling our lives for them. The issue isn’t Gun Control as deceptively being sold to us, its plain control. Our fight as citizens is combating the forces of evil that result in racist senseless evil like what we just witness not the scapegoat gun. Our founders stood together with the helping hand of God to the fight the tyranny of control imposed on America by King George. They came from diverse backgrounds just as our current mix of populous. The real evil is those that gain monetary gain from the bodies of its dead citizens and mass shootings pail to the wars we engage in the name of Democracy that we don’t even have ourselves. We even kill more of us with cell phones and texting than guns yet we refuse to look in the mirror at our own short comings.
The problem with us Americans’ isn’t guns, phones or any other objects we demonize because we don’t have the fortitude to take a look in the mirror and blame ourselves for straying away from solid morals, fostering ignorance and the apathy of victim too lazy to save itself. We demonize the gun but do nothing to combat the course of actions that led to the proliferation of evil to horrify us with mass saturation of media attention. The actions or inactions of a society are a reflection of its citizens and our reflection in the mirror is a fat, lazy, apathetic, and ignorant un-exceptional sheeple instead of the world leading people of once upon a time.

From Here http://www.examiner.com/article/broken-record-gun-control

Three Victories: Supreme Court Affirms Protections for Farmers, Travelers and Arrestees Against Government Theft, Invasion of Privacy, and Excessive Force

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court has handed down three consecutive rulings affirming the right of Americans to be free from government overreach. The Rutherford Institute advanced arguments in all three cases, which respectively deal with the use of tasers and excessive force by prison officials (Kingsley v. Hendrickson); the practice of police gaining unfettered access to motel and hotel guest registries (City of Los Angeles v. Patel); and the government’s confiscation of agricultural crops without any guarantee or promise of payment (Horne v. U.S. Department of Agriculture).
“In a police state, there is no need for judges, juries or courts of law, because the police act as judge, jury and law, and their version of justice is one-sided, delivered at the end of a gun, taser or riot stick,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “While these rulings may not fix all that is wrong with our present police state, they go a long way towards reminding government officials that they are not above the law, whether you’re talking about agricultural boards and raising farmers, prison officials and excessive force, or hotel registries and the right to privacy.”
In a 5-4 ruling in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a lower court used an improper test to determine whether guards used excessive force against a pretrial detainee. Pointing out that individuals awaiting trial (pretrial detainees) are particularly vulnerable to government abuse and should not be forced to prove that their alleged abusers intended to harm them in order to claim their rights were violated, Rutherford Institute attorneys had asked the Supreme Court to remove restrictions some courts have imposed on civil rights lawsuits for excessive force by inmates against jail personnel, thereby discouraging the use of excessive force by prison officials. The case involves a Wisconsin man who alleges that he was subjected to unreasonable and excessive force in reckless disregard for his safety when prison guards forcibly removed him from his jail cell and subdued him with a stun gun. Affiliate attorney Stephen J. Neuberger of The Neuberger Firm assisted The Rutherford Institute in advancing the arguments in Kingsley.
In a 5-4 ruling in Horne v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Supreme Court declared that raisin farmer Marvin Horne deserves to be compensated for the official seizure of one-third of his personal property by the government. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute had argued that the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on government confiscation of property applies not only to the appropriation of land but with full and equal force to personal property such as agricultural crops. The case arose after independent raisin farmers in California were fined almost $700,000 for refusing to surrender about 40% of the raisins they produced to the government as part of a program purportedly aimed at maintaining a stable market for commodities. Affiliate attorney Christopher F. Moriarty of Motely Rice LLC assisted The Rutherford Institute in presenting arguments in Horne.
In a 5-4 ruling in City of Los Angeles v. Patel, the Supreme Court struck down a Los Angeles ordinance that permits the police to check guest registries at motels and hotels at any hour of the day or night without a warrant or other judicial review. Citing a fundamental right to privacy, travel and association, The Rutherford Institute had argued that the ordinance, which is similar to laws on the books in cities across the nation, flies in the face of historical protections affording hotel guests privacy in regards to their identities and comings-and-goings and burdens the fundamental rights of travel and association. Affiliate attorneys Anand Agneshwar and Grace K. Chang of Arnold & Porter, LLP, assisted The Rutherford Institute in advancing the arguments in Patel.

Read the rest @ http://agovernmentofwolves.com/2015/06/22/three-victories-supreme-court-affirms-protections-for-farmers-travelers-and-arrestees-against-government-theft-invasion-of-privacy-and-excessive-force/

Top Five Biggest Mistakes You Can Make Fixing Cars


Thursday, June 18, 2015

Reflections on the Patriot Tribe

by | Jun 18, 2015

As I write this, patriots from all over the country are traveling to Washington State to send a message.  They are coming to what may be the largest event of its kind in American history, to make a statement that will stand on its own for generations to come.  They are coming resolute, brave and fearless.  They are coming to train, to network, to partake in the humbling honor and grave responsibility of being part of the few who choose to stand in defense of Liberty.  Before an event, I am always filled with a sense of wonder at it all.  It never, ever gets old.  As an old, dear friend of mine said to me a few weeks ago, “How blessed are we to be given the opportunity to fight for Liberty?”  We are blessed, indeed.
I think about the people who I call family in this cause, the ones who I train with, eat with, argue with, and would without hesitation fight and die with.  Contrary to what the average American may think, the people who I call family are not uneducated white trash with a penchant for anarchy and gun crimes.  My tribe is made up of some of the most amazing minds you’ll ever meet, people who have honorably served Liberty—some of them since I was a child.  They are trainers and teachers, always willing to share their knowledge and their skills.  They are family folk, who love their children and their spouses.  They are builders and engineers, mechanics and healthcare workers. They go to work, pay bills, go to their kids’ school events, fix their sinks and mow their lawns.  In other words, in many ways they are just like you.
What sets them apart—and what should scare the living daylights out of the tyrants—is this:  That is not all they are.
They are also brilliant tacticians and strategists, and eloquent writers who can inspire people to action with their words.  They are farmers and survivalists who can thrive in nearly any environment, no matter how rough the terrain or lean the resources.  They are prepared for any disaster, and have a plan for nearly any possible situation they may find themselves in.  They are intelligence professionals who are experts in things that you would rather not know about and should hope you never have to face.  They are former Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps.  They are everything from herbalists to pilots, radio operators to plumbers.  They are well-trained…and they are still always training.  They are not rich, but they offer what they have to the cause.  They are self-reliant, and regardless of political, racial or religious differences, they are bound together by the basic idea that we were created free, and must remain free at all costs.
They are also quite literally the most incredible marksmen I’ve ever seen.  Of course, the difference between them and the feds is that my tribe has never taken innocent life…and never will.
This is my tribe.  These are the people who I stand next to at rallies, the people who are traveling across the country to be here, the people who I spend day in and day out working with in this amazing and terrifying fight we are in.  I think of each of their faces as I write this, of each of their skillsets and their fortitude and their absolute balls.  Male and female alike, young and old, of all races and all walks of life.  I am so humbled to know them and be counted as one of their number.  I think of their kids, growing up strong and resolute like their parents, and it fills me with hope.  I think of the man whose face I see across the dinner table every night, and I love him even more because I know in his heart burns the exact same fire that is in mine.  All of us, united by Liberty no matter the cost.  I think of the sacrifices that so many have made in the last few weeks and months to make this Arms Expo a success…and trust me, there were so many.  I say that not because these people want recognition—although the people I worked with these last few months certainly deserve every accolade that could be thrown their way—but because I want readers to understand how much we love this cause, how much we are willing to give in its defense.
We are often castigated and ridiculed for our blunt manner, and I am especially singled out for my seemingly rude attitude toward those who choose to write letters instead of stand, or who do things “differently.”  Perhaps now is when you expect an apology for that.  I’ll be honest: You’ll never get one.  I see what my teammates have given up and continue to give in support of this cause, and I can tell you right now that 99% of you will never know the true cost.  I see the stress, the lack of sleep, the severe health issues that they endure because of it.  I have been there for the quiet 4am mornings when, after a sleepless night spent with too many cigarettes and too many pots of coffee, we all look at each other with the sobering realization that we may not come home from the rally that day.  I know about the financial struggles for those who have chosen to fund liberty activities out of their own pocket when they couldn’t afford to.  I’ve seen them hug their kids goodbye knowing it may be the last time they see them.  People laugh at that because so far nothing has happened, but the truth is, we never know if this rally is the one they start shooting at.  We never know if this time is the time when they decide to arrest us all. For my brother Anthony, this time is already here.  If the federal government has its way, his wife Maria will face running a farm and raising five children alone.  Where will you be?  Arguing on Facebook?  Running around in the woods and going to “meet and greets”?
Believe me—this post is in NO way a treatise on why some patriots are better than you, so spare me the hate mail.  What this post is meant to do is give you some perspective.  People read my articles or Facebook posts and they think they know me.  They call me a bully and far worse.  They call Anthony attention-seeking and arrogant.  They do everything possible to discredit us and tear us down.  None of that bothers me because I know what you do not.  I see what the others in this fight go through in order to keep fighting.  The bottom line is this: Membership in this tribe costs something–not because we say so, but because that is the nature of the tribe.  Liberty is bigger than ALL of us, and as elitist as it may sound, truly standing in its defense by default will cost you.  It will affect your friendships, your relationships, your job.  It will change your financial situation, and it will affect your sleep, your health.  But it is so incredibly worth it.
Every day I watch people give everything they have for this cause.  Everything.  So when you tell me in a Facebook message, firmly ensconced in your easy chair with your laptop, that what YOU do, in your little social media groups and Zello “meetings” and letter writing is “just as important”, please forgive me when I laugh in your face.  Come stand next to me at a rally, defying tyranny in front of a sniper team just waiting for a go order to blow a hole in your face, and then I’ll take you seriously.  Go stand in front of a federal judge as they deny you every right you have in a court of law, like Anthony is doing today.  Show up at the Arms Expo this weekend and defy unconstitutional law with us.  Choose which bill to pay this month because you don’t have enough cash to pay them all and still continue to support the fight.  Stop typing and put some damn skin in the game, because the people I see in this cause have everything on the line.
This weekend, my tribe will all stand defiant against laws that seek to control, to strip us of rights inherent in our very existence as human beings.  What will your tribe be doing?

Via http://www.patrickhenrysociety.com/reflections-on-the-patriot-tribe/

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Warning: Federal Court Rules that 2nd Amendment Right is Now a Reason for Cops to Detain You

Grand Rapids, Mich. – In a stunning violation of 2nd Amendment rights, the U.S. District Court of Western Michigan ruled police have the legal authority to detain individuals that choose to exercise their constitutional right to open carry a firearm. Open Carry is also specifically allowed under Michigan law.
The ruling means that people in Michigan who choose to exercise this constitutional right are now subject to being stopped by law enforcement for engaging in a completely lawful activity.
Officers detained Johann Deffert in early 2013. He was walking down the sidewalk with a holstered FNP-45 pistol, after receiving a 9-1-1 call from a woman who spotted Deffert with the open carried, but holstered, handgun on his person.
The dispatcher initially informed the caller that Michigan is an open carry state. However, the woman subsequently explained that she found Deffert’s presence alarming, due in part to his wearing of camouflage, although she admitted that he wasn’t threatening anyone. Somehow the dispatcher made the decision that someone engaging in a completely legal activity, as earlier in the call noted by the dispatcher, should now be inspected by police, due to caller saying they found wearing camo disturbing.
The absurdity in logic; that someone wearing camo takes the situation from being a completely legal situation not to be interfered with, and raises it to a level of needing police assistance, shows the extreme arbitrary nature of the entire situation.

The incident was captured on responding officer Moe Williams’ dash cam, and lasted 14 minutes. Williams had indicated he believed that perhaps Deffert was suffering from some type of mental illness, as he seemed to be “talking to nobody” when the officer arrived on scene. Upon further investigation, Deffert was revealed to have been happily singing the song “Hakuna Matata” from the Disney movie “The Lion King” while strolling down the sidewalk.
The video shows the officer command Deffert to lay face down on the ground upon arrival on the scene. Deffert was treated as if he were a criminal that needed to prove he was not doing anything wrong, as the officer detained him while running a mental and criminal background check. Deffert was polite and respectful throughout the encounter, but strongly asserted his rights regarding open carry laws in the state of Michigan.
Remember, all of this transpired despite Deffert’s total compliance with Michigan law, in respect to open carry of a firearm. Eventually, Deffert was released, as he had violated no laws, done nothing wrong, and there was no legitimate reason to hold him. Shortly after the incident, in what seemed like a vindication for Deffert at the time, Grand Rapids Police Sgt. Steve LaBreque recommended to Moe’s commanding officer, that Moe “would benefit from some additional training in handling ‘open carry’ issues.”
Several months later Deffert filed a federal lawsuit alleging his constitutional rights were violated and that he was assaulted and falsely imprisoned. The legality of open carry in the Michigan was never in question, only if law enforcement had the authority to detain an individual simply because they were open carrying a firearm, according to court records.
In the most convoluted of logic, U.S. District Judge Janet Neff claimed that officers do have such authority. Neff wrote that the officers were “justified in following up on the 9-1-1 call and using swift action to determine whether [Deffert’s] behavior gave rise to a need to protect or preserve life … in the neighborhood.”
When a call to 9-1-1 is made in regard to a completely legal activity, the police should not even be dispatched. If in fact the police needed to “determine whether [Deffert’s] behavior gave rise to a need to protect or preserve life … in the neighborhood,” they need not impeded a citizen from going about their legitimate and legal business,” as Neff asserts, but rather could passively watch from a distance to determine if there is any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity afoot, and if so act accordingly.

The most glaring problem with Neff’s logic, is that there is no reason for police to ever assess someones behavior who is simply engaging in constitutionally protected and lawful activity, regardless if another citizens takes issue with the activity. If the activity fails to rise to the level of criminality, then police have no business getting investigating or getting involved. The police, as public servants, aren’t paid to investigate non-crimes.
The idea that someone needs to prove their innocence for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity is contrary to everything America teaches its children to believe about liberty and freedom.

The case will most likely be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The National Rifle Association and others have offered to assist in the appeal.
It will be interesting to see what open carry advocates across the nation, and specifically those in Texas, a hotbed of open carry activism, think about this ruling; and how they would respond if this were to become the standard of law in their state.
Sound off in the comments!
Be sure to share this critical information with all your liberty loving friends!
Read the decision below.

N.Y. State Senator Proposes Using GPS Implants To Track Violent Convicts

h/t The Grey Enigma

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – It’s high-tech and certainly controversial, but with the two prisoners from the Clinton Correctional Facility still on the lam an upstate senator says one way to track future escapees is to microchip them.
Bloodhounds and expensive manhunts are so yesterday when it comes to hunting escaped prisoners. That’s the opinion of one lawmaker, who says the state should explore implanting tiny GPS devices under convicts’ skin.
Others say microchipping criminals could have multiple uses, CBS2’s Marcia Kramer reported Tuesday.
“If you’ve got convicted murderers, the type of people these two men are, that it would make some good sense at that level that we should have something that we could track them,” said State Sen. Kathy Marchione, R-Saratoga.
With 800 law enforcement officials still unable to pick up the trail of escaped murderers Richard Matt and David Sweat, the suggestion from Marchione to implant microchips in people convicted of serious crimes is picking up steam.
“I’m in favor of it, but I do think there have to parameters with respect to the crime itself. I wouldn’t do it for arson, which falls under the violent, but I would do it for aggravated rape and murder,” said Paul Viollis, a security expert and former investigator in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.
“I see the public safety value in it, not just from an escape standpoint but also from an inmate-control perspective within the institution,” said Jon Shane, a professor at John Jay College.
The New York Civil Liberties Union said microchipping inmates is unconstitutional.
“It sounds like a knee-jerk reaction. They should plug the security inside prisons,” said NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman. “As a constitutional matter, it won’t survive a challenge because it’s an invasion of body autonomy.”
Shane, a former cop, said it might pass constitutional muster if the chip was removed if and when a prisoner is released.
“Removing it when they are paroled, those sorts of things, transitioning from a microchip to an ankle monitor, are all going to have to be explored,” Shane said.
Kramer asked local residents what they think, and the responses were split.
“It wouldn’t do any harm, I guess. They do it with dogs,” one man said.
“It opens a whole can of worms. I think it would be a little bit extreme,” added Kurt Clarke of the Bronx.
“I think that might be a good idea, maybe it’ll work,” said Andrew Passero of Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey.
“I heard about it in other parts of the world, so I would say yes,” said Beata Perrasi of the Upper West Side.
“It feels very inhumane to do that, but sometimes these people need it,” Forest Hills’ Bridget Westermeier added.
“Once we go down this path we’re going to start microchipping all of us, which I think some people in Albany would like to do,” said Paul Insermann of East Flatbush.
There’s also the question of whether the microchip could be cut out the minute the inmate escaped. Experts say the chips would be embedded in the neck, underneath six or seven layers of skin. So simply cutting it out without medical assistance would pose a significant health risk, Kramer reported.


The Coming Conflict, Arms Expo, and the Anthony Bosworth Case


(First of all, my humble apologies for going without an update in so long. I hope to be much more regular with these updates once the Arms Expo is over.)
We are only a few short days from the Expo now. Seven months of preparations, seven months of planning and strategizing all come down to this weekend. It is a venture made for and by the patriots, and we are humbled to see how many people across the country are giving of their time, efforts and money to ensure its success. We are also incredibly grateful to God. Whoever thought that an event of this size could not be planned and organized by only four people simply does not understand the power of divine intervention. We know it exists…because we’ve seen it over and over during this process.
There is an event between now and the expo, however, and we await it with a quiet contemplation and—if we are honest—a little dread. On Thursday, Anthony Bosworth—one of our own—will stand again in federal court in Spokane, charged with “failure to comply with a lawful order.” While the appearance is being billed as a simple status hearing, those of us familiar with the case know it may be anything but simple.
So far, the court has refused him a trial by jury, and even refused to tell him what lawful order he failed to comply with. In reality, the facts of the case are beyond clear: He was arrested for violating a law that did not exist, by a US Marshal drunk on his own perceived authority, and his arrest was used as a pretext for intimidation, threats, and further violation of Anthony’s inherent Constitutional rights. To those who would challenge this characterization, I offer you the following questions to answer:
– Why did a federal judge need to “expand” current federal law after Anthony’s arrest if his action was already violating a law as they claim?
– Why did this judge literally “make” law, thereby stepping outside of her legal and constitutional boundaries of power?
– Why were none of the other armed citizens at the event harassed or arrested?
– Why was Anthony denied right to counsel over and over while in custody, and why was he held as a domestic terrorist, interrogated by the FBI about patriot activities and the Liberty movement?
These questions have answers, but they are difficult and hard truths. They are truths that the average American (and even some who call themselves patriots) cannot bring themselves to fathom. We must do more than fathom, however. We must accept, prepare for, and answer those truths.
Tomorrow night, Anthony Bosworth may be sitting in a federal jail cell, denied of his rights simply because he followed the Constitution. Simply because of what he believes, and what he stands for. What goes through a man’s mind in the days and hours before such a confrontation? What would go through yours?
During his interrogation the federal agent told him that his wife and children were safe…”for now.” The federal government has already shown that it has no problem putting a bullet through the head of a woman holding a baby while standing on her front porch. It has no problem mass murdering men, women and even children on US soil.  Do you really think it will not harm us if we get in its way? Do you really think that you can keep safe by staying “under the radar”, or by compliance with their tyrannical edicts?
Tomorrow a citizen will stand in front of a federal judge and uphold Liberty at all costs. Do you have that level of fortitude? Or are you going to stay home this weekend, afraid to attend an event where unconstitutional state law is violated and armed citizens stand in defiance of tyranny?
Mark Twain once said that the two most important days in your life are the day you’re born…and the day you realize why. We are born as free men and women, with a spirit that can be unbreakable, that can rise above fear and stand in spite of anything—if we only have the guts. Our forefathers bought our freedom with their blood. Let us honor that sacrifice, that precious gift. Let us carry the tradition forward and purchase Liberty for our own children and grandchildren.
The Expo offers some of the best training you will find anywhere in the country. Take advantage of it. Talk to some of the most influential minds in the Liberty movement. Develop your network. Spend some time with people who are willing to stand at all costs. You will either be energized, inspired…or you will realize that you don’t love Liberty as much as you claim.
We are standing. Today, tomorrow, and always. Stand with us.
We will not comply.
Kit Lange, LFA III%

 Via Patrick Henry Society

US Wildlife Managers Declare Eastern Cougar Extinct

US Wildlife Managers Declare Eastern Cougar Extinct

US Wildlife Managers Declare Eastern Cougar Extinct
Representational Image. (Thinkstock)

Eastern cougars that once roamed North America from parts of Canada to South Carolina are extinct and no longer warrant federal Endangered Species Act protections, US wildlife managers said on Tuesday.

The proposal to remove so-called eastern cougars from the list of endangered and threatened species comes nearly 80 years after the last of those mountain lions was believed to have been trapped and killed in New England, according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Cougars, also known as panthers and pumas, were once the most widely distributed land mammal in the western hemisphere, but extermination campaigns have seen the large wild cats eliminated from roughly two-thirds of their original range, federal wildlife biologists said in a statement.

The Fish and Wildlife Service in 2011 opened an extensive review of the status of eastern cougars, cousins to mountain lions that still roam western US states and imperiled Florida panthers.

The agency said on Tuesday the four-year review, which included information from 21 states and eastern Canadian provinces and hundreds of reports of sightings dating as far back as 1900, showed cougars are seen every so often in the US East but they are likely Florida panthers or mountain lions that have wandered from the western United States or which have been released or escaped from captivity.

Eastern cougars were declared endangered in 1973, even though the last known records were tied to one killed by a hunter in Maine in 1938 and another in New Brunswick, Canada, in 1932.

Government wildlife managers believe the bulk of eastern cougars, which averaged from 6 to 8 feet long (1.8 to 2.4 meters) and weighed from 105 to 140 pounds (48 to 63.5 kg), disappeared in the 1800s with the arrival of European immigrants who killed the predators to protect themselves and their livestock.

Their demise also was linked to the destruction of forests for wood, which pushed the cougars' chief prey, white-tailed deer, to near extinction, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Florida panther is the only breeding population of cougars east of the Mississippi River, the agency said.

Mountain lions that have been seen in the past two decades in the Midwest and elsewhere include a lone, young male killed in 2011 on a Connecticut highway after traveling thousands of miles (km) from South Dakota through Minnesota, Wisconsin and New York, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

The agency is accepting comment on the delisting plan until August 17.