Showing posts with label BATFE nonsense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BATFE nonsense. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

'Fast and Furious' becomes 'Slow and Tedious'

Since December 2010 the government program known as Operation Fast and Furious has morphed into a program that could be accurately labeled as Operation Slow and Tedious. The objective is to delay exposure of the truth until that exposure has no political or personal impact on the various players involved.
Efforts to get at the truth of the scandal got a boost in January when an Obama-appointed federal judge ruled that thousands of documents subpoenaed by congressional investigators could not be withheld under claims of executive privilege. In keeping with the Slow and Tedious strategy, the Department of Justice finally released a large block of the documents three months later on a Friday afternoon in April but continues to withhold many others.
The recent document dump supports speculation that then-Attorney General Eric Holder knew more about the ill-conceived gunwalking operation than he has claimed, and that he and other high-level DOJ officials actively worked to conceal details of the operation from Congress and the public. Emails released earlier in the investigation indicate that White House adviser Valerie Jarrett gave guidance in the coverup, but so far, none of the recent documents provide a direct link to the White House. What they do show is a concerted effort to keep the details of the operation under wraps for political purposes.
Had these documents been made public when they were originally subpoenaed, they could have had a serious negative impact on Obama’s re-election campaign and might have prevented implementation of new regulations requiring gun dealers in border states to report information about purchasers of semi-auto rifles. By delaying the release until now, those political consequences have been avoided, but there are other potential consequences the administration is continuing to try and avoid. Recent criminal charges filed against government officials in the Flint, Michigan, water scandal are a reminder that politicians and bureaucrats might not be beyond the reach of the law. So far, no one has paid a significant price for their roles in Fast and Furious, and the administration clearly wants to keep it that way.
It has been more than five years since the tragic death of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry at the hands of Mexican bandits. The bandits were armed with guns acquired with the assistance of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives – the agency tasked with enforcement of federal gun control laws. In January of 2011, just one month after Agent Terry’s death, I asked the question in this column whether the Obama administration had intentionally allowed guns to be smuggled to Mexican drug gangs as a way of boosting the administration’s gun control agenda. That column was based on the investigative reporting of citizen-journalists David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh, who developed the story from sources within the BATF and worked tirelessly to bring it to the attention of Congress and “mainstream” reporters. The WND column was the first mention of the scandal in a major national media outlet. That was followed in late February with a report by Cheryl Atkisson on CBS News in which she interviewed one of Codrea and Vanderboegh’s BATF sources. After that, other reporters slowly started mentioning the growing scandal, and Congress intensified its investigation.
Fast and Furious was the codename given to a still-unexplained program under which the BATF instructed certain gun dealers to go ahead with firearm and ammunition sales to suspected Mexican arms traffickers. Once the sales were made, BATF agents were ordered to break off surveillance of the suspects, and no effort of any kind was made to track the suspects or the guns they possessed. BATF officials – and the media – continue to refer to the program as a “botched sting,” or a “failed attempt to track guns to Mexican drug cartels,” but those labels don’t come close to fitting the program. The only monitoring that was done – or even possible under the plan – was to trace serial numbers of guns found at crime scenes.
That information provides no actionable intelligence, and only marginally enhances the prosecution of low-level, straw buyers. When Agent Terry was killed, both guns recovered at the scene turned out to have come from the Fast and Furious program. That resulted in the program being quickly shut down and swept under the rug. Had it not been for Vanderboegh noticing an off-hand comment on a BATF employee gripe site, and following up on the comment, the whole Fast and Furious debacle might have never been made public.
Codrea and Vanderboegh never got the credit they deserved for breaking the story, but they weren’t in it for the notoriety; they just wanted the truth to be known. Vanderboegh, a prolific blogger and rabble-rouser, is currently dealing with serious health issues and is sadly not expected to be with us much longer. As cantankerous and disagreeable as he can be, he has done the republic a great service by challenging authority and exposing the threads of truth in this case. Readers are encouraged to remember him and his family in their current struggles.
After the story started gaining legs in 2011, the administration, the Department of Justice and the BATF hierarchy disavowed any knowledge of the program. They pointed fingers at local agents and made some superficial changes. The acting head of BATF was laterally transferred to a new position, as were the supervisory agents in charge of the operation. A politically connected federal prosecutor in Arizona and a DOJ deputy resigned, and the agents who blew the whistle on the operation faced career-ending retribution. No other consequences have resulted from the ill-conceived program except hundreds of dead and injured in Mexico.
For now, Operation Slow and Tedious drags on. Attorneys for Congress continue to battle attorneys for the administration over release of the remaining documents, but the public’s interest is waning, and the trail is growing cold. Slow and tedious is once again proving to be a successful strategy for consequence avoidance in Washington.
©2016 The Firearms Coalition, all rights reserved. Reprinting, posting, and distributing permitted with inclusion of this copyright statement. www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

The Volokh Conspiracy-The costs and consequences of gun control

Today the Cato Institute published my monograph “The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control.” The policy analysis examines several gun control proposals which have been promoted by the Obama administration and the gun control lobby: bans on so-called assault weapons; bans on standard magazines; confiscation; and the prohibition of all private sales, loans and returns, except when processed by a gun store. After explaining why each of these proposals is likely to do little good and much harm, the paper discusses realistic alternatives which really can save lives. The most important of these is providing a much broader safety net for people seeking help for severe mental illness. In addition, respecting the right to bear arms has been demonstrated to be successful in thwarting would-be mass murderers.
 Prohibiting certain guns or magazines will be futile without confiscation of such arms currently owned by citizens; so said a 2013 memo by Greg Ridgeway, acting director of the National Institute of Justice (the research arm of the Justice Department). Likewise, the NIJ memo explained that “universal” background checks are useless without comprehensive registration of all guns and all gun owners. Yet Americans have historically resisted gun registration, precisely because of concerns about confiscation. These concerns are not unfounded; registration lists have been used to enforce confiscation in New York City, in Australia and in Great Britain. In Australia, the confiscation was euphemistically called a “buy back,” although it was in fact involuntary confiscation, with only partial compensation paid for the confiscated items.

Read more @ The Volokh Conspiracy here

Thursday, August 6, 2015

Cornyn’s NRA-Backed Mental Health Bill Needs to Address Key Questions

Via David Codrea

 “A+”-rated* Sen. John Cornyn has the National Rifle Association’s backing for a “modest” bill “that would reward states for sending more information about residents with serious mental problems to the federal background check system for firearms purchasers,” Fox News is reporting. The legislation is generating no small amount of debate among gun rights advocates, with some supporting it as a pragmatic move designed to thwart more draconian proposals, and others characterizing it as a preemptive surrender (and worse).

Without getting into that debate, because there will be plenty of others weighing in on both sides, I’d instead like to just ask a few questions that all who are interested in due process ought to be interested in seeing answered. By way of disclosure, my longstanding contention is that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian, but that’s not likely to be reflected in social policy anytime soon, so it’s not the focus here.
Backers of the bill tell us “due process” protections will be increased for veterans and others under Cornyn’s bill. Per his spokesman, “This bill codifies into law that individuals must get their day in court they’re entitled to, and no agency or state can make their own determination without that.”
It would help if we knew what protections equivalent to those provided in a jury trial  that will provide. Specifically, will decisions rely on those who may have biases of their own, as can currently be the case, with ATF’s “clarifying the term ‘adjudicated as a mental defective’ to mean a determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority,” and with some states applying even broader “standards”?
What protections will exist to offset politically-connected anti-gun judges, politically-appointed boards, and “expert” adherents of the American Psychiatric Association’s “Position Statement on Firearm Access, Acts of Violence and the Relationship to Mental Illness and Mental Health Services.” It’s fair to ask, because APA includes in its advocacy platform registration-enabling, background checks, “smart” guns, storage requirements, “gun-free” zones, doctor-patient boundary violations, tax-funded anti-gun “studies,” all outside the scope of the training and credentialing of those making these proposals.
Significantly though, even APA admits:
Only a small proportion of individuals with a mental disorder pose a risk of harm to themselves or others.
Casting a wide net and leaving the shot-calling up to those with subjective political motivations has historical precedence – predominantly in “gun control” havens.
Also of interest – or it should be – how will rights be restored when there is no longer a compelling mental health prescription to deny them? What universal appeal mechanism – affordable to all, not just to elites for whom money is no object – will exist to declare a person is once more “eligible” to keep and bear arms? What guarantees are there that the same biases that colored the disability ruling in the first place won’t reassert themselves in the “parole” process? And have we identified psychiatric evaluators, risk management administrators and insurers who will be willing to subject themselves to malpractice liabilities should a person deemed “fit” be misdiagnosed? Or will the pressure be to “err on the side of caution”?

Read the whole thing Here

Friday, June 26, 2015

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, March 12, 2015

ATF Wants To Go After All 5.56 mm Ammunition, Not Just Green Tip

Via Herschel @ The Captain's Journal

"What Jones is telling the Congress is that he wants their help in banning rifle ammunition.  Rifle ammunition.  All of it.  They will start with 5.56 mm ammunition, green tip, lead ball, pointed soft point – all of it.  Then they will make it clear that all other rifle ammunition is as lethal as 5.56 mm ammunition, so they need a ban on that too."




https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/b1_1221.jpghttp://www.captainsjournal.com/2015/03/12/atf-wants-to-go-after-all-5-56-mm-ammunition-not-just-green-tip/



 Pay special attention to the following..

***Here’s a warning flag to all the Elmer Fudds out there who only care about your bolt action hunting rifles, and think this stuff about AR-15s is all just a bunch of made up theater to bother pampered folk like you.  They want your rifles and ammunition too.  You do understand that, don’t you?***

All the hunters who have never fired an A-R , and believe that BATFEIEIO's nonsense,combined with the anti-gun zealots nonsense about "assault rifles" doesn't affect them better start paying attention.
I know this one's been used and abused,but the modified version applies here...
First they came for the M855
I didn't speak out,because I don't use M855 
Then they came for the M856
I didn't speak out,because I don't use M856
Then they came for_____________
You know the rest.

Stand up,speak out-there are evil people in our government-evil people who seek to control every aspect of your life.
These evil people can't gain control unless they disarm us first-they are afraid of an armed populace-they are afraid because we can fight back against they're unconstitutional actions.
That's why they want to ban the ammo-all of it-every centerfire rifle caliber- All. Of. It.
Every caliber.
What are hunters going to hunt with if all centerfire rifle ammo is banned?
Pay attention hunters-
Stand up! Speak Out! Fight Back!

Friday, March 6, 2015

Sensenbrenner Bill Would Abolish ATF Over Bullet Ban

A House Republican is introducing legislation to abolish the beleaguered Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives amid a contentious debate over the agency's proposed ban on a bullet used in AR-15 rifles.

Wisconsin Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said the policies under ATF's jurisdiction could be easily incorporated into other agencies, The Hill reports.

And, he adds, the agency has been caught up in too many controversies in recent years, including the botched "Fast and Furious" gun-tracking operation.

"The ATF is a scandal-ridden, largely duplicative agency that lacks a clear mission," the lawmaker said, according to The Hill. "Its 'Framework' is an affront to the Second Amendment and yet another reason why Congress should pass the ATF Elimination Act."

The agency has come under fire recently for its proposed ban on some types of 5.56 mm rounds used in widely available and popular AR-15-style rifles because the bullets can also be used in some new types of handguns.

Republicans also have complained \hunters frequently use the bullets, The Hill notes.

But the bureau says it initiated the regulation to help protect law enforcement officers from bullets that can pierce armored vests – a contention that has been shot down by the leader of the Fraternal Order of Police.

Sensenbrenner's bill would transfer the ATF's functions related to guns, explosives and violent crime to the FBI; responsibilities regarding alcohol and tobacco laws would fall under the Drug Enforcement Administration's jurisdiction, The Hill reports.

The ATF director would have 180 days, or about six months, to submit a plan to Congress on how to wind down the agency.

Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, previously introduced a bill in 1993 to turn over the ATF's duties to other parts of the Justice Department.

Meanwhile, 239 members of the House have now signed a letter opposing the bullet ban, Fox News reports.

“This attack on the Second Amendment is wrong and should be overturned,” Virginia Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, who started the petition, told Fox News. "A clear, sizable majority of the House agree."

Thursday, March 5, 2015

Court filing argues post-1986 machine gun ban 'defies Constitution'

 Attorney General Eric Holder and ATF Director B. Todd Jones have been named defendants in a lawsuit seeking to overturn the federal post-1986 machine gun ban.


 Via David Codrea...

Claiming the “ban on the quintessential militia arm of the modern day defies the protections our Constitution guarantees,” the legal team led by attorney Stephen D. Stamboulieh filed a sur-reply February 27 in the case of plaintiff Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis against Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director B. Todd Jones. The additional reply was in response to “defendants’ reply to plaintiff’s response in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment.”
Hollis, acting individually and as trustee of a revocable living trust, is suing Holder and Jones in their official capacities for administering, executing and enforcing “statutory and regulatory provisions [that] generally act as an unlawful de facto ban on the transfer or possession of a machine gun manufactured after May 19, 1986.”

 That Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division (the court's Fort Worth Division last month declared the interstate handgun transfer ban unconstitutional) used her discretion and permitted a sur-reply indicates an interest in the plaintiff’s arguments, and if the government can be responsive to them. That she then issued a March 3 order giving the defendants until March 11 to file a sur-sur reply could indicate she has concerns over the lack of substance on government filings submitted to date, and is not even sure if defendants will produce anything more than continued obfuscation and misdirection.

Read the rest @ http://www.examiner.com/article/court-filing-argues-post-1986-machine-gun-ban-defies-constitution?CID=examiner_alerts_article

Police rep says proposed 5.56mm ammo ban unnecessary

A Fraternal Order of Police official said 5.56mm armor-piercing ammo is not typically used against officers

WASHINGTON, March 4 (UPI) -- The leader of a national police organization this week said a proposal to ban armor-piercing 5.56mm pistol rounds would be less effective than the government thinks. Last week, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said it plans to outlaw steel-tipped 5.56mm ammunition because it now qualifies as an armor-piercing round. Sale of the ammo has been legal since 1986 because it's a round that could not, until recently, be fired from a handgun -- the stipulation necessary for prohibition of any bullet. Traditionally, the 5.56mm bullets have been fired only in AR-15 rifles.
In a 17-page report, the bureau cited new handguns that are able to fire the round, increasing the likelihood, the ATF believes, that the bullets will be used against law enforcement officers.
However, James Pasco, executive director of the Washington office of the Fraternal Order of Police, believes that banning the ammunition wouldn't amount to much additional protection.
"This specific round has historically not posed a law enforcement problem," he said in a report by the Washington Examiner. "While this round will penetrate soft body armor, it has not historically posed a threat to law enforcement."
With around 325,000 members, the Fraternal Order of Police is the largest organization of sworn officers in the world.
Pasco's statements give fuel to critics who allege the bullet ban is merely a backdoor attempt by the Obama administration to render AR-15 assault rifles useless.
Supporters of the proposed ban, however, feel that newer handguns available to shoot 5.56mm ammo increase the threat to police.
"We are looking at additional ways to protect our brave men and women in law enforcement and believe that this process is valuable for that reason alone," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said. "If there are armor-piercing bullets available that can fit into easily concealed weapons, that it puts our law enforcement at considerably more risk."
Still, opponents to the ban believe it's unlikely criminals will purchase the expensive handguns -- and even if they did, the firearms are much too large to be considered a concealed weapon.
The ATF is asking for public comment regarding the ban, to be concluded March 16. But the proposal has already encountered stiff resistance. In the House of Representatives, more than half of lawmakers have signed a letter challenging the ban, and the National Rifle Association is urging the public to ask Congress to prevent it. A similar measure is moving through the Senate.
Since news of the proposed ban earlier this month, sporting goods stores have been selling large quantities of the affected ammunition -- now at higher cost.

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Bipartisan Majority of the U.S. House Opposes Obama Administration’s Ammo Ban

238 Members Sign Letter Opposing Proposed Ban on AR-15 Ammunition
Fairfax, Va. – In an overwhelming show of bipartisan opposition, 238 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives have signed a letter to the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, opposing the Obama Administration’s attempt to ban commonly used ammunition for the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15.  The National Rifle Association worked closely with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) to gather signatures on this critical effort.
 “This letter sends a clear message to President Obama that Congress opposes his attempt to use his pen and phone to thwart the will of the American people,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “Obama said he would enact his gun control agenda ‘with or without Congress.’ He is now trying to make good on that promise. The NRA would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte and all who signed the letter for opposing this unconstitutional attack on our Second Amendment freedom.”
The NRA is working with Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on a similar letter of opposition from the U.S. Senate.

Read the letter @ https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1507341/letter-to-atf-director-jones-apa-framework-final.pdf


Gun rights bill would block ammunition regs


New gun legislation would push back against a controversial policy from the Obama administration effectively banning armor-piercing ammunition.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) proposed last week to prohibit gun companies from manufacturing and selling 5.56mm projectiles for M855 cartridges that provide ammunition for AR-15 rifles. 
But the move is causing an uproar among Republicans, who suggest it would trample on hunters’ Second Amendment rights.
The Protecting Second Amendment Rights Act, introduced Friday by Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.), would roll back the ATF’s power to regulate ammunition.
“The Obama administration’s proposal would unilaterally strip law-abiding hunters and sportsmen of their Second Amendment rights,” Rooney said in a statement. “Congress has made its intentions clear that this ammunition is for sporting purposes and should not be restricted. We cannot and we will not stand by while the Obama administration tramples on the Constitution, the rule of law, and the Second Amendment rights of hunters.”
AR-15 rifles are popular with some hunters, but they provide a big cause for concern for law enforcement officials because they can fire bullets to penetrate bullet-proof vests. 
To date, the ammunition for AR-15s has been exempt from the Law Enforcement Officers Act, but the ATF’s draft framework would change that.
“No final determinations have been made and we won’t make any determinations until we’ve reviewed the comments submitted by industry, law enforcement and the public at large,” ATF spokesman Corey Ray told The Hill last week.
But Republicans are looking to pre-empt the ammunition restrictions. The Protecting Second Amendment Rights Act would "would prohibit the ATF or any other federal agency from issuing or enforcing any new restriction or prohibition on the manufacture, importation or sale of ammunition in the United States."



Saturday, February 14, 2015

BATFE To Ban Common AR-15 Ammo

 NRA-ILA

In a move clearly intended by the Obama Administration to suppress the acquisition, ownership and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives unexpectedly announced today that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as “armor piercing ammunition.” The decision continues Obama’s use of his executive authority to impose gun control restrictions and bypass Congress.
It isn’t even the third week of February, and the BATFE has already taken three major executive actions on gun control. First, it was a major change to what activities constitute regulated “manufacturing” of firearms. Next, BATFE reversed a less than year old position on firing a shouldered “pistol.” Now, BATFE has released a “Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c)”, which would eliminate M855’s exemption to the armor piercing ammunition prohibition and make future exemptions nearly impossible.    
By way of background, federal law imposed in 1986 prohibits the manufacture, importation, and sale by licensed manufacturers or importers, but not possession, of “a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely . . . from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium.” Because there are handguns capable of firing M855, it “may be used in a handgun.” It does not, however, have a core made of the metals listed in the law; rather, it has a traditional lead core with a steel tip, and therefore should never have been considered “armor piercing.” Nonetheless, BATFE previously declared M855 to be “armor piercing ammunition,” but granted it an exemption as a projectile “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.”
Now, however, BATFE says that it will henceforth grant the “sporting purposes” exception to only two categories of projectiles:
Category I: .22 Caliber Projectiles
A .22 caliber projectile that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) will be considered to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile weighs 40 grains or less AND is loaded into a rimfire cartridge.
Category II: All Other Caliber Projectiles
Except as provided in Category I (.22 caliber rimfire), projectiles that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition will be presumed to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile is loaded into a cartridge for which the only handgun that is readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade is a single shot handgun. ATF nevertheless retains the discretion to deny any application for a “sporting purposes” exemption if substantial evidence exists that the ammunition is not primarily intended for such purposes.
BATFE is accepting comments until March 16, 2015 on this indefensible attempt to disrupt ammunition for the most popular rifle in America. Check back early next week for a more in-depth analysis of this “framework” and details on how you can submit comments.

How to comment – from the BATFE

ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before March 16, 2015, and will give comments received after that date the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before March 16, 2015. ATF will not acknowledge receipt of comments. Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method):
ATF email: APAComments@atf.gov
Fax: (202) 648-9741.
Mail: Denise Brown, Mailstop 6N-602, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226: ATTN: AP Ammo Comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Brown, Enforcement Programs and Services, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070.

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Washington ‘rights’ rally to headline supporter of ‘gun control’ politicians

 It will be interesting to note differences in tone and attendance between  Thursday's group-supported "Rally for Your Rights" and last month's "I Will Not Comply" rally.



Taking a different approach than December’s “I Will Not Comply” rally, in which participants defiantly flouted I-594 prohibitions against “unapproved” firearm transfers, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) and the Washington Firearms Leadership Advocacy Group (WFLAG), which did not participate in last month’s protest, will instead be driving forces behind this Thursday’s “Rally for Your Rights” in Olympia. The event is deemed moderate enough that even the National Rifle Association is sending a speaker -- not that “progressive” media critics won’t still assail them for being “uncompromising” and “extreme,” regardless if that’s true or not.
Among those scheduled to address gun owners will be Democrat Rep. Brian Blake. Unfortunately, that’s part of the “bipartisan” strategy that doesn't pay off as much as we might believe when examining what else such politicians enable. But Blake looks good on paper.
After all, he supported I-591 (which not everyone agrees was the optimum use of resources) and he’s been given a 100 percent A+ rating by NRA.
He’s also been endorsed by “Washington State Labor Council, SEIU Healthcare 1199NW, Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest” and Progressive Voter Guide. That means he lives in one of those areas where union-first members hunt and sport shoot, and want to have their cake and make the rest of us swallow it too, so the party can give him a pass on guns as long as the rest of its agenda is advanced.
Still, where’s the beef?
Just this: If the guy is that great a pal to gun owners, why did he enthusiastically help a committed anti-gunner get elected to Congress?
Why did he endorse Denny Heck?
That guy’s rated “F” by Gun Owners of America, meaning he’s an “Anti-Gun Voter: a philosophically committed anti-gunner." Heck voted against prohibiting Washington DC from implementing “gun control,” and has been rated 50 percent by NRA. Heck also supports Obama’s immigration plan to create millions of new anti-gun Democrat voters (as does Blake), and anti-gun Obamacare (as does Blake).
But wait, as the late pitchman Billy Mays used to say, there’s more. Blake also endorsed Bob Dingethal for Congress. That a guy who used the “I’m a gun owner with a big BUT” oxymoron to tell voters how he supports the Second Amendment AND Michael Bloomberg’s registration/confiscation precursor plan, and a mental health blanket dragnet.
In other words, “Who’s infringin’? We’re usin’ common sense.” We’ve heard that type of transparent equivocation before, but this time, it’s not entertaining.
I could highlight more, but the point has been made. Blake is going to stand up there and tell everyone how he supported federally-licensed, registered and taxed sport shooters using suppressors, and go heavy on the rah-rah about how the Second Amendment is a right and he’s a leader in protecting it. What he won’t address is why he values that behind putting party über alles and enabling Democrat allies to legislate against the rights to keep and bear arms. He’ll present himself as a gun rights leader, but he won’t be able to point to one act of leadership where he has worked to expose, condemn and unseat any from his side of the aisle who betrayed their oath of office to advocate disarmament of the very people Blake will be eliciting cheers and applause from.
But don’t take my word for it. Ask him.
Anyone who helps citizen disarmament advocates gain power is no true friend to gun owners and has no business being presented as one. And anyone who politically supports someone playing to both sides of the street likewise relegates gun rights to a lower priority than doctrinaire political and economic special interests. To them, the Second Amendment comes second, or third, or even lower. No amount of pointing out what bills have been advanced or voted on “the right way,” and no amount of “dinner dates” can alter that fundamental reality.
No matter. There will be no shortage of “pragmatic” apologists who will make excuses for the inconvenient truths that apply to all so-called “pro-gun Democrats.” After all, we’re constantly told, politics is the art of the possible, and the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Let them keep enabling enemies of the right to keep and bear arms and we may just find out what really is possible, along with just how “good” those who place party loyalty above the Bill of Rights really are.

http://www.examiner.com/article/washington-rights-rally-to-headline-supporter-of-gun-control-politicians?CID=examiner_alerts_article

Monday, January 5, 2015

ATF position on equipment use threatens private gun-making

 Here's what I think about this horsepucky...


Since when can the BATFE just make up new laws? Only congress can make new laws,the jackbooted thugs at BATFE can not make up shit as they go to further Holder and Jones’s anti-gun agenda.
Horsepucky like this is yet another in a long list of reasons that people need to set up their own “maker spaces” or Patriot spaces,or whatever you want to call them. We need to set up small shops where we can manufacture stuff to bring in income,there’s all kinds of work that machine shops would rather subcontract out as job lots because some processes are very labor intensive and time consuming-which does not help them pay off the half-million or more dollar turning center they just bought on payments. Most of these jobs only require a lathe,milling machine,drill press,grinders,bandsaw,maybe cutting torches and a wire-feed welder.
Get a few guys-or ladies- together,put all the tools together,then either put all the tools in one garage or pole barn,or have each guy do his-or her-part of the machining process in their garage/pole barn/shop,and you end up with an income source with the added benefit of having the equipment to manufacture anything you want or need to manufacture.
The concept of maker spaces/patriot spaces was brought up on WRSA and by Fabbersmith-now would be a good time to get your maker space together-before Mr. Jones and the BATFE decide no one can purchase a lather or milling machine without approval from BATFE.
The BATFE leadership and their stormtroopers do not have you best interests in mind as they try to further their anti-gun,anti-freedom agenda.

Here's the story...

http://www.examiner.com/article/atf-position-on-equipment-use-threatens-private-gun-making?CID=examiner_alerts_article