Image Courtesy of Somadjinn

A farmer in the UK was recently threatened with deadly weapons by a group of gypsies that were squatting on her land. She decided to call the police to come deal with the thugs. After taking a whopping 35 minutes to send the first unit to the scene, they did not arrest a single person for the deadly threats. Instead, they interrogated the farm owner for 3-hours over the details of the situation, after which they proceeded to confiscate her lawfully-owned shotgun, stating that “they were given powers to seize guns in her possession and have done so as a sensible precaution in the circumstances” (see link below for source). Furthermore, the police also confiscated her firearms purchase license to prevent her from buying another gun. They did all of this despite the fact that she never even pulled the gun during the entire incident, and she was never charged with any crime. Ironically, many people still don’t understand why gun registration schemes are bad.

Apparently, owning a gun is a greater offense in the eyes of the British police than threatening a woman with knives and chainsaws on her own property. It is puzzling that this nation still has the nerve to insert the word “Great” before it’s title. A truly great nation would not offer police and legislative protection to criminals while throwing decent, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens under the train.

Read more about it here.

Image By Sateda

It was no surprise to me that the mainstream media has utterly ignored the shady on-going’s of a program called “Project Gunrunner” by the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives – formerly called the ATF). The program was supposed to be designed to thwart illegal gun sales in southern states that would later be transferred to Mexican drug gangs. However, it is now doused in scandal as allegations from current and former agents arise that the BATFE may have knowingly allowed (and possibly assisted in) hundreds of guns to be illegally sold and transported into Mexico in a plot to justify their ballooning budget needs.

Apparently, being a mere tool for domestic harassment no longer carries enough political capital for the BATFE to justify it’s existence. You see, the vast majority of seized drug cartel weapons in Mexico are military-grade arms from unfriendly nations abroad, or from corrupt internal agencies within… civilian arms from US gun shops make up but a small fraction of the weapons seized, contrary to what Attorney General Eric Holder has claimed. Therefore, the BATFE found themselves to be a solution without a problem, and the minds therein decided to get creative. Much to their dismay, the foolproof plan was foiled when some of these weapons were later used in a firefight that resulted in the death of US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in late 2010.

Recently, US Senator Charles (Chuck) Grassley (R-Iowa) called for an investigation into the matter. Hopefully, the case will make it’s way to the dissection room of the Senate Judiciary Committee before too long. Remember to keep an eye on “Project Gunrunner” in the days to come, and don’t hesitate to write to your US Senators and ask them to support Senator Grassley in conducting a full investigation on this matter. This may be just what the American people need to dismantle this useless and unconstitutional federal agency.

The Brasstard

Image By HiSKS

The poorly-conceived “ammo bill” AB962 has been struck down as being “unconstitutionally vague” by Fresno Superior Court Justice Jeffrey Hamilton. The ruling comes just days before the law would have taken effect… a law that, among other things, would ban internet sales of handgun ammo and require local ammo buyers to be fingerprinted and reported to the CA Department of Justice. Aside from being a blatent violation of an individual right to due process, this law would have been very expensive. AB962 would have cost the financially burdened State millions of dollars annually in wasted revenue to track and record lawful ammo sales, while providing no empirical benefits for crime prevention.

Image Courtesy of ILCO

We all know that money talks and pretty much everything else walks. As gun owners, there are few more effective methods at asserting our rights against would-be attacks than to deny funding to anti-gun individuals and organizations. Gun owners make up a massive portion of the US consumer market, and if we join together to boycott groups who publicly act against the Bill of Rights, we can put a major kink in their fiscal chain. Here are some links for detailed lists of anti-gun companies, organizations, and individuals. You might be surprised at just how many of the organizations you currently feed are actively fighting to destroy your rights.

NRA-ILA

Gun Owners of America

Keep up the fight!

The Brasstard

All across America, the air is beginning to fill itself with the buzz of the upcoming election season. Political campaign regiments are attacking the airways with impressive testimonies of “truth” and “change”. As the midterm elections approach, we have many issues of importance to weigh in against our choice of candidates. Of these issues, none tell us as much about a candidate as their stance on gun control. You see, unlike other issues, a politician’s stance on gun control tells us a lot about how they perceive the rest of us in their greater agenda; either as citizen members of equal stature in a mutually beneficial social order, or as mere subjects of a lesser class of society that they intend to rule over.

You see, gun control is not really anti-gun, it’s just anti-your gun. From the Pharaoh’s thugs in the Old Kingdom to the savage KGB, anti-arms rulers have always enjoyed the benefits of armed protection, while simultaneously reaping the rewards of ruling over a weak and defenseless society. Just look at Mayors Daley and Bloomberg, both of whom never leave home without multiple armed guards, yet continue to preach that “guns are bad”. This tactic of social dominion dates all the way back to the slaves of ancient Sumeria, and has carried on through post-classical Europe, imperial China, Soviet Russia, and modern day Mexico to name a few. The fact is there is absolutely nothing “progressive” about gun-control… it’s been done and redone, always yielding the same ill effect for the people.

Ultimately, you can tell a heck of a lot about the intent of an individual based solely on whether or not they want to disarm you. Ironically, many of the same politicians who preach fairness and equality are the same ones attempting to keep all of the guns for themselves. So, when you are weighing in the pros and cons of your candidates this year, don’t forget to use the gun control issue to help you size them up. Even if you are not a gun owner, you should be deeply concerned about anyone telling you that you can’t own and carry a firearm if you so choose. This is a big red warning light, foretelling with brazen certainty of what’s to come.

On that note, happy voting and best regards.

The Brasstard

The US Supreme Court released their decision on this landmark case today, applying the 2nd Amendment to States and cities. The doors of case law have effectively been opened for waves of new litigation against excessive regional “gun control”. Here are some excerpts from the case docket…

“Chicago enacted its handgun ban to protect its residents “from the loss of property and injury or death from firearms.” See Chicago, Ill., Journal of Proceedings of the City Council, p. 10049 (Mar. 19, 1982). The Chicago petitioners and their amici, however, argue that the handgun ban has left them vulnerable to criminals. Chicago Police Department statistics, we are told, reveal that the City’s handgun murder rate has actually increased since the ban was enacted, and that Chicago residents now face one of the highest murder rates in the country and rates of other violent crimes that exceed the average in comparable cities.”

“In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States.”

“The provision at issue in this case, §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, provides, among other things, that a State may not abridge “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” or deprive “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

The majority opinion describes in-depth the historical upbringings of “gun control” and it’s discriminatory and racist roots. Of the dissenters, Justice Stevens felt that this decision would undermine a vast portion of past decisions, and Justice Breyer had apparently been living on Mars when he concluded that “there is no popular consensus that the right is fundamental”. Ironically, these two judges were born in two of the most anti-gun cities in America; Chicago and San Francisco respectively.

Here is a link to the case docket from which I derived the above quotes…

McDonald vs Chicago

As you may have heard, the FBI recently released the preliminary semi-annual crime report for Jan-June 2009. Once again, crime in America is on the decline… despite the fact that 2009 was a record year for the gun industry. Now, I realize that there are many variables besides gun ownership that determine national/regional crime rates. So, I will avoid trying to give gun owners all of the credit for making our country safer. However, with “gun control” advocates constantly insisting that more guns in the hands of citizens equates more violent crime, the contradictory evidence is quite pleasing.

Aside from being a record year for gun and ammo sales, 2009 was also a record year for new CCW/CFP permits; with most shall-issue states seeing a sizable increase in new permits granted compared to 2008. Again, in direct contradiction to the claims of the mainstream media and other anti-gun entities, the streets did not run red with the blood of babies.

Here is a link to the FBI website for more info… FBI Preliminary Crime Report JAN-JUNE 2009

We’ve seen the all-too-common portrayals of the stereotypical “gun person” on the big screen. Whether it’s the Rambo-Die Hard-Dirty Harry good guy, or the Terminator-Scarface-Corleone killer, the persona of gun people on-screen is pure fantasy. Existing in direct conflict with real gun people, Hollywood gunnies (good or evil intent aside) are all drenched in vendetta, vigilance and thirst for blood. All you have to do is visit your local shooting range to see that reality is far different than the stereotype; that most gun people are regular, honest folks with a great respect for the law, liberty, and peace…

Real gunnies come in all shapes and sizes, from working professionals to little old ladies; from ranchers to bankers. Sure, you get the occasional guy that stokes himself out in the latest Blackhawk tactical pants and shirt to make his weekly trip to the grocery store, but far more commonly you will not even notice the local heat packer. You see, we are not all a bunch of wild-west cowboys…

… most of us are regular, everyday folks…

We are not all warrior commandos, though many of us keep and bear the arms of a warrior…

Some of us are not capable of trekking the mountains of Afghanistan, though our own challenges give us the strength and desire to protect our lives and our most valued liberties.

You see, despite the picture our media paints of us, we remain a humble bunch. We understand that the numbers do not lie. We know that the bloodthirsty maniacs make up less than 1% of all gun owners in America, and that for every gun that is used to commit a murder, 156 guns are presented to prevent one, and 21,875 guns are not used at all. We know that there are more guns than automobiles in America, yet the fatality rate from the misuse of guns is less than 1/3 that of the misuse of cars. We also know that despite the small number of tragedies we suffer at the expense of this freedom, these tragedies are dwarfed by the vast and heinous catastrophes repeated throughout history with the blood of the helpless and the disarmed. These facts are the thorns in gun-control advocates’ sides, who happen to prefer to use their elitist, self-righteous zeal, and their powers in the media to portray us all as bloodthirsty maniacs.

Despite the constant barrage of attacks law-abiding gun owners have had to endure, we remain strong and united behind the common good of one of our most cherished rights. We must continue to show our friends and neighbors that “normal” people can be “gun people” too. And, we must remind would-be criminals to never pass judgement on the humble appearance of potential prey… because in today’s America, any person might be a “gun person”.

Regards,

The Brasstard

As a guy that spent most of his life in The Beehive State, the news about Utah’s Senate Bill 11 (The Firearms Protection Act of 2010) makes me proud. A growing number of states are now considering similar legislation that will effectively nullify the unconstitutional federal firearms regulations that infringe upon the rights of states, and the legitimate ownership and use of firearms and ammo by citizens.

Of course, this legislation would only apply to products that are made, sold, and used inside of state lines. It includes the clarification of the rights granted to the state through the 9th and 10th Amendment’s. The bill points out some of the restrictions currently being violated by the US Congress to only regulate interstate commerce. The bill’s text points out that firearms and ammo made and used within the state are not subject to any federal regulations. This may imply that UT gun makers could do away with background checks, serialization, and even the need for an FFL license to sell their guns and ammo commercially to local consumers.

Before you get your panties in an uproar over the lack of a background check, remember that it is still illegal for violent felons to possess a firearm in Utah. That is state law, and will remain unaffected by S.B. 11. What S.B. 11 will do is make it easier for law-abiding citizens to buy a gun for lawful use. Currently, all of the red tape and bureaucracy involved in buying a gun (or God forbid an NFA item) from a federally licensed dealer only affects those who care about the law (AKA: the dealer and the lawful consumer). Criminals on the other hand, will simply bypass the red tape via the black market, build-it-yourself, or a simple theft. Anyway, why would violent criminals be deterred by a petty weapons charge if they are not deterred by a murder charge that could carry the death penalty?

In other words, the law does not/has not/will not ever prevent or stop crimes from happening. The law can help us punish criminals after the deed is done. But then again murder, rape, and robbery will still be illegal even without gun control. The only way to prevent or stop a crime before it is carried out is by the use of force. A 10,000 page illegible legal document that’s gathering dust in the library of congress 2000 miles away will not stop a crime.

Here’s another way of looking at it… if background checks actually stopped felons from getting/using guns, we would not have a single armed felon anywhere in the USA since the passing of the Brady Bill. And if gun control actually worked, places like Mexico would be a virtual utopia of peace and tranquility. Unfortunately, the facts tell us that it’s not that simple. In reality, gun control is more closely compared to sending a firefighter into a forest fire without a fire suit, oxygen tank, hose or water, then drenching his naked body in liquid O2, and asking him to put the fire out by blowing really hard.

Back on topic…

Another perk to S.B. 11 is that federal taxes and regulations on practical accessories like sound suppressors and certain types of banned ammo would go out the door. Meaning that you could one day defend your home without risking permanent hearing damage to yourself and loved ones. You could even make your own suppressor as long at it is stamped “Made in UT”. This bill almost makes me feel like a legitimate American citizen again.

Here is an excerpt from the bill text courtesy of le.utah.gov…

Highlighted Provisions SB11:
This bill:
.    addresses the legal status of a firearm manufactured in the state for use within the
state;
.    defines terms;
.    provides that a firearm or one of various firearm-related items manufactured in the
state for in-state use is not subject to federal firearms laws and regulations;
.    exempts from in-state manufacturing some firearms and ammunition; and
.    requires certain markings on a firearm manufactured in the state for use within the
state.

The greatest part about this bill is that just under the excerpt is says “funds appropriated, NONE”. This means that implementation will cost virtually nothing to the taxpayers (a true rarity in today’s legislative world), but will open the door for new small businesses to begin serving the expanded local market. The bill passed through the state senate with a hearty 19/10 win, and the House Committee has granted a “favorable recommendation” with a 12/1 landslide on 2/8/2010. It is currently awaiting House approval before heading off to Governor Gary Herbert’s desk.

More info on S.B. 11

Image Courtesy of The Bush White House Archive

As many of you have heard by now, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has commented on the somewhat bleak security situation on domestic military bases across the United States. First, I should tell you that I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Gates. I would go as far as saying that he was a breath of fresh air after enduring the grim years of Donald Rumsfeld. However, I believe that he missed the mark in a major way when it comes to the real security problem on American military bases…

How would a soldier from another country respond if you told them that US military personnel are disarmed on military bases across the US? Well, shortly after the attack on Ft. Hood, a group of Israeli soldiers allegedly lost their lunch when they discovered this fact.

Here’s the thing, Israeli’s have a bit more experience in dealing with domestic terrorism than Americans do. Therefore, they understand the usefulness of actually having their soldiers be armed. They also understand the worthlessness of mythical places called “gun-free zones” such as our college campuses, public buildings, churches, and other prime targets for terror. Israeli soldiers are always armed… always.

Image Courtesy of www.israelity.com

Beyond arming their military personnel, civilians are also permitted to carry concealed firearms quite freely throughout the country. As a result of these measures, virtually every domestic terrorist in the recent history of the nation has been stopped in mere seconds after they launched their assault.

Now, I’m not writing this article to boast Israel as some sort of utopia for freedom. I have plenty of quarrels with the Israeli government that I won’t waste your time discussing right now. However, I’ll be the first to admit that Israel knows how to defend herself, and that perhaps we might learn a little something from her experience.

This leads me back to Secretary Gates, who totally failed to address one simple fact; the Ft. Hood slaughter could have ended before it even began if our soldiers had their M4’s slung across their backs like they should have. Instead, Mr. Gates placed the blame on military medical/psychiatric personnel for failing to predict Hasan’s actions. Needless to say, hindsight is always 20/20. Foresight on the other hand, is a rare gift that most mortals do not possess. So, unless the military starts to issue an M-something crystal ball, perhaps we ought to consider other more realistic measures.

Along with misplacement of blame, Mr. Gates appears to be implying that they should have reprimanded Hasan before he ever even committed a crime. This coincidentally, is the same mentality behind “gun control”, “watch lists”, and other preemptive attacks that are carried out against millions of law-abiding American’s every year.

This brings us to the widespread paralysis suffered by the people of the United States as a result of a failed Federal property policy… “no guns” (and no common sense for that matter). From post offices to military bases, law-abiding American citizens must disarm themselves when setting foot on these purgatories of civil rights. At Ft. Hood, our service people were left helpless until local police Sgt. Kimberly Munley arrived and shot Hasan. Thats right… a local street cop had to come and rescue trained, but helpless soldiers on a military base. Sounds pretty ridiculous doesn’t it?

Whats even more ridiculous is that some of our nation’s leaders actually believe that a little piece of paper at the front door saying “no guns allowed” could actually stop a suicidal/homicidal maniac from from carrying out terrible acts. Considering that highly-motivated terrorists still manage to slip though the TSA checkpoints despite the strict security measures, it’s hard to imagine that a poorly enforced law and a piece of paper would somehow manage to stop them.

Sadly, Americans will continue to suffer such home-grown terror attacks as long as we continue down the same path. Regardless of the trillions of tax dollars we funnel through the DHS/DOD, regardless of how much our nation begins to resemble a giant prison, regardless of how big they print that “no guns” sign, violent attacks will still occur. As long as victims are unable to stand their ground against armed attackers, they will continue to be victims.

You see, we cannot predict which people will deal with life’s stresses, and which will snap. Even if we could accurately distinguish potential attackers, we cannot predict when or where a solo attack will take place. Remember, soloists rarely tell others of their plans. And more importantly, we can’t just go around grounding/harassing/arresting people solely on speculative and preemptive judgments and suspicions. After all, as political agendas continue to change, you and your way of life could be the next target on the list.

On the other hand, we can allow our citizens to stand their ground against those who would otherwise do us in. We can allow individual citizens to take responsibility for their own security. And, most of all, we can allow the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights to do the job it was designed to do… the job of protecting The People.