- Comms
- Law
- Medic
- News
- Opinion
- Threat Watch
- Training
- Warrior Tools
- Accessories
- Ammo
- Body Armor
- Books
- Clothing
- Commo
- Gear
- Handguns
- Holsters
- Knives
- Long Guns
- ACC
- Accuracy International
- Barrett
- Benelli
- Beretta
- Blaser
- Bushmaster
- Custom
- CZ
- Desert Tactical Arms
- DPMS
- FN
- Forums
- HK
- IWI
- Kel-Tec Long Guns
- LaRue
- LWRC
- McMillan
- Mosin Nagant
- Mossberg
- Para
- Remington
- Rock River Arms
- Ruger Long Guns
- Sabre Defense
- Sako
- SIG Sauer
- SKS
- Smith & Wesson Long Guns
- Springfield
- Styer
- Weatherby
- Wilson Combat
- Winchester
- Magazines
- Maintenance
- Navigation
- Optics
- Sights
- Tech
- Warriors
Posts Tagged constitution
124 Democratic Representatives Propose Sweeping Gun Ban
From NRA-ILA:
The new ban proposed in H.R. 4269 is another story. It would prohibit the manufacture of most detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles, numerous semi-automatic shotguns configured for defensive purposes, any semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine over 10 rounds (except for a tubular magazine .22), any semi-automatic pistol like the HK SP-89, any semi-automatic pistol with a fixed magazine over 10 rounds, revolving cylinder shotguns, various other named and described firearms, frames and receivers of banned guns, and ammunition magazines over 10 rounds, except those for tubular .22 rimfire rifles.
To see a list of the members of the House of Representatives who have no respect for the Bill of Rights, go here.
The Symbiotic Relationship of The First and Second Amendment
From The Washington Post:
One reason the First and Second Amendments are good constitutional neighbors is that they both protect religious liberty. James Madison intended for the Second Amendment to prohibit the types of arms restrictions which the British government had sometimes imposed on Catholics.
The English Declaration of Rights, enacted by Parliament in 1689, had stated: “The subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions as and allowed by law.â€
Hillary Thinks Australia’s Gun Confiscation is a Good Example
Posted by Brian in News, Threat Watch on 1/Nov/2015 07:00
From Reason.com:
When it comes to gun control, Hillary Clinton said last Friday, “Australia is a good example” for the United States to follow. That comment suggested the leading Democratic presidential candidate’s plans in this area are much more ambitious than she usually lets on—so ambitious that implementing them would require ignoring or repealing the Second Amendment.
By Monday a spokeswoman for the former secretary of state was already backpedaling, saying Clinton did not mean to endorse mass gun confiscation, a central element of Australia’s approach to firearms. But if that was not Clinton’s intent, she has an alarmingly cavalier attitude toward laws that impinge on constitutional rights: The details don’t matter as long as you mean well.
https://youtu.be/rZzCTKWK3j8
Supreme Court May Hear Gun Ban Case
Posted by Brian in Law, News, Threat Watch on 16/Oct/2015 07:00
From MSNBC:
If the court agrees to hear the case, it would cast a shadow over similar bans in seven states. But declining to take it up would boost efforts to impose such bans elsewhere, at a time of renewed interest in gun regulation after recent mass shootings.
Gun rights advocates are challenging a 2013 law passed in Highland Park, Illinois, that bans the sale, purchase, or possession of semi-automatic weapons that can hold more than 10 rounds in a single ammunition clip or magazine. In passing the law, city officials cited the 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.
Fourth Amendment Should Cover Your Digital Life
From Fox News:
In an era of constant political gamesmanship and gridlock, getting things done in Congress is never easy. That was never clearer than the last Congress’ failure to pass long overdue reforms to an antiquated that today threatens the very thing it was intended to protect – the privacy of Americans’ digital communications and records.
A bipartisan group of more than 270 members of the House of Representatives co-sponsored legislation with the same underlying objective — to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). And yet, these bills were left to die without a vote.
Bill Whittle: America Was Designed To Be Free
Posted by Brian in Opinion, Threat Watch on 13/Oct/2015 07:00
Guns: U.S. vs Australia
Posted by Brian in Law, Opinion, Threat Watch on 12/Oct/2015 07:00
From National Review:
“Australia†is Obama’s preferred euphemism for that most cherished of gun-control ideals: mass confiscation of the citizenry’s weapons.
You will notice that the president doesn’t exactly spell out what following Australia’s model would entail. He speaks instead of “commonsense gun-control legislation,†“closing the gun-show loophole,†and “universal background checks.â€
But the Australian 1996 National Agreement on Firearms was not a benign set of commonsense gun-control rules: It was a gun-confiscation program rushed through the Australian parliament just twelve days after a 28-year-old man killed 35 people with a semi-automatic rifle in the Tasmanian city of Port Arthur. The Council of Foreign relations summarizes the Aussie measure nicely:
One Gun Bigot Admits The Goal Is To Rid Society (Civilians) Of All Guns
Posted by Brian in News, Threat Watch on 8/Oct/2015 13:01
From The Washington Post:
Maybe it’s time to start using the words that the NRA has turned into unmentionables.
Prohibition.
Mass buyback.
A gun-free society.
Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.
Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe? Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed — and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?
Spokane Sheriff Says Constitutionalists Are As Dangerous As ISIS
Posted by Brian in News, Threat Watch on 2/Sep/2015 07:00
From Chuck Baldwin Live:
On the front cover of Washington State’s August 2015 “Inlander†magazine, Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich is shown hands on hips standing on top of the “Don’t Tread On Me†(Gadsden) flag. The title of the article is “Daring To Tread.â€
The sheriff and at least one of his deputies have verbalized opinions that “constitutionalists†are threats to the sheriff’s office, the federal government, and to the country itself. Sheriff Knezovich even went so far as to compare “constitutionalists†with the Sunni Muslim terror group ISIS. The deputy indicated that the presence of armed “constitutionalists” in the county was the principal reason why the sheriff’s office was amassing military equipment. When asked to name names as to who he was referring to, Spokane County’s highest-ranking law enforcement officer (Sheriff Knezovich) named Washington State Representative Matt Shea and radio talk show host Alex Jones (who resides in Texas, not Spokane County, Washington).
Add a historical and constitutional ignorance with a personal lust for power, and sheriffs and police chiefs across the country readily buy into the DHS propaganda. The result is men like Sheriff Knezovich and his deputy.
From Inlander Magazine:
This week’s cover story has a lot of accusations being thrown around:Â It has Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich warning that “folks that want to overthrow the government,” accusing a local state Rep. Matt Shea of “preaching hate and falsehood,” of getting elected based on fear. He doesn’t call Shea terrorist or a white supremacist, but he does warn that anti-government rhetoric could inspire anti-government violence.
It also has a state representative predicting government collapse, accusing the sheriff of lacking integrity, and saying things like “I’m going to submit today, that the Southern Poverty Law Center — and the sheriff that backs them — is the most dangerous organization in this country.”
What Would Repealing The Second Amendment Look Like?
From National Review:
We should be absolutely clear about what Delaney is arguing here: He is a) agreeing with Jefferson that “laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind,†b) contending that “progress†suggests that the individual right to keep and bear arms is now counterproductive, and c) concluding that it is time therefore to make a “change in law and constitution†— in other words, to repeal the Second Amendment. This, it is true, is not a mainstream position on the American Left — at least, it is not one that is argued openly. But it is a reasonably popular one on social media, it has strong support within the more leftward-leaning parts of the political commentariat, it is often implied by the casual manner in which progressives such as President Obama refer to “Australia†and other heavily regulated nations, and it enjoys indirect approval from around one quarter of the American public. When the likes of Rob Delaney and Bill Maher and Keith Ellison say that we need to get rid of the Second Amendment, they are not speaking in a vacuum but reflecting the views of a small but vocal portion of the American population. And they mean it. That being so, here’s the million-dollar question: What the hell are they waiting for? Go on, chaps. Bloody well do it.
Idaho Residents Face Down Feds Over Second Amendment
Posted by Brian in News, Threat Watch on 25/Aug/2015 07:00
From The Tenth Amendment Center:
Although the federal government likes to gives off the impression that its authority is supreme, all it takes is a small group of folks saying no to them to show that’s not the case. ABreitbart report elaborates on how resistance effectively worked in Idaho:
On August 6, residents and Bonner County Sheriff Daryl Wheeler lined up outside the Priest River, Idaho, home of veteran John Arnold to prevent the Veterans Administration (VA) from taking away his guns…
Roughly “100 people†showed up, including Sheriff Wheeler. Those assembled waved an American flag, a Gadsen flag, and sang patriotic songs. Wheeler said: “I took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and uphold the laws of Idaho. This seemed appropriate to show my support. I was going to make sure Mr. Arnold’s rights weren’t going to be breached.â€
I wonder why I haven’t seen this on the national news? Maybe because the media doesn’t want The People to get the idea that they can effectively nullify federal overreach just by saying “no”.
Supreme Court Declines To Hear San Fran Gun Case
By declining to hear the case the Supreme Court has essentially given the “thumbs up” to this law and signaled to other cities that they may do the same.
From Yahoo News:
By declining to hear an appeal filed by gun owners and the National Rifle Association, the court left intact a March 2014 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the measure.
The regulation, issued in 2007, states that anyone who keeps a handgun at home must either store it in a locked container or disable it with a trigger lock.
D.C. Court Rules “May Issue” Unconstitutional
From Firearms Policy Center:
The District of Columbia’s arbitrary “good reasonâ€/â€proper reason†requirement, however, goes far beyond establishing such reasonable restrictions. Rather, for all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Accordingly, at this point in the litigation and based on the current record, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the District of Columbia’s “good reasonâ€/â€proper reason†requirement runs afoul of the Second Amendment.
Full decision here.
Concealed Carry And Legal Non-residents
From The Washington Post:
A federal district court in North Carolina held Friday that North Carolina may not discriminate against permanent resident noncitizens in issuing licenses to carry concealed guns. (Messmer v. Harrison.) The U.S. Supreme Court’s D.C. v. Heller decision said that general bans on concealed carry of guns are constitutional, because the have been around in many states starting with the early 1800s. But the Supreme Court held that state laws discriminating against noncitizens — even as to activities that aren’t themselves constitutional rights — usually violate the Equal Protection Clause. That seems to be the court’s rationale in this case.