Dont' Register Your Guns!

Here is a story I just read that makes a lot of great sense. Read and you be the judge.

"Gun control and further infringements of the Second Amendment are a dangerous and controversial topic in America.  There are those that wish to control people, but an armed populace is not easily controlled.

The pro-gun control liberals in Washington seek to disarm the citizenry.  One of the first steps in disarming people is gun registration.  Second Amendment supporters know that registration leads to confiscation, and confiscation in America will lead to a Second American Revolution.

So gun owners across the nation, but particularly in Connecticut and New York right now, are defiantly opposed and resistant to gun registration.

Now a respected voice on the right, one that has previously been in favor of some gun control, has come out in staunch resistance to gun registration schemes.  Dr. Ben Carson said he no longer believes in gun registration because America’s insane national debt could turn the nation into a third-world country under martial law, a situation in which law-abiding and good people will need to be armed for protection.

Carson, the retired neurosurgeon who has been getting buzz in conservative circles, said that he changed his mind and was against gun registration because of the “sinister internal forces” that could surface in that scenario. He said he “used to think they needed to be registered, but if you register them they just come and find you and take your guns.”

“If we were only concerned about external forces, then we would be okay,” he said. “But there are some pretty sinister internal forces.”

Dr. Carson asked the audience to consider a scenario in which countries around the globe have dropped the dollar as the reserve currency, making note that Russia has threatened to do just that in retaliation for sanctions imposed upon them.

“We have a national debt that is so high, and it’s being raised even higher,” he said. “Now, the only reason we can do that is because we are the reserve currency for the world. What if that changes?”

“What if other people come along?” Carson asked, saying China and the U.N have mentioned doing the same. “We would become a third-world nation overnight. Occupy Wall Street would be a walk in the park. And all of a sudden, the things that would be going on in this country which would necessitate marital law… all this could happen very rapidly. We should be really concerned.”

James Taranto, of The Wall Street Journal, asked Carson about his previous stance on gun registration, in which he supported gun control in urban areas to keep “crazy people” from having semi-automatic rifles in high-density cities.

“Do you think the Supreme Court was wrong when it found that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep arms in Washington, D.C., and Chicago?” Taranto asked.

“I truly believe in Second Amendment rights,” Carson said. “I would never advocate anything to interfere with Second Amendment rights; however, I do think we have to be intelligent.”

He said his point in saying that was to address situations–like in Detroit–where people with AK-47s are mowing people down.

“We need to engage in a discussion about, ‘Is there something we can do?'” Carson said before saying that “we have to keep in mind that law-abiding American citizens absolutely should have gun rights.”

Dr. Ben Carson is of course correct, the American people must never register their guns.  The people have an inherent and natural right to keep and bear arms, for the direct purpose of keeping their “leaders” in check.  The Framers were well aware of the dangers of a tyrannical government versus an unarmed population, and did their best to ensure such a situation would never occur in America.

Unfortunately, over the years our government has indeed infringed upon our natural right to be armed, and intends to infringe even more.  As stated before, registration leads to confiscation.  A list of registered guns in this country, in the hands of our current “gestapo-like” administration, would certainly result in confiscation and the disarming of law-abiding and good citizens.

Of course, criminals don’t follow laws, so they won’t register their guns, and will remain armed.  And the government will most definitely remain armed, otherwise how will they enforce their gun control laws?

[source: conservativetribune.com]"

Urban Man

Does Gun Control Predict the Collapse? Precursor to Martial Law?

I have had a back and forth between two friends of mine, the topic being Federal and State gun control efforts which my two friends stridently believe are an intentional precursor to Governmental preparations for the impending collapse which the Federal Government knows they cannot stop.

While I understand that gun registration is the obvious and mandatory first step to any gun confiscation, and that any Martial Law imposition would be much less effective with an armed civilian population, I don't see the failed gun registration in Connecticut as a joint liberal state-federal government test case for national registration and eventual confiscation. Nor being done because the federal government knows it cannot stop the economic collapse from happening and is preparing for martial law.

Who in their right mind would just let an economic collapse happen? And I say this believing an economic collapse is much more likely now, then it was last year, or the year before, but not due to a conspiracy but to a choke hold on ideology and incompetence of our governmental institutions.

To be sure, any gun control efforts are unconstitutional and if given a foot hold will diminish not only our unalienable rights, but our ability to protect ourselves from the tenuous environment of today's world through the vastly increased dangers of an economic or societal collapse.

I think gun control efforts are a product of the age old liberal way of thinking that they know better than the rest of us what is best for us. And I am grateful that the citizens of the very liberal state of Connecticut are pushing back against unlawful registration.

The Blaze reports that Officials in Connecticut are stunned by what could be a Massive, State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners:

On Jan. 1, 2014, tens of thousands of defiant gun owners seemingly made the choice not to register their semi-automatic rifles with the state of Connecticut as required by a hastily-passed gun control law. By possessing unregistered so-called “assault rifles,” they all technically became guilty of committing Class D felonies overnight.

Police had received 47,916 applications for “assault weapons certificates” and 21,000 incomplete applications as of Dec. 31, Lt. Paul Vance told The Courant.

At roughly 50,000 applications, officials estimate that as little as 15 percent of the covered semi-automatic rifles have actually been registered with the state. “No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000,” the report states.

Needless to say, officials and some lawmakers are stunned.

Due to the new gun control bill passed in April, likely at least 20,000 individual people — possibly as many as 100,000 — are now in direct violation of the law for refusing to register their guns. As we noted above, that act is now a Class D Felony.

Then Mike Vanderboegh of Sipsey Street Irregulars writes a well written letter concerning the effects of unconstitutional governmental efforts to restrict gun ownership:


15 February 2014

To the men and women of the Connecticut State Police and the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection:

My name is Mike Vanderboegh. Few of you will know who I am, or even will have heard of the Three Percent movement that I founded, though we have been denounced on the national stage by that paragon of moral virtue, Bill Clinton. Three Percenters are uncompromising firearm owners who have stated very plainly for years that we will obey no further encroachments on our Second Amendment rights.

Some of you, if you read this carelessly, may feel that it is a threat. It is not. Three Percenters also believe that to take the first shot in a conflict over principle is to surrender the moral high ground to the enemy. We condemn so-called collateral damage and terrorism such as that represented by the Oklahoma City Bombing and the Waco massacre. We are very aware that if you seek to defeat evil it is vital not to become the evil you claim to oppose. Thus, though this letter is certainly intended to deal with an uncomfortable subject, it is not a threat to anyone. However, it is important for everyone to understand that while we promise not to take the first shot over principle, we make no such promise if attacked, whether by common criminals or by the designated representatives of a criminal government grown arrogant and tyrannical and acting out an unconstitutional agenda under color of law.

If we have any model, it is that of the Founding generation. The threat to public order and safety, unfortunately, comes from the current leaders of your state government who unthinkingly determined to victimize hitherto law-abiding citizens with a tyrannical law. They are the ones who first promised violence on the part of the state if your citizens did not comply with their unconstitutional diktat. Now, having made the threat (and placed the bet that you folks of the Connecticut State Police will meekly and obediently carry it out) they can hardly complain that others take them seriously and try by every means, including this letter, to avoid conflict.

Some of you are already working a major case on me, trying to figure out how I may be arrested for violating Conn. P.A. 13-3, which bears the wildly dishonest title of "An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children's Safety." (What part of "protecting children" is accomplished by sparking a civil war?) Not only have I personally violated this unconstitutional and tyrannical act by smuggling and by the encouragement of smuggling, defiance and non-compliance on the part of your state's citizens, but I have further irritated your wannabe tyrant bosses by sending them standard capacity magazines in my "Toys for Totalitarians" program. I further have annoyed them by pointing out -- and seeking more evidence of -- the existence of Mike Lawlor's KGB file (as well as his FBI and CIA counter-intelligence files).

In short, I have made myself a nuisance to your bosses in just about every way I could think of. However, their discomfiture reminds me of the wisdom of that great American philosopher of the late 20th Century, Frank Zappa, who said, "Do you love it? Do you hate it? There it is, the way you made it." Whether you will be able to make a case on me that sticks is, of course, problematic for a number of reasons which I will detail to you in the letter below. I have already done so to your bosses and include the links in this email so that you may easily access them.

But even if you are not working on my case you will want to pay attention to this letter, because tyrannical politicians in your state have been writing checks with their mouths that they expect you to cash with your blood. We have moved, thanks to them, into a very dangerous undiscovered country. Connecticut is now in a state of cold civil war, one that can flash to bloody conflict in an instant if someone, anyone, does something stupid. So please pay attention, for Malloy and Co. have put all your asses on the line and are counting on your supine obedience to the enforcement of their unconstitutional diktat.

I apparently first came to your attention with this speech on the steps of your state capitol on 20 April 2013. It was very well received by the audience but virtually ignored by the lapdog press of your state. If I may, I'd like to quote some of the more salient points of it that involve you.

"An unconstitutional law is void." It has no effect. So says American Jurisprudence, the standard legal text. And that's been upheld by centuries of American law. An unconstitutional law is VOID. Now that is certainly true. But the tricky part is how do we make that point when the local, state and federal executive and legislative branches as well as the courts are in the hands of the domestic enemies of the Constitution. Everyone who is currently trying to take away your right to arms starts out by saying "I support the 2nd Amendment." Let me tell you a home truth that we know down in Alabama -- Barack Obama supports the 2nd Amendment just about as much as Adolf Hitler appreciated Jewish culture, or Joseph Stalin believed in individual liberty. Believe what politicians do, not what they say. Because the lie is the attendant of every evil.

Before this year no one thought that other firearms and related items would ever be banned -- but they were, they have been. No one thought that the authorities of your state would pass laws making criminals out of the previously law-abiding -- but they did. If they catch you violating their unconstitutional laws, they will -- when they please -- send armed men to work their will upon you. And people -- innocent of any crime save the one these tyrants created -- will die resisting them.

You begin to see, perhaps, how you fit into this. YOU are the "armed men" that Malloy and Company will send "to work their will" upon the previously law-abiding. In other words, this law takes men and women who are your natural allies in support of legitimate law enforcement and makes enemies of the state of them, and bully boy political police of you. So you all have a very real stake in what happens next. But let me continue:

The Founders knew how to answer such tyranny. When Captain John Parker -- one of the three percent of American colonists who actively took the field against the King during the Revolution -- mustered his Minutemen on Lexington Green, it was in a demonstration of ARMED civil disobedience. . . The colonists knew what to do and they did it, regardless of the risk -- regardless of all the King's ministers and the King's soldiery. They defied the King. They resisted his edicts. They evaded his laws and they smuggled. Lord above, did they smuggle.

Now we find ourselves in a similar situation. The new King Barack and his minions have determined to disarm us. We must determine to resist them. No one wants a new civil war (except, apparently, the anti-constitutional tyrants who passed these laws and the media toadies who cheer them on) but one is staring us in the face. Let me repeat that, a civil war is staring us in the face. To think otherwise is to whistle past the graveyard of our own history. We must, if we wish to avoid armed conflict, get this message across to the collectivists who have declared their appetites for our liberty, our property and our lives -- WHEN DEMOCRACY TURNS TO TYRANNY, THE ARMED CITIZEN STILL GETS TO VOTE.

Just like King George, such people will not care, nor modify their behavior, by what you say, no matter how loudly or in what numbers you say it. They will only pay attention to what you DO. So defy them. Resist their laws. Evade them. Smuggle in what they command you not to have. Only by our ACTS will they be impressed. Then, if they mean to have a civil war, they will at least have been informed of the unintended consequences of their tyrannical actions. Again I say -- Defy. Resist. Evade. Smuggle. If you wish to stay free and to pass down that freedom to your children's children you can do no less than to become the lawbreakers that they have unconstitutionally made of you. Accept that fact. Embrace it. And resolve to be the very best, most successful lawbreakers you can be.

Well, I guess at least some of my audience that day took my message to heart. As Connecticut newspapers have finally begun reporting -- "Untold Thousands Flout Gun Registration Law" -- and national commentators are at last noticing, my advice to defy, resist and evade this intolerable act is well on the way. The smuggling, as modest as it is, I can assure is also happening. This law is not only dangerous it is unenforceable by just about any standard you care to judge it by. Let's just look at the numbers mentioned in the Courant story.

By the end of 2013, state police had received 47,916 applications for assault weapons certificates, Lt. Paul Vance said. An additional 2,100 that were incomplete could still come in.

That 50,000 figure could be as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault weapons owned by Connecticut residents, according to estimates by people in the industry, including the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation. No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000.

And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws. By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies.

"I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register," said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature's public safety committee. "If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem."

This blithering idiot of a state senator is, as I warned Mike Lawlor the other day, extrapolating. It is a very dangerous thing, extrapolation, especially when you are trying to predict the actions of an enemy you made yourself whom you barely recognize let alone understand. I told Lawlor:

You, you silly sod, are extrapolating from your own cowardice. Just because you wouldn't risk death for your principles, doesn't mean there aren't folks who most certainly will. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but folks who are willing to die for their principles are most often willing to kill in righteous self-defense of them as well. You may be ignorant of such people and their ways. You may think that they are insane. But surely even you cannot be so clueless that, insane or not from your point-of-view, such people DO exist and in numbers unknown. This is the undiscovered country that you and your tyrannical ilk have blundered into, like clueless kindergarteners gaily (no pun intended) tap-dancing in a well-marked mine field.

The Founders marked the mine field. Is it our fault or yours that you have blithely ignored the warnings? If I were a Connecticut state policeman I would be wondering if the orders of a possible KGB mole throwback were worth the terminal inability to collect my pension. Of course, you may be thinking that you can hide behind that "thin blue line." Bill Clinton's rules of engagement say otherwise.

The odds are, and it gives me no particular satisfaction to say it, is that someone is going to get killed over your unconstitutional misadventures in Connecticut. And if not Connecticut, then New York, or Maryland, or California or Colorado. And once the civil war you all apparently seek is kicked off, it would not be -- it could not be -- confined to one state.

This is not a threat, of course. Not the personal, actionable threat that you may claim. It ranks right along with -- no, that's wrong, IT IS EXACTLY LIKE -- an ex-con meeting me in the street and pointing to my neighbor's house saying, "Tonight I am going to break in there, kill that man, rape his wife and daughters and steal everything that he is, has, or may become." I warn him, "If you try to do that, he will kill you first. He may not look like much, but I know him to be vigilant and perfectly capable of blowing your head off." That is not a threat from me. It is simply good manners. Consider this letter in the same vein. I am trying to save you from yourself.

For, like that common criminal, you have announced by your unconstitutional law and your public statements in favor of its rigorous enforcement that you have a tyrannical appetite for your neighbors' liberty, property and lives. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that this policy, if carried to your announced conclusion, will not end well for anybody, but especially for you.

Now let's examine those numbers in the Courant story. You know the size of the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. Wikipedia tells us that "CSP currently has approximately 1,248 troopers, and is headquartered in Middletown, Connecticut. It is responsible for protecting the Governor of Connecticut, Lieutenant Governor of Connecticut, and their families." There are but 1,212 email addresses listed on the state website to which this email is going, which presumably includes everyone including secretaries, receptionists, file clerks, technicians, etc. Now, how many shooters for raid parties you may find among that one thousand, two hundred and forty eight that Wikipedia cites, or whatever number will be on the payroll when something stupid happens, only you know for sure. I'll let you do the counting.

They are daunting odds in any case, and as you will see, they get more daunting as we go down this road that Malloy and Company have arranged for you. (By the way, don't forget to subtract those on the Green Zone protective details, for your political masters will certainly see their survival as your mission number one.) So, how many folks would your superiors be interested in seeing you work their will upon? And of these, how many will fight regardless of cost?

Let's assume that there are 100,000 non-compliant owners of military pattern semi-automatic rifles in your state. I think it is a larger number but 100,000 has a nice round ring to it. Let us then apply the rule of three percent to that number -- not to the entire population of your state, not even to the number of firearm owners, but just to that much smaller demonstrated number of resistors. That leaves you with at least 3,000 men and women who will shoot you if you try to enforce this intolerable act upon them. Of course you will have to come prepared to shoot them. That's a given. They know this. So please understand: THEY. WILL. SHOOT. YOU. (In what they believe is righteous self defense.)

Now, if any of them follow Bill Clinton's rules of engagement and utilize the principles of 4th Generation Warfare, after the first shots are fired by your raid parties, they will not be home when you come to call. These people will be targeting, according to the 4GW that many of them learned while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war makers who sent you. This gets back to that "when democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizenry still gets to vote." One ballot, or bullet, at a time.

This is all hypothetical, of course, based upon the tyrants' appetites for these hitherto law-abiding citizens' liberty, property and lives as well as upon your own willingness to enforce their unconstitutional diktat. And here's where you can do something about it. The first thing you have to realize is that the people you will be targeting do not view you as the enemy. Indeed, you are NOT their enemy, unless you choose to be one.

Again, an unconstitutional law is null and void. Of course you may if you like cling to the slim fact that a single black-robed bandit has ruled the Intolerable Act as constitutional in Shew vs. Malloy, but that will not matter to those three percent of the resistors -- your fellow citizens -- whom you target. They no longer expect a fair trial in your state in any case, which leaves them, if they wish to defend their liberty, property and lives, only the recourse of an unfair firefight. So to cite Shew vs. Malloy at the point of a state-issued firearm to such people is, well, betting your life on a very slender reed.

Thus, my kindly advice to you, just as it was to Lawlor, is to not go down that road. You are not the enemy of the people of Connecticut, not yet. The politicians who jammed this law down the peoples' throats are plainly flummoxed by the resistance it has engendered. In the absence of a definitive U.S. Supreme Court decision do you really want to risk not being able to draw your pension over some politician's insatiable appetite for power?

There are many ways you can refuse to get caught up in this. Passive resistance, looking the other way, up to and including outright refusal to execute what is a tyrannical law that a higher court may yet find unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Do you really want to have to kill someone enforcing THAT? Just because you were ordered to do so? After Nuremberg, that defense no longer obtains. (You may say, "Well, I'm just a secretary, a clerk, you can't blame me for anything." Kindly recall from Nuremberg one other lesson: raid parties cannot break down doors unless someone like you prepares the list in advance. In fact, you have at your keyboard and in your databases more raw, naked power than any kick-in-the-door trooper. And with that power comes moral responsibility. Adolf Eichmann didn't personally kill anyone. But he darn sure made up the lists and saw to it that trains ran on time. When the first Connecticut citizen (or, God forbid, his family) is killed as a result of your list-making, do you think that because you didn't pull the trigger that gives you a moral pass?)

So I call on you all, in your own best interest and that of your state, to refuse to enforce this unconstitutional law. There are a number of Three Percenters within the Connecticut state government, especially its law enforcement arms. I know that there have been many discussions around water-coolers and off state premises about the dangers that this puts CT law enforcement officers in and what officers should do if ordered to execute raids on the previously law-abiding.

You have it within your power to refuse to initiate hostilities in an American civil war that would, by its very nature, be ghastly beyond belief and would unleash hatreds and passions that would take generations to get over, if then.

Please, I beg you to understand, you are not the enemy, you are not an occupying force -- unless you choose to violate the oath that each of you swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. For their part, the men and women who will be targeted by your raids took an identical oath. Can you think of anything more tragic than brother killing brother over some politician's tyrannical appetite?

I can't. The future -- yours, mine, our children's, that of the citizens of Connecticut and indeed of the entire country -- is in YOUR hands.

At the very least, by your refusal you can give the courts time to work before proceeding into an unnecessary civil war against your own friends and neighbors on the orders of a self-anointed elite who frankly don't give a shit about you, your life, your future or that of your family. They wouldn't pass these laws if they thought that they would have to risk the potential bullet that their actions have put you in the path of. They count on you to take that bullet, in service of their power and their lies. Fool them. Just say no to tyranny. You are not the enemy. Don't act like one.

Sincerely,

Mike Vanderboegh

The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters
PO Box 926
Pinson AL 35126

Armed Revolution in the Next Few Years?

This guy write about what some of us fear. I can understand what drives the thought process on the possibility of armed revolution with:  the Federal Government openly talking about registration and confiscation on guns; reports of across the board monitoring and collection of all forms of communications; and some states pasing draconian gun laws while other states openly challenge the federal government on future gun laws.  Again, while I can understand the thinking, this would be a self induced wound.  I don't know if we would be a nation coming out of something so unthinkable as this.   

Poll: 29% of Registered Voters Believe Armed Revolution Might Be Necessary in Next Few Years by Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr. of TheAnti-Media.org

Twenty-nine percent of registered voters think that an armed revolution might be necessary in the next few years in order to protect liberties, according to a Public Mind poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University.

The poll, which surveyed 863 registered voters and had a margin of error of +/-3.4, focused on both gun control and the possibility of a need for an armed revolution in the United States to protect liberty.

The survey asked whether respondents agreed, disagreed, neither agreed nor disagreed or did not know or refused to respond to the statement: "In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties"

Twenty-nine percent said they agreed, 47 percent said they disagreed, 18 percent said they neither agreed nor disagreed, 5 percent said they were unsure, and 1 percent refused to respond.

Results of the poll show that those who believe a revolution might be necessary differ greatly along party lines:

18 percent of Democrats
27 percent of Independents
44 percent of Republicans

The poll found that 38 percent of Americans who believe a revolution might be necessary support additional gun control legislation compared to 62 percent of those who don't think an armed revolt will be needed.

Dan Cassino, a professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson and analyst for the poll, says: "The differences in views of gun legislation are really a function of differences in what people believe guns are for. If you truly believe an armed revolution is possible in the near future, you need weapons and you're going to be wary about government efforts to take them away."

The poll was conducted nationally between April 22 and April 28, 2013.

This subject becomes a valid topic when there are reports that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is telling the States that they (DOJ) is not going to recognize State Laws protecting second amendment rights.

Eric Holder says Feds Will Ignore State Laws and Enforce Gun Grab

by Joe Wolverton on SpreadLibertyNews: Attorney General Eric Holder has written to Kansas Governor Sam Brownback (shown), informing him that the Obama administration considers state attempts to protect the Second Amendment “unconstitutional” and that federal agents will “continue to execute their duties,” regardless of state statutes to the contrary.

The letter, dated April 26, specifically references a Kansas statute recently signed into law by Brownback that criminalizes any attempt by federal officers or agents to infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of citizens of the Sunflower State. Section 7 of the new law declares:

It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas. Violation of this section is a severity level 10 nonperson

The right of states to refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal acts is known as nullification.

Nullification is a concept of constitutional law recognizing the right of each state to nullify, or invalidate, any federal measure that exceeds the few and defined powers allowed the federal government as enumerated in the Constitution.

Nullification exists as a right of the states because the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the central government to enact laws that are applicable to the states and the citizens thereof.

As President Obama and the United Nations accelerate their plan to disarm Americans, the need for nullification is urgent, and liberty-minded citizens are encouraged at the sight of state legislators boldly asserting their right to restrain the federal government through application of that very powerful and very constitutional principle.

Both Attorney General Holder and President Obama are trained lawyers, so one would expect that they have read the Federalist Papers. In fairness, they probably have, but perhaps they overlooked Federalist, No. 33, where Alexander Hamilton explained the legal validity of federal acts that exceed the powers granted to it by the Constitution. Hamilton wrote:

If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted [sic] to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed…. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. [Emphasis in original.]

Holder denies that states have the right to withstand federal tyranny and argues that the Constitution declares federal acts to be the “supreme law of the land.”

His comments echo a common misreading and misunderstanding of Article VI of the Constitution, the so-called Supremacy Clause.

The Supremacy Clause (as some wrongly call it) of Article VI does not declare that federal laws are the supreme law of the land without qualification. What it says is that the Constitution “and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof” are the supreme law of the land.

Read that clause again: “In pursuance thereof,” not in violation thereof. If an act of Congress is not permissible under any enumerated power given to it in the Constitution, it was not made in pursuance of the Constitution and therefore not only is not the supreme law of the land, it is not the law at all.

Constitutionally speaking, then, whenever the federal government passes any measure not provided for in the limited roster of its enumerated powers, those acts are not awarded any sort of supremacy. Instead, they are “merely acts of usurpations” and do not qualify as the supreme law of the land. In fact, acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only if they are made in pursuance of its constitutional powers, not in defiance thereof.

Alexander Hamilton put an even finer point on the issue when he wrote in Federalist, No. 78, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the constitution, can be valid.”

Once more legislators, governors, citizens, and law professors realize this fact, they will more readily and fearlessly accept that the states are uniquely situated to perform the function described by Madison above and reiterated in a speech to Congress delivered by him in 1789. “The state legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operation of this government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a federal government admit the state legislatures to be sure guardians of the people’s liberty,” Madison declared.

State lawmakers in Kansas and several other states are catching on, and nullification bills stopping federal overstepping of constitutional boundaries are being considered. These measures nullify not only the impending federal gun grab, but the mandates of ObamaCare and the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), as well.

In light of Holder’s letter, it appears that we have arrived at a time in the history of our Republic when the author of the Declaration of Independence (Thomas Jefferson) and the “Father of the Constitution” (James Madison) are considered enemies of liberty.

In the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, Jefferson and Madison declared their allegiance to the union, but insisted that states have the right — the duty — to interpose themselves between citizens and federal despotism.

What Holder fails to appreciate is that the consent of the states created the Constitution and thus created the federal government. This act of collective consenting is called a compact. In this compact (or contract), the states selected delegates who met in Philadelphia in 1787 and conferred some of the powers of the states to a federal government. These powers were enumerated in the Constitution drafted at that convention and the Constitution became the written record of the compact.

This element of the creation of the union is precisely where the states derive their power to nullify acts of the federal government that exceed its constitutional authority. It is a trait woven inextricably within every strand of sovereignty, and it was the sovereign states that ceded the territory of authority that the federal government occupies.

In his letter to Governor Brownback, Attorney General Holder demonstrates that he is as ignorant as his boss as to the proper, constitutional relationship between state governments and the federal government. Accordingly, when Holder threatens to use “all appropriate action” to “prevent the State of Kansas from interfering with the activities of federal officials enforcing federal law,” what he is saying is that he will use any means necessary to prevent the sovereign state of Kansas (and any other state brave enough to take a stand against the federal government) from exercising its right to protect its citizens from federal disarmament.

And, more importantly, by disregarding a legally enacted Kansas statute preserving the right of its citizens to keep and bear arms, the Obama administration is not only ignoring the Second Amendment, but it is also ignoring the 10th Amendment and its restrictions on federal power.

Effects of Gun Ban Proposals

Received this through e-mail:  Urbanman, I thought you would be tickled to get this update from the Southland. My friend recently sold one of his DPMS carbines and six magazines to someone for $3,000. He bought the carbine for around $850. This kind of shows you the value of guns when the SHTF and we are straight bartering. My friend told me someone else wants a carbine so he may sell another one as well. $6,000 would buy a truckload of food. Sure am glad I don't have to buy one of those since I already have an AR-15, but my primary gun is my old Ruger Model 77 in .308 Win. But by God what kind of desperation does a man have to have to spend $3,000 on a rifle?

UrbanMan's comments: I have been getting report after, e-mail after Pm on the prices from all over. It is crazy. Good thing most of us, and those reading this, probably have plenty of both AR type rifles or something suitable for protection and enough ammunition to last. Some friends of mine from Arizona and Texas are telling me they can't buy .223 ammunition in any of the sporting good stores. Another told me P-magazines for AR's were going for $100 each,.....$100 each!! I bought mine for around $12 each. And yet another gent told me that AR prices at a gun show were $2,700 to $3,600. All because of some anti-constitutionalists want to take away our guns! Here is one account that was forwarded to me by a friend:

......AR15's went from $1000 to $3000 in a few hours. .223 caliber ammo went from $300 to $900 in the same time period. There is absolutely nothing left of any quality at the wholesale level. I mean zero. People are completely freaked out. I cannot tell you what it was like on my way out the door. Completely out of control.

I personally don't think anything will make it through the House or the Senate. This will be done via executive order. Legal or not. It will be challenged in court, but will have about the same outcome as the Health Care Bill challenge. I have been in the weapons industry for over 30 years now and never seen anything like this. I wonder about all of these people buying weapons, ammo, and magazines. I seriously doubt that many know how to effectively use them defensively, much less offensively. They just think they need them because someone told them that they are not going to be able to buy them anymore. Kind of like a Cabbage Patch Doll going on sale on Black Friday.

The powers that be have a game plan. Plain and simple. They cannot execute the game plan until we are disarmed. There are a series of steps that will take place to achieve that goal. They have already played many of those cards out behind the scenes unknown to most. Did you know that you cannot import a gun part or round of ammunition into this country that meets their description of "non-sporting' anymore? What does that mean? There are about a thousand more regulations in place that most have not a clue exist.

The next card to play is one that they are mulling around now. That will be the requirement that you register you weapon (assault or not) with them for your safety. No charge at first of course. Next will be ammunition (via taxes) and magazine control. After they get a handle on that, they will simply make it a Federal offense to own them. They will not come around and pick them up. That will be too dangerous. They will just prosecute you when they catch you with them. There will be a few people made example of and that will take care of the masses.

Some of this will be done via random road check points and routine traffic stops. The game plan will be executed by DHS, TSA and local law enforcement that agrees to comply. The FEDS will use the almighty dollar as a carrot to entice them to cooperate. Now the massive purchases of ammunition, arms and armored vehicles by DHS, TSA and the existence of those FEMA Camps should start to make more sense to you.

I often hear some say they will hide or bury their weapons. If you do that, you might as well not have one. It would be worthless then. I am starting to wonder how many of the NRA guys really mean what they say, "Pry it from my cold dead hands." I would venture to say that most would cut and run at the first sight of authority. Take that and the fact that we are completely unorganized and you will start to see that we are very vulnerable. Internet and telecommunication control starting make more sense to you now?

We are not quickly approaching uncharted waters, we are in them. Like I said before, you are going to have to decide whether you are a man (or woman) or not, just shortly. When I look around at most customers, I suspect that is typically not the case.

One has to spend a lot of time to decide whether or not to comply. End of story. This is my country, not theirs.

I think back a few years ago, when I was having dinner with a "seasoned" combat vet who was a gun ship pilot during the Vietnam War and he said something that has always stuck with me. "Give up your weapons and you are a dead man". The look in his eye and the tone of his voice always stuck with me.

I know what I think I have, but then I have not had to confront anyone that demanded that I disarm myself until now. Especially someone employed by my government with a gun and handcuffs. It does however; make me take another long look at a poster I have on the wall in my office of an unarmed person kneeling at the edge of a ditch filled with dead bodies during WWII being shot in the back of the head by a German Nazi officer.

Two Threats to Survival Preppers

I have talked to over a dozen people since Obama was re-elected about what that means to Survival Preppers. It seems many are now concerned that without the need or chance to be re-elected second Obama administration can implement not only economic regulations that will hurt preppers but the Government is in position to implement changes to our second amendment freedoms as well as our very liberty.

Some of these people I have talked to cannot articulate what they are concerned about other than gun control. They have some vision of impending economic doom,.... and as middle of the road as I am, I can't say that they are completly mistaken.

I think besides the chance of an economic collapse being greater with a continuation of the the fiscal policies of the last four years, the real two possible threats to preppers are the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the United Nations Small Arms Treaty.

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

The NDAA authorizes the military to: 1) detainment of persons captured within the United States of America without charge or trial, 2) prosecute said persons through military tribunals for persons captured within the United States 3) the transfer of persons captured within the United States of America to foreign nations (foreign jurisdictions).

Of course this is in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America. But the Government's point is to trust them, they will be very select in using the provisions of the NDAA on American citizens. In fact Senator Carl Levin stated on the floor of the Senate that the NDAA did not pertain to citizens of the U.S. But not we now know that the Office of the President of the United States, requested that such restriction be removed from the 2012 NDAA.

What is more troubling is that the NDAA passed the Senate. An amendment from Senator Udall to forbid the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, was was rejected by a vote of 38–60, along party lines.

What this means is that most of the 4th, 5th and 6th amendment rights that U.S. citizens have enjoyed for a couple hundred years now can be taken away by the U.S Government, presumably the Justice Department, using military assets which are free of restrictions of statutory authority that Federal Law Enforcement agencies have. Potential loses of these rights:

The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures (4th Amendment);
The right to be free from charge for an infamous or capitol crime until presentment or indictment by a Grand Jury (5th Amendment;
The right to be free from deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without Due Process of law (5th Amendment);
The right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of our peers in the State or District where the alleged crime shall have been committed (6th Amendment);
The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation and to confront witnesses (6th Amendment);
The right to Legal Counsel (6th Amendment; and even the right to be free from excessive bail and fines, and cruel and unusual punishment with comes from the 8th Amendment;

The threat here is possible and becomes real if the Government continues to lump survival preppers into anti-government threats groups like the right wing militas and anarchists, like they have with various "intelligence reports" from Department of Homeland Security.

UN Arms Treaty,..and It Will Happen

I previously wrote about this back in August - that post is here.

If you think that a conservative House of Representatives would not allow this happen, you are both right and wroing. If it was in the power of the House it would not happen, but the House is not a player in approval/disapproval of this treaty.  Let me write that again"  It does not matter what Congress wants or does not want - this power is in the President's hands.

If two thirds of the U.N. main body (general membership - not the security council) votes for this treaty, then this treaty becomes defacto law for at least four years unless rejected by the President or the Senate. If this treaty goes into effect it will have the effect of a Constitutional Amendment. Let me say that again,....If this treaty goes into effect it will have the effect of a Constitutional Amendment superceding the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court precedence is that International Treaties, that the U.S. is a signature to, trumps U.S. Law. And again, the U.S. will be de facto signatures unless either the President or the Senate reject it.

And speaking of the Senate,....figure the odds on a newly re-elected Barack Obama rejecting this Treaty. Figure the odds on Senator Harry Reid even allowing a vote on this in the Senate. And what is scary is that only a reported 51 Senators, prior to the last election, were against the original treaty. The new Senate will have even more Senators supporting this treaty. The treaty would require nations to register guns and their owners.

Certain types of guns will be outlawed. And the subsequent U.S. Government performance in the treaty provisions will most assuredly require no notice inspections of those people considered to own "arsenals".

The threat here is probably that the UN Arms Treaty will effect gun onwers and since Survival preppers are indivudually responsible for their own security, the ability to own guns and buy ammuniton will certainly be adversely effected by the UN Arms Treaty.

This threat is probable and becomes real if the Government decides to enact compliance with the teay by going after the Survival community because we are open, easy and law abdiing targets,...read "easy targets" to score some initial victories in removing the "excessive guns threats". And since Preppers are preparing to survive a sceanrio where there is not government, we could be seen as "anarchists planning for no government".

Very scary times my friends.

For more information, I suggest going to the excellent Town Hall article on the UN Arms Treaty

More Gun Control Commentary

HalfElf has left a new comment on your post "Gun Control Looming": "Saw on google search yesterday that the ATT (UN Arms Treaty) has been rejected by the US. Somebody must had told his nibbs that maybe pissing off 1/3 of the voting population might not be a good idea less than 4 months before the election."

UrbanMan's reply:  I listened to an interview with noted second amendment author John Lott yesterday. I'll paraphrase what he had to say: The U.S. did not reject the treaty. Repeat. The U.S. did not reject the treaty. Secretary Clinton just did not go to the UN meeting to vote on it........because, you see, she does not have to in order for it to be placed into effect.

If two thirds of the U.N. main body (general membership - not the security council) votes for this treaty, then this treaty becomes defacto law for at least four years unless rejected by the President or the Senate. If this treaty goes into effect it will have the effect of a Constitutional Amendment. Supreme Court precedence is that International Treaties, that the U.S. is a signature to, trumps U.S. Law. And again, the U.S. will be de facto signatures unless either the President or the Senate reject it.

Figure the odds on a newly re-elected Barack Obama rejecting this Treaty. Figure the odds on Sen Harry Reid allowing a vote on this in the Senate. And what is scary is that only a reported 51 Senators were against the original treaty. The treaty would require nations to register guns and their owners. Certain types of guns will be outlawed. And the subsequent U.S. Government performance in the treaty provisions will most assuredly require no notice inspections of those people considered to own "arsenals". There would be no other way to determine extnet of the export of firearms.

This is bad news not only Survivalists and Gun Owners but for the American people as well. If you think 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce Obamacare is a large step towards massive Government control,.....imagine how many new hires in the BATF or maybe a newly created organization would do. On related news, there will be several attempts to limit internet access to ammunition especially if the current administration wins another term.

This is not intended to be a political article, just stating the facts as the Liberal and/or Progressive section of American politics has always been for gun control measures. Whether or not you believe the goal is some sort or "we know what is better for the American peope and their safety", or, if it is some evil plan for a massive government controlled socialist society doesn't change the facts. Many other people think this way as well, since in the days following the Colorado Theatre shooting, gun sales in Colorado sky rocketed.

It's going to be much harder for people embracing some sort of preparedness posture to secure firearms and adequate ammunition for their security. The recent theater shooting in Colorado, of all things, recently pushed a couple that I have been dripping Survival and Preparedness to, to purchase a couple of additional firearms. I had previously helped this new to firearms couple select a couple of handguns, one a Glock 19 and the other a Taurus .38 special revolver. Last week they purchased a Ruger 10-22 carbine and a Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun.  They now feel much better about having to drive a few hundred miles east to get to their son's property in New Mexico in case the collapse situation warrants it.

Before any of you chastize me for the selection of these guns not being a couple of black rifles,....well, this is what the couple is comfortable with......and remember the first rule of a gun fight,...have a gun...if the government allows it.

Gun Control Looming

I think I am less inclined then all of my friends and people I have worked with to buy into "conspiracy theories". A change of a few words,...a misperception,....or only hearing one side of the story or issue helps facilitate conspiracy stories. However, what was forwarded to me concerning our current adminstration's seeming dalliance with a concept called World Law really concerns me.

Most of us believe in three things:  1 - That we should not trust a government that does not trust us to own guns, and 2 - The U.S. constitution guarantees the right to own and bear guns. 

This right is necessary and central to the plans of all survivalists preparing for SHTF be it an economic collapse, total infrastructure failure or whatever label someone wants to put on The End Of The World As We Know It. 

A person I know who doesn't even own a gun sent me a link to a Lew Rockwell site referencing an article from Mac Slavo of SHTF Plan, a name all preppers and survivalists should recognize.

Five Words For the United Nations: FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS by Mac Slavo, SHTF Plan

In January of this year reports began surfacing that members of the United Nations were conspiring with American politicians to further erode the Second Amendment rights of the people of these United States: “In New York, right here on our own shores, we’ve got a Trojan horse. They won’t accept U.S. firearms policy. They want to take the decision away from the U.S. electorate and undermine our Constitution.” ~Ambassador Faith Whittlesey, US Delegate to UN Small Arms Conference, January 2012

While actions at the UN posed a serious threat to our right to bear arms, few acknowledged the legitimacy of the issue and fewer still had even heard anything about it. The Obama administration is now just a matter of weeks away from joining other foreign powers in the signing of the Arms Trade Treaty at United Nations.

While many will argue that the new treaty will not restrict gun ownership in America, 2nd Amendment proponents disagree and maintain that the new treaty could pave the way for an eventual nationwide gun grab. Dick Morris, who is spearheading a petition to stop Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the United States from signing the treaty, explains the inherent dangers within: …Obama is planning, with Hillary, a backdoor move to impose gun control on the United States. It’s totally outrageous.

You know, Obama has not pushed gun control during his administration – a notable absence for a liberal. But it’s because he was saving the best for last. Hillary is now negotiating a small arms treaty in the United Nations… The purpose of the small arms treaty is to stop small arms, which they define as pistols, handguns, rifles, assault weapons, even machine guns from being exported to other countries. … What Obama is doing with Hillary is to negotiate a treaty that would allegedly stop individual citizens and businesses from selling their arms overseas.

To do that each country would be obliged to set up its own system of registration, and controls, and inventory controls… It’s entirely a backdoor effort to force gun registration and eventually bans and restrictions with the act of the United States Congress – to do it with international treaty. One of the deadly parts about this is that when a treaty is signed and made binding in the United States it acquires the force of a Constitutional Amendment. Under the Supremacy Clause, every Congress and every state legislature has to honor that treaty, unless a Constitutional Amendment is passed to the contrary or unless all the other signatories let the U.S. out of the treaty.