Saturday, June 24, 2017

2nd Amendment

by -
Hey, you live here?

Residents of Cypress, Texas, Pastor Lorenzo Martinez and his family were subjected to a home invasion by an unknown man in only his underwear. The home intruder, after a brief violent fight, was shot dead at the crime scene.

According to reports by leading local news channels, after breaking into Pastor Martinez’s home on Thursday morning, the man allegedly attacked members of the family before being shot to death.

“The door is kicked in and that’s how the family wakes up to discover the intruder in the residence,” an official of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office told a local news network in a statement. “He wasn’t running from anybody. He was attacking. In my opinion, he was in an attacking mode.”

Naarai Olvera, Pastor Martinez’s daughter, told the news network that while she wasn’t present to witness the break-in or the scuffle, her brother, sister, brother-in-law and their children were at home when the incident occurred.

“He just started hitting my dad, then he hit my mom,” Olvera said. “Then my brother woke up and my brother started hitting him.”

According to Olvera, the unknown home invader punched her mother in the face many times to break her nose, before attacking her brother with a large flat-screen TV set.

After attacking Pastor Martinez’s wife and son, according to Olvera’s claims, the intruder moved to her sister’s room where her husband and three young children were hiding. She reported that he broke down the bedroom door to get in.

As soon as he gained entry into Olvera’s sister’s bedroom, her brother-in-law shot the intruder dead. Investigators believe the man was on drugs.

“We are a Christian family,” Olvera said. “We don’t believe in killing anybody. But we had to do what we had to do to protect our family and protect our little kids.”

While the home invader has not yet been identified, the Martinez family says they have absolutely no idea who he is.

by -
2017 Starts with a bang for gun rights.

When the U. S. Supreme Court issued its seminal rulings in Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010), finding that the Second Amendment does in fact guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms that must be recognized by the states, many Americans felt like the issue of the Second Amendment had finally been settled in America. Unfortunately, as we would quickly see in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere — it was only the latest chapter in what has become an endless battle for the natural right of self-defense.

Take, for instance, the District of Columbia’s post-Heller “fix” to its unconstitutional gun laws — forcing citizens to obtain a license to carry firearms outside their home, but failing to provide any mechanism by which to obtain a license. In other jurisdictions, including Illinois and Seattle, officials attempted to create de facto gun bans by increasing the cost of ownership through taxes and fees, regardless of the impact on minority citizens. Former President Obama, too, had his own way of side-stepping these otherwise clear Supreme Court rulings, and employed the resources of numerous agencies and departments — most of which have no colorable jurisdiction over firearms, such as the FDIC and CDC – in an often unnoticed drive to undermine the 2nd Amendment.

You have to give gun control advocates points for being clever; which is what makes a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit all the more frightening.

Despite the clear, well-reasoned rulings in Heller and McDonald, the 4th Circuit took the exact opposite approach in upholding Maryland’s “assault weapon” ban; and, in doing so, created an entirely subjective litmus test for what types of guns could be regulated by the State. The appellate Court found that Maryland’s ban of 81 firearms was “legal” because the guns were “weapons of war.” This conclusion is beyond laughable, insofar as U.S. military versions of such civilian firearms are capable of fully automatic fire, which the civilian versions at issue in the court case are not.

The Fourth Circuit justices, like Bill Clinton with his 1994 “assault weapons” ban, chose to base its decision not on facts, history, or common sense, but on whether the firearms at issue “looked” like military-style firearms. “La La Land” wins again.

As Justice Clarence Thomas noted in 2015, “if a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.”

Perhaps now the Supreme Court might finally hear a challenge to these arbitrary bans on semi-automatic weapons, after passing on several post-Heller requests for clarification on the issue.

However, despite this ludicrous Fourth Circuit ruling, there have been some positive developments for gun rights. Last week, President Donald Trump signed a bill from Congress that stopped a proposed rule change made in the twilight of the Obama Administration, requiring the Social Security Administration (yet another agency employed by Obama in his war on guns) to report to the FBI citizens deemed “mentally defective,” so as to prevent them from owning firearms — without any due process before depriving them of this constitutional right. The fear, and rightfully so, is that this list of disqualifying factors of gun ownership would include non-impairing conditions, such as eating disorders.

Another bill aimed at protecting innocent Americans from having their rights arbitrarily curbed is the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,” a version of which has been introduced in both the House and Senate. The Act intends to create a national system of reciprocity among states for holders of concealed carry permits, eliminating the fear and uncertainty for law-abiding individuals when traveling through states like Connecticut, California, and Maryland. Finally, travelers may be able to exercise their right to self-defense without having to worry about being slapped with a felony simply because they crossed a state line. But this battle is far from over.

Finally, the long-awaited “Hearing Protect Act” may reach the president’s desk this year after failing to do so in 2015. The bill, H.R. 367, would eliminate a $200 fee associated with buying a silencer; but more importantly, remove regulatory hurdles that have kept most law-abiding citizens from purchasing such items since 1934. Liberals, convinced the reality of guns is what they see in a Hollywood movie, are in hysterics; but the truth is silencers (more properly known as “suppressers”) muffle, but do not eliminate, the report of a firearm being fired, so as to protect the hearing of the shooter and those in the vicinity.

The first weeks of Trump’s presidency have been filled with at least a few wins for the Second Amendment. However, it is more important than ever to be vigilant about the counter-efforts of gun control advocates, who remain very much alive and well in both houses of Congress — and in both parties— and in state legislators from coast to coast.

by -

Barack Obama couldn’t do it, but a hidden video shows how Hillary Clinton will be able to get guns out of the hands of Americans.

James O’Keefe strikes again.

The undercover journalist for Project Veritas and Project Veritas Action released a new video today that shows Russ Feingold, the former Democratic senator from Wisconsin talking about Hillary using executive order to get rid of guns.

Feingold is running again to win back his Senate seat and during a fundraiser in Palo-Alto California, he admitted that Hillary would use executive orders.

The video was filmed in August at the home of Amy Rao and Harry Plant.

Feingold has connections to the area, he taught at nearby Stanford after leaving his position at the U.S. State Department where he was a part of a “special envoy”.

It is no surprise that Democrats want to go after gun control. Barack Obama tried to push through tough regulations and new laws after Sandy Hook, but he couldn’t get it done.

Feingold lays out the plan for Hillary and the Democrats.

“He did some executive orders with the aspects of waiting periods. But what we all need is the Senate; have her there, and then put pressure on the House. And we might win the House.”

Hillary’s disdain for guns has been made very clear with her hate for the NRA. She is also interested in “Australian-style” gun control.

Background checks are one thing, but making guns illegal for self-defense is outright dangerous for America. That is what Hillary wants, she doesn’t want guns in America.

Correction, Hillary doesn’t want guns in the hands of American citizens, just police, military and security details. Only with that plan, only criminals would keep guns, literally and that is the scariest part of it all.

What are your impressions from the secret video by Project Veritas Action? Let us know in the comments below.

by -
Gun Rights

The 2nd Amendment is under fire from every direction right now. Obama is creating his own executive actions to change gun laws. The Supreme Court battle is primarily over the 2nd Amendment and the support a replacement to Scalia will have for our right to bear arms.

There is another threat, more close to home. These seven states are trying to steal your gun rights.

These states are trying to change the laws and limit your right as an American citizen to keep and carry a gun.

Is your state on this list? We hope not!

Check out the seven states that will try and steal your gun rights in 2016


by -
Gun Rights

The right to bear arms is as American as apple pie, but some places that serve apple pie don’t want you to bear your arms in their restaurant. This election year, gun rights are being attacked and many businesses are turning their back on freedom.

Sometimes you just want to go to dinner in a crowded, fun restaurant with your gun on your hip to protect you from all the crazy people in the world. If that is how you feel, then don’t try eating at one of these famous eateries.

Also, if you live in New York, Illinois, South Carolina, Florida or California then you don’t have to worry about freedom since you can’t open carry anywhere in public.

If you live in the capital of American freedom, Washington DC, then don’t even think about showing a gun in pubic. The consequences could be dire.

The home of what was once called the people’s house and open to citizens is now a city where you can’t even carry your own gun.

There are great places in this beautiful country where you can still open carry inside your favorite restaurant, unless your favorite restaurant doesn’t believe in you having the right to bear arms… at least in their establishment.

Here is the list of 9 restaurants that have banned open carry.


by -

On January 5th, 2016, President Obama announced executive actions take that will limit the buying and selling of guns for most Americans who actually don’t like to take losses on investments.

The action takes aim at the so-called “gun show loophole” but in reality it targets individuals who are looking to sell used firearms.

Currently, only ten states require individuals to conduct background checks on buyers for any purchase and another six require background checks specifically on handgun (not rifle) sales.

For everyone else, they’ll need to take action to protect their investments:


by -

A 17-year-old high school senior is making the news this month for being told that her senior photo was being rejected from the yearbook.

The “Ads For Grads” section of the yearbook features graduating seniors and includes optional photos chosen by the student. Jordyn Bihon, an avid archer and hunter, chose a simple but artful picture of herself to be included. She is staring down the sight of a bow and has it drawn. There is no arrow in the bow and Bihon is facing the camera. The photo was taken by her sister.

Lisa Bihon, received a call shortly after the photo was submitted to be included, the school took issue with the photo, claiming that it is inappropriate that the girl is holding a weapon.

Her mother told news sources that Jordyn picked the picture because of her love of archery and that it is something she practices everyday with her father. She has gone hunting and practiced archery all her life, her mother went on to say that she didn’t think there would be anything wrong with the picture being included.

The school contends that the bow pictured is a weapon and is insisting that another photo be chosen for the 2015-2016 yearbook.

The family argued that it isn’t a weapon, it’s her sport, it’s no different than another student posing with a football or a golf club. In fact, a golf club would probably do more damage to someone than a bow with no arrow in it.

The area superintendent, Cheryl Walters, made a statement that while there is no written policy outlining acceptability of photos, students holding weapons in their pictures is not allowed.

Lisa Bihon has brought to the superintendent’s attention a picture in the 2011 yearbook of a different girl holding a bow. The photo was professionally taken and the bow is not facing the camera. Walters is sticking to her guns –or rather lack of guns– and claims that the bow should not have been included.

The Bihon family is chalking this one up to “a sign of the times” and says, “it’s sad. It’s very sad,”
We agree Lisa.

When we start removing the understanding of sport and skill from this weapons “debate” we make guns and bows and even knives out to be these monsters that wander around of their own accord in order to hurt people.

They aren’t. They are tools. In the same way you can kill someone with a nail gun or a crowbar, you can hurt someone with any of those things. Responsible, law abiding people, employ weapons every day, this shouldn’t be a debate.

by -

Keeping his promise to attack the gun rights of law-abiding Americans in the wake of the Islamic terrorist attack that killed 14 people attending a Christmas party in San Bernardino last week, President Barack Obama is moving to ban 47,000 people whose name appears on the No-Fly List from buying guns, owning ammunition or even keeping their firearms.

The president’s opening gambit to redefine what a “prohibited person” is under the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) follows his Sunday address to the nation on domestic terrorism – a move that would not have stopped Islamic terrorists in California from committing their crimes.

If Obama uses an Executive Order to expand the “prohibited person” definition used by NICS to approve gun sales – a power he does not have under federal law – and is not stopped by Congress or the courts, people ranging from U.S. Marines and Congressmen to journalists and even federal air marshals could be stripped of their firearms. In his Sunday address, the president said:

“To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a No-Fly List is able to buy a gun.” “What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to but a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.”

What the president doesn’t seem to understand is that the law is the law. The No-Fly List – which is secret, riddled with errors and makes it difficult to appeal the decision to add them to the list – was created to protect the flying public from terrorist attacks, not to strip people of their gun rights.

In fact, according to a piece on the No-Fly List published in The Washington Post:

“Thousands of people have been mistakenly linked to names on terror watch lists when they crossed the border, boarded commercial airliners or were stopped for traffic violations…”

“When questions arose about tens of thousands of names between December 2003 and January 2006, the names were sent back to the agencies that put them on the lists, the GAO said. Half of those were found to be misidentified…”

Security experts, civil libertarians and consumer critics charge that the federal list process contains many errors and relies on an overly broad standard of reasonable suspicion.

One famous example involved the late Senator Ted Kennedy, an ardent advocate of gun control in Congress, who was added to the No-Fly List in error. Under the standard Obama wants to implement, Sen. Kennedy would be barred from purchasing a firearm. At the time, Kennedy asked then-Homeland Security undersecretary Asa Hutchinson:

“If they have that kind of difficulty with a member of Congress, how in the world are average Americans – who are getting caught up in this thing – how are they going to be treated fairly and not have their rights abused?”

Another example occurred just last year when Fox News contributor Steve Hayes was listed in the federal terrorist database after he traveled to Istanbul for a cruise.

“When I went online to check in with Southwest, they wouldn’t let me. I figured it was some glitch,” he said. “Then I got to the airport and went to check in. The woman had a concerned look on her face.

She brought over her supervisor and a few other people. Then they shut down the lane I was in, took me to the side, told me I was a selectee and scrawled [something] on my ticket.”

Hayes was later informed by Southwest Airlines that his name appeared on the government’s terrorist watch list.

In what is perhaps one the most bizarre examples of No-Fly List errors involved members of the Federal Air Marshal Service. Air Marshalls said they were blocked from boarding planes in 2008 after their names appeared in the database. One marshal told the Washington Times that it was “a major problem, where guys are denied boarding by the airline.”

“In some cases, planes have departed without any coverage because the airline employees were adamant they would not fly,” said the air marshal, who requested anonymity due to the nature of his job. “I’ve seen guys actually being denied boarding.”

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., commenting after the president’s address told CNN on Sunday that most people on the No-Fly List don’t even belong there:

“These are everyday Americans that have nothing to do with terrorism. … The majority of people on the No-Fly List are often times people that just basically have the same name as somebody else who doesn’t belong on the No-Fly List.”

If President Obama gets his way, the government will be able to target individual Americans and take away their Second Amendment gun rights by adding their names to the No-Fly List. Once your name appears on the list, federal law enforcement could show up at your home and confiscate any firearms you may own.

While the president plan would only strip 47,000 people of their gun rights, it could just be the beginning. In time, soldiers retiring from active duty after deployment overseas, people being treated for stress or anxiety and other classes of people deemed ineligible to own firearms by politicians will follow – the Second Amendment be damned.

by -
san francisco gun store

If you want to buy a gun while you’re visiting San Francisco, you can’t. The last gun store in the city has closed in protest of California’s insistence that gun buyers are criminals.

Steven Alcairo announced the closing of his store, High Bridge Arms, in September of this year. And while it may seem like a bad business move to close your location when you stand without competition, Alcairo saw it as the only thing he could do to stand up for gun rights.

The regulations that have been enacted require gun store owners to videotape each gun sale and report ammunition sales to the police. These invasive measures were the last straw. In Alcairo’s words:

“I’m not doing that to our customers. Enough is enough…Buying a gun is a constitutionally protected right. Our customers shouldn’t be treated like they’re doing something wrong.”

He’s absolutely right. Pharmacies don’t have to report how many Plan B pills they sell, nor do websites have to report the names and amounts of fetish pornography they provide each customer. This measure just affects gun owners.

Gun safety advocates don’t understand why Alcairo would close. They say that it would not affect his bottom line to comply with the regulations.

High Bridge Arms has been open for 63 years. The owner, Masashi Takahashi, says that he is too old to keep up with the city’s regulations. He is in his 70s and Alcairo says he is done with it.

Customers have been voicing their frustrations with the shop having to close and pointing to the new laws as the reason. When a city makes it so difficult for independent gun shops to operate, they are contributing to the problem. On top of that, they are villainizing the customer base, who is doing nothing wrong.

A Wal-Mart spokesperson has even come out and said that they also videotape gun sales. Other parts of California have adopted the practice as well.

There is reason, aside from common sense, to protest the measures reaching into other parts of the state. More rural areas have more gun owners buying more ammunition.

When asked about the gun laws being passed in California, a North Dakota gun shop owner described the practices as, “being a mess” and that it would require a lot of his time. In small business, time very much means money. Another shop owner said that if someone came in and bought 1,000-5,000 rounds it wouldn’t raise an eyebrow. They very well may be hunting prairie dogs off their land.

The same is most likely true for the more rural regions of California, namely, Northern California and any other farmland in the state. Criminalizing the purchase of weapons and ammunition via videotaping and reporting purchases just adds to the stigma the left has created around owning a gun in the first place.

Owning weapons is part of life for most rural folks. Farms are remiss to not have one. Coyotes get after chickens, mountain lions can threaten larger animals and people, animals need to be put down even to stop their suffering. The fundamental lack of understanding of why people own guns is echoed in these ridiculous laws.

There are a million reasons to own a gun. Post below why you own yours and what you think of San Francisco’s laws.

by -

Barack Obama has side-stepped the Constitution far too many times in his two terms as President. Earlier this month, even, the South Dakota Republican party petitioned the U.S. House of Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings for just that and a host of other reasons.

The president has sought to put into action by executive order that would circumvent congressional approval and require background checks on certain gun sales. Former House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, has already said that if that were to occur the House should consider impeachment proceedings immediately.

It was reported that Obama was considering the move after the incident on October 1st wherein Christopher Harper-Mercer attacked a school and left nine dead and nine injured at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon.

The order would necessitate high-volume gun dealers to perform background checks on buyers. It would be a unilateral decision by Obama about a major issue in the gun rights debate and for that, DeLay is insisting on nothing but impeachment.

DeLay, who has also served as Majority Whip, says that bringing a presidential order like that to the attention of the Judiciary Committee is “a very healthy thing to do,” he also comments that Congress needs to stand against any kind of unilateral action by Obama.

DeLay is also encouraging congress to do more than just point out one issue, he says, “The House needs to use its power of hearing to start letting the American people know that this is a lawless president, we have a lawless Supreme Court,”

He isn’t wrong. Obama has violated his oath of office many times over. He lied to Americans about what ObamaCare meant to their health insurance, he has begun a war on the coal industry, and countless other infringements litter his terms.

We shouldn’t be lauding his presidency at the end the way you’re meant to say something nice about any scumbag at his funeral, but instead we should be standing behind Obama’s wrongdoings and setting the precedent that the American people hold their leaders accountable to their actions.

Tell us what you think in our poll below.

Should Barack Obama be impeached?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...


Comey Deleted

Judicial Watch today announced it sent Acting FBI Director Andrew G. McCabe a warning letter concerning the FBI’s legal responsibility under the Federal Records...