Pelosi: 'We Want Gun Registration'; Holder: 2nd Amendment 'Won't Stand in the Way'

Wednesday April 8, 2009

BELLEVUE, Wash.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on April 7 acknowledged that gun registration is on her agenda, days after Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters in Mexico that the Second Amendment would not “stand in the way” of administration plans to crack down on alleged gun trafficking to Mexico.

“These are alarming remarks from Speaker Pelosi and Attorney General Holder,” said Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb. “It appears that the Obama administration and Capitol Hill anti-gunners have dropped all pretences about their plans for gun owners’ rights, and it looks like the gloves are coming off.”

Pelosi’s revelation came during an interview on ABC’s Good Morning, America. While insisting that Congress “never denied” the gun rights of American Citizens, Pelosi told Roberts, “We want them registered. We don’t want them crossing state lines…” Gottlieb noted that citizens’ rights do not stop at state lines.

“But that doesn’t really matter,” he observed. “History has shown that around the world, registration has always led to confiscation.”

In Mexico, according to the Wall Street Journal, Holder was asked if the administration might encounter constitutional issues as it tries to crack down on alleged gun trafficking. His response: “I don’t think our Second Amendment will stand in the way of efforts we have begun and will expand upon.”

[...]

Feds monitoring private ammunition purchases and stockpiling

Gun sales going ballistic

By Don Lehman | PostStar | Friday, March 20, 2009

[...]

Everyone interviewed by The Post-Star for this story agreed ammunition of all calibers has gotten tougher to find, as gun owners stock up. Prices skyrocketed in recent years as metal prices went up, which caused many gun owners to stock up in anticipation of rising ammunition prices.

There are also concerns that some larger calibers, or those used by military-type weapons, could be banned, restricted or taxed more heavily.

One northern Warren County resident found out recently the government is paying attention to such ammunition sales.

West said a customer of his recently stocked up on .223-caliber rounds, a caliber often used in assault-style weapons. The customer bought 1,000 rounds a few months ago through a mail order company.

Shortly after the purchase, he received a visit from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, whose interest was apparently piqued by a large-scale purchase of that caliber.

"His wife was home. He was at church," West said.

"People are buying a lot of ammunition in bulk these days," said Kathie Ferullo, owner of Discoveries USA, an outdoors outfitter in Warrensburg that sells guns and ammo. "For some types, we have to wait on a waiting list."

Backdoor "gun control" - DOD Ends Sale of Expended Military Brass to Remanufacturers - UPDATE: DOD reverses decision

The Shootist | Sunday, March 15, 2009

AND SO IT BEGINS...

It is an end-run around Congress. They don't need to try to ban guns--they don't need to fight a massive battle to attempt gun registration, or limit "assault" weapon sales.

Nope. All they have to do is limit the amount of ammunition available to the civilian market, and when bullets dry up, guns will be useless.

From now on, remanufacturers of military brass will not be able to buy surplus brass from DOD--actually from Government Liquidators, llc.--the corporation that sells surplus materials for the U.S. government. At least, not in any form recognizable as once-fired brass ammunition.

Now all brass ammunition will have to be shredded, and sold as scrap.

Georgia Arms, who brought this to our attention, is the 5th largest ammunition manufacturer of centerfire pistol and rifle ammunition in the U.S.

"We're right up there behind Hornady," Larry Haynie told me.

He also told me with the cancellation of his contract to purchase this brass, and the ending of his ability to purchase any more expended military ammunition, he will have to severely curtail his operation--laying off approximately half his 60-person work force.

Haynie further pointed out this move is a stupendous waste of taxpayer money--reducing the worth of the brass some 80%--from casings, to shredded bulk brass.

He stated most of this will now go to foundries where it will be melted down, cast in shippable forms, and likely be sold to China, one of the largest purchasers of U.S. metals on the open market.

Haynie was manufacturing over 1 million rounds of .223 ammunition every month, which he sold on the civilian market to resellers, and to law enforcement agencies across the country.

He will start tomorrow sending cancellations of orders for .223 to law enforcement agencies all over the country.

You can expect this to affect every bullet you purchase in the future--with no reloaded ammunition available, the already strained new manufacturers will be unable to meet demand. They are already turning out everything they can build for the military market. The civilian market is stressed to the point even reloading components have become hard to find.

Now, with this hit, ammunition prices will go through the roof in the next year.

[...]

Update:

One Win For Our Side

shootingwire.com | March 18, 2009

At approximately 4:15 p.m. Eastern yesterday afternoon, Senators Tester and Baucus of Montana faxed a cosigned letter to the Department of Defense asking DOD to reverse their new policy requiring "mutilation" of fired military cartridge brass.

At approximately 5:30 p.m. Eastern our sources tell us, Senator Tester's office received a fax back from the Defense Department saying the brass destruction policy IS reversed.

Already, websites that coordinate the sale of DOD surplus are beginning to remove the "Mutilation" requirement from their listings. This only hours after they began adding the mutilation stipulation.

In short, it seems a fax from the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and another Senator had considerable powers of persuasion.

That translates to a win for the law-abiding gun owners of the United States.

On the right to bear arms (and other issues), the States and the People must assert rights and resist unconstitutional intrusion and violation by Feds

MONTANA HAS IT RIGHT ON SECOND AMENDMENT

by Chuck Baldwin
March 3, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

According to ABC News (Feb. 25, 2009), "The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"'As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,' Holder told reporters."

Holder also said that President Obama would seek to make the assault weapons ban permanent, close the "gun show loophole," and ban "cop-killer" bullets.

At this point, I believe it is incumbent on me to say that both Eric Holder and Barack Obama have made a career out of doing everything in their power to strip the American people of their right to keep and bear arms. Even under the rubric of the abovementioned "few gun-related changes," there is the potential for widespread assault against our Second Amendment.

For example, the so-called "assault weapons" ban is as phony as the Bush-Obama stimulus spending bills--and just as fraudulent. A semi-automatic rifle, which is incapable of automatic fire, is not an "assault weapon." By definition, an assault weapon must be capable of fully automatic fire. A civilian AR-15-style rifle--in any configuration--is functionally identical to any semi-automatic hunting rifle. In fact, many hunters commonly use AR-15-style rifles for all types of hunting, both predator and big game. The term "assault weapon" is simply a dangerous-sounding moniker that makes it easy for a compliant media to intimidate the public and public officials into passing a ban against semi-automatic rifles.

Furthermore, does anyone believe that if Obama and Holder were successful in outlawing semi-automatic rifles, pump and bolt-action rifles would not also be targeted? Get real! I well remember gun control zealots during the Clinton years railing against bolt-action rifles, calling them "sniper" rifles. And once rifles are outlawed, how long would it be before handguns and shotguns would fall victim to a similar fate? As always, the issue for these people is not what type of firearm it is; the issue is the infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms--any arms.

Of course, the "gun show loophole" is nothing more than the prohibition against private citizens selling and trading their own personal firearms. I would like to remind the Obamas and Holders of this country that liberty is not a "loophole."

In the beginning, the private sale and trading of firearms was almost exclusively the purpose for which gun shows were started. Today, commercial firearms dealers dominate gun shows, but it is still a convenient marketplace for citizens to buy and trade guns. This is a freedom and right that is as old as the country itself. Shoot (pun intended)! I remember when we were free to buy guns from a Sears & Roebuck catalog.

And as to banning "cop-killer" bullets, what bullet is not capable of killing? Any bullet that is not capable of killing a good guy is not capable of killing a bad guy (be it two-legged or four). This is just another approach to the same goal: the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. Obviously, any gun without a bullet is pretty much useless.

The Democrats went down this road in 1994. Are they really willing to go down the same road again? It looks like they are.

It was largely an aggressive gun control agenda that caused the Republicans to sweep both houses of Congress in 1994 and render Bill Clinton without a majority in either chamber. It was also an aggressive gun control agenda that caused Al Gore to lose the Presidential election in 2000. Even Bill Clinton publicly acknowledged that fact.

All of that said, however, the underlying reality is that it is the individual States that must ultimately be guardians of the Second Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights, of course). States must be willing to resist any and all efforts by the central government to intrude upon their independence, sovereignty, and liberties. If this was not the case, why did the individual States not dissolve after the federal government was created by the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787? Why? Because the States were deemed to be superior entities. Superior in assignment. Superior in responsibility. Superior in nature. Superior in scope.

As James Madison said in the Federalist Papers, No. 45, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

Therefore, when the federal government begins to intrude upon the rights and liberties of the people, it is the responsibility of the States to resist. Obviously, the way the federal government tries to keep States in subjection is through bribery: by threatening to deny federal tax dollars unless States comply with their despotic machinations. And, sadly, most States have succumbed to this menacing temptation for far, far too long.

The good news is that States are finally beginning to fight back.

According to NewsWithViews and WorldNetDaily, "So far, eight states have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.

"Analysts expect that in addition, another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania."

Pertaining specifically to the Second Amendment, the State of Montana, in particular, seems to have it all together. In anticipation of the recent Heller Supreme Court decision, a host of Montana's senators and representatives--along with its Secretary of State-- proposed a resolution stating "that any 'collective rights' holding in D.C. v. Heller will violate Montana's compact with the United States, the contract by which Montana entered the Union in 1889."

In essence, the Montana resolution recalls, "When Montana entered into statehood and adopted the Compact as a part of the Montana Constitution in 1889, included was a provision guaranteeing the right to bear arms to 'any person.'"

The resolution continues, "To be clear, the wording of the right to bear arms reservation in the Montana constitution is exactly the same today as it was in 1884."

Furthermore, the Montana resolution says, "There is no question that the contract into which Montana entered for statehood was predicated upon an understanding that the people of Montana would benefit from an individual and personal right to bear arms, protected from governmental interference by both the federal and Montana constitutions. That was the clear intent of the parties to the contract."

The resolution ended by stating sternly, "A collective rights holding in Heller would not only open the Pandora's box of unilaterally morphing contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically entrenched remedies for contract violation."

In other words, representatives and senators in the State of Montana unequivocally put Washington, D.C., on notice that it would not tolerate the infringement of its citizens' right to keep and bear arms. I don't think I'm reading anything into the resolution by assuming that they were implying that they would secede before they let the federal government trample their Second Amendment liberties. (Plus, I've just been told that New Hampshire may also be preparing to propose such a resolution.)

Montana has it exactly right!

Now it is time for every State legislative body in America that believes in the Second Amendment to step up to the plate and let Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and the rest of these gun-grabbing socialists know that they will not tolerate even one more attempt to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms--and that includes any so-called "assault weapons" ban.

And let's never forget that the purpose of the Second Amendment was not to ensure the rights of hunters, but of citizens to protect themselves--and their States--against the tyrannical tendencies of their own government.

Calling All (Soon To Be) Criminals

by Michael Gaddy
February 27, 2009

As my grandfather was fond of saying: "it’s time to fish or cut bait." As predicted here, the Obama administration intends to put a new Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) on the fast track. Those of us who believe in the Constitution of the United States and our inherent right to protect ourselves, our families, and our property, will soon be forced to choose between our beliefs and support for a corrupt, liberty destroying government. In short, in their eyes, we will become criminals.

Attorney General and race-baiter Eric Holder erroneously believes a new AWB would stop the flow of guns into the hands of drug smugglers in Mexico. If he can’t, with all the power of the state, stop the flow of drugs into this country, can he really believe an AWB would keep firearms out of the hands of millionaire drug cartels who have no regard whatsoever for the current laws?

Mr. Holder cares not if criminals have guns; he just wants to make damn sure those who love liberty are totally disarmed and unable to protect what little property they have left! Soon we will hear from the state those who possess firearms are somehow latent racists. Actually, James Wolcott, blogging at Vanity Fair, wrote the following:

"No wonder so many would-be Wolverines in the right blogs are talking about stocking up on assault rifles and ammo – they've got ransackers running wild in their imaginations too. I urge these people to confront their racial fears,…"

The coming economic storm created with the "bailout" mentality now infecting our elected morons and the lapdog media, which the Heritage Foundation predicts will bring on 85–95 percent confiscatory taxes visited on the producers in our society, obviously has those in power concerned. The Obamatrons know that with that rate of taxation social order will disappear, and history proves masters prefer their slaves unarmed.

Glen Beck, who supported the huge growth in government under Dubya, is now claiming he has seen the chaos coming for years and openly discusses the breakdown of societal order and possible armed revolution, in the MSM.

Many in this nation have been preparing for such an event. Firearm and ammunition sales are at an all time high, with many weapons that fall into the government’s definition of assault weapon disappearing in availability and rising rapidly in price when available. A friend in North Carolina phoned this weekend to tell me he waited in line for an hour to get into a local gun show. Another friend in Tennessee had a similar story. Most ammo and reloading supplies are in short supply nation wide.

My personal choice in "assault weapons," the M1A SOCOM, has disappeared from Internet firearms auction sites and most gun shop racks. The AR-15, M4 platform is seeing huge sales and similar lack of availability.

Many wonder out loud what those in the military will do, when, not if, the government moves to confiscate those nasty black guns from American citizens. If they have taken the time to reflect on their oath of enlistment in which they swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, the answer should be obvious. Any enemy of the Constitution should immediately become the enemy of those sworn to defend it. Nowhere in the oath is a commitment to support the government.

Many also wonder if there will be a "defining" event that will precipitate the call for total confiscation, a false-flag operation or another mass public shooting of civilians, perhaps even children, by a mentally unstable individual, heavily into prescription drugs.

For several years I have been of the opinion there is no political answer to the coming unrest in this country and the subsequent move to seize firearms from the populace. I have written often of my total lack of faith in the National Rifle Association (NRA) and their belief in "compromise" with the enemy as a means of retaining our God-given rights. I have never understood why we beg from man (the state) for that which is already ours! When the NRA’s belief in compromise led them to promoting the growth of the state apparatus used to deny our 2A rights, (BATFE) my beliefs were confirmed.

While I once also supported Gun Owners of America, (GOA) and still believe them to be honest and sincere in their support for the 2A, I find their approach to be based on convincing politicians to do what is morally and constitutionally right. We all should realize "that ain’t gonna happen."

Loving liberty will not be sufficient in the coming hard times. Gun owners, constitutionalists, and believers in freedom are going to be faced with some life-changing decisions. Again, to quote my grandfather, "we are going to be forced to put some wheels on our prayers."

Flashback: Feds to utilize "Clergy Response Teams" to quell public dissent during martial law and gun confiscation

Obama Administration to Seek New 'Assault Weapons' Ban

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

ABC News | By JASON RYAN | Feb. 25, 2009

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

[...]

Remember that talk from Obama about how gun owners "have nothing to worry about"?

Obama: ‘I’m Not Going to Take Your Guns Away’

September 5, 2008
Christopher Cooper reports from Duryea, Pa., on the presidential race.

The Obama campaign talks a lot about new ideas and expanding the political map, but in the swing state of Pennsylvania, which the campaign has focused on almost exclusively since the Democratic convention, old-school issues still rise to the fore.

The latest example came Friday during a small political event at SCHOTT North America Inc., a glass factory in Duryea, Pa., where even a hand-picked crowd threw Barack Obama a curve ball.

A woman in the crowd told Obama she had “heard a rumor” that he might be planning some sort of gun ban upon being elected president. Obama trotted out his standard policy stance, that he had a deep respect for the “traditions of gun ownership” but favored measures in big cities to keep guns out of the hands of “gang bangers and drug dealers’’ in big cities “who already have them and are shooting people.”

“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,’’ Obama said. But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room.

So he tried again. “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’’

National Guard "urban warfare" gun confiscation "drill"-psyop in Iowa town called off - Drills linked to coming civil unrest

Needless to say, the covert aim of these operations, while ostensibly training soldiers for action in foreign wars, is actually to acclimate both American soldiers and civilians to the use of U.S. military, National Guard, and police for martial law and the confiscation of firearms from U.S. citizens.

National Guard scraps plans to invade rural town

WorldNetDaily | By Drew Zahn | February 20, 2009

DES MOINES, Iowa – Following publicized reports that the Army National Guard was planning a military training exercise on the streets of a rural Iowa town, the commanding officers have called off the mock "invasion."

The Guard had planned a four-day urban military operation in tiny Arcadia, Iowa, population 443, sending troops to take over the town and search door-to-door for a suspected weapons dealer.

The exercise was designed as a mock scenario to give soldiers the skills needed for deployment in an urban environment, and military officials stressed that only households that consented to be part of the drill would be searched.

"It will be important for us to gain the trust and confidence of the residents of Arcadia," Sgt. Mike Kots, readiness NCO for Alpha Company, told Carroll's Daily Times Herald. "We will need to identify individuals that are willing to assist us in training by allowing us to search their homes and vehicles and to participate in role-playing.

[...]

Urban Warfare Drills Linked To Coming Economic Rage

Prison Planet.com | Paul Joseph Watson | February 23, 2009

[...]

Indeed, before a media exposé forced them into a denial, Northcom revealed that one of the duties of at least 20,000 active duty troops that are being placed inside the United States would be dealing with “civil unrest and crowd control”.

[...]

The U.S. Army War College in November released a white paper called Known Unknowns: Unconventional ‘Strategic Shocks’ in Defense Strategy Development. The report warned that the military must be prepared for a “violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States,” which could be provoked by “unforeseen economic collapse,” “purposeful domestic resistance,” “pervasive public health emergencies” or “loss of functioning political and legal order.” The “widespread civil violence,” the document said, “would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security.”

[...]

Related:

U.S. Military preparing for domestic disturbances - Plan for 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011

Jewish-controlled communist Democrats coming for our guns - H.R. 45 - National Firearms Licensing

Dem’s Use “Stimulus” as Cover for More Gun Control

By CCRKBA Friday, February 13, 2009

Dear Concerned Citizen,

The liberals are at it again. In a new bill introduced the first day of the present session of Congress, and with zero coverage from the MSM, H.R. 45 (Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009) targets all gun owners in the U.S.A. While the media the world and everyone else is focused on the “phony plan” to spend tax dollars legislation is sneeking through the House and Senate for more gun control.

This nefarious bill seeks to strip us all of our Constitutional Rights to possess and bear firearms of any distinction. It requires, within the first two years, that all new guns be registered. The bill goes retroactive after two years. Meaning that two years after the passage of the bill, ALL FIREARMS in a citizen’s possession must be registered, not just those purchased after the bill passes, and this apparently applies to antique firearms as well.

Every five years the firearm owner must go through a complete renewal process for each weapon owned. Failure to comply carries stiff penalties including confiscation of the firearms and jail time (penalties as high as ten years imprisonment in some cases). The bill also authorizes government searches without warrant, the creation of a federal bureaucracy to monitor firearm possession, etc.

The following is a summary of the bill as provided by the Congressional Research Service. If you read the whole bill, you’ll find it will effectively preclude the ownership of any firearms by law-abiding people unless directly licensed by the Attorney General :

1/6/2009–Introduced. Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.

Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.

Prohibits:

1. Transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions;
2. Licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act;
3. Failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours;
4. Failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days;
5. Keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.

Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act. Directs the Attorney General to:

1. Establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse;
2. Conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and
3. Collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer. Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.

[...]

Gun and ammo sales soar - Americans arming with prospect of Obama presidency and leftist supermajority in Congress

I bet there is also an upsurge in PVC pipe sales as underground storage containers for if and when any future gun ban comes down.http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=27393833

Gun sales thriving in uncertain timesThe Washington PostOctober 27, 2008Americans have cut back on buying cars, furniture and clothes in a tough economy, but there's one consumer item that's still enjoying healthy sales: guns. Purchases of firearms and ammunition have risen 8 to 10 percent this year, according to state and federal data.Several variables drive sales, but many dealers, buyers and experts attribute the increase in part to concerns about the economy and fears that if Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois wins the presidency, he will join with fellow Democrats in Congress to enact new gun controls. Obama has said that he believes in an individual right to bear arms but that he also supports "common-sense safety measures."[...]Brad, 42, and Margaret Marcus, 47, who were at a Fairfax County shooting range recently with their two children for weekly target practice, said they sped up the purchase of two semiautomatic rifles that had been banned during the Clinton administration because they feared they could become illegal again if Obama wins. The couple, who run an online retailing business from their Ashburn home, said they viewed Obama's remarks about protecting the Second Amendment as campaign trail "pandering.""I think right now people are scared Obama is going to take their rights away," said Margaret Marcus, who was carrying a Glock 19 9mm semiautomatic pistol under a blue jean jacket embroidered with "Winnie the Pooh" characters. "He's definitely anti-gun, despite what you see in the mainstream media."