Oklahoma legislature contemplating legislation to authorize state militia to resist Feds

Some Oklahomans want a state militia to resist Washington

Apr 12, 2010
On Deadline - USA Today

Fed up with what they see as Washington's intrusion into their state, Oklahoma "tea party" leaders and some conservative legislators want to create a volunteer militia to defend against the federal government, the Associated Press writes.

"Is it scary? It sure is," said Al Gerhart, a tea party activist who heads the Oklahoma Constitutional Alliance. "But when do the states stop rolling over for the federal government?"

State Rep. Charles Key, a Republican representing Oklahoma City, said he believes there's a good chance that legislation could be introduced next year to authorize a militia.

A tea party leader in Tulsa, J.W. Berry, has been soliciting interest through his newsletter, urging that readers "buy more guns, more bullets."

"It's not a far-right crazy plan or anything like that," Berry said. "This would be done with the full cooperation of the state Legislature."

Lots of details to work out. For instance, how would a militia be organized, and how could it block federal mandates?

Critics point out that the National Guard already provides for the state's military needs. They worry a militia would stoke extremism.

"Have they heard of the Oklahoma City bombing?" said Joseph Thai, a constitutional law professor at the University of Oklahoma, adding that a militia could "throw fuel in the fire of radicals."

Next Monday marks the 15th anniversary of the anti-government terrorist attack by Timothy McVeigh. The former U.S. soldier and militia sympathizer killed 168 men, women and children with a truck bomb at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. He was executed in June 2001.

(Posted by Michael Winter)

On the Necessity of Well-Trained Militias, and the Jewish Media/Gov Establishment's Demonization Thereof

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." -Amendment II, The Constitution of the United States

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." —Patrick Henry

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson

'MILITIA' USED AS MANIPULATION

By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.
April 2, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

Mainstream media has recently reported the story of the alleged “Militia” group in Michigan which supposedly had plans of killing police officers as a sort of “freedom task”--in the name of Jesus Christ no less. In reality, “This is a group that [is] neither a militia [n]or a Christian group.”[1] This is not the first highlight of news where the media has misused the concept of a “militia” as a representation of everything evil and insane. Virtually every mainstream reference of “militia” today implicates terrorism, anti-American and wacko-extremists--right along with those Al Qaeda terrorists who are attempting to destroy America just because “we are free.”

From 1776 to 2010, the concept of a militia has been turned completely on its head. What was once seen as a necessary component of maintaining and protecting freedom against attacks by a tyrannical domestic government is now seen as a disgusting roach that must be stomped out of existence. Am I suggesting that some of these people who would classify themselves as a “militia” group are legitimately sound and constitute the real purpose of a militia? No. Just as I do not suggest that doctors who perform abortions upon the mother’s mere “choice” constitute actual doctors whose first purpose of treatment is to “do no harm.” We all know that a few people can give a bad name to the rest. What I am talking about here is manipulation to further enslave the people of the States, and empower those who control the federal government and global agenda.

There is without doubt a push and agenda by elitists, major media, politicians, and revolutionaries (who despise the ideals held by our founding generation) against the concept of a Second Amendment militia--one whose purpose is to provide for the protection of freedom within the state by citizens of that state: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”[2]

Particularly, in context of this amendment, the ratifiers were sure to express that militias were to secure a free “State” (singular)--not a free “United States” (plural). Those who attempt to strip the significance and application of militias by replacing “militia” with the “U.S. military” are, quite frankly, ignorant of America’s history and constitutional government or are deceitful and manipulative for a certain agenda. As expressed throughout the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, the people were more scared of a standing U.S. military than they were the U.S. Supreme Court.

To our founding generation, the importance of a well-regulated militia could not have been overstated or overrated. Indeed, the existence and maintenance of well-regulated militias were not only recognized as being necessary for a “free State,” as expressed in the second amendment, but also were considered a duty of each State:

“The roots of [the Second Amendment] strike down in to the past until they reach the Assize of Arms of Henry II (1181), whereby the old constitutional force was reorganized by the duty being imposed upon every free man, for the defense of the state, to provide himself arms according to his means.”[3]

Of course, the underlying presumption and foundation for the implementation of well-regulated militias was the evil inherent in human nature--particularly those who possess political power. They recognized that these militias would not only serve a practical effect of resistance against tyrants, but also a mental effect of inhibition.

The founding generation had personally experienced the efforts of Great Britain to disarm the people of the colonies. They knew the potential reality that government would attempt to disarm the people and eliminate the militias so that the people would be good little subjects to the government. To tyrants, obedience is all that is required to be a good citizen.

Founding Father George Mason’s daughter described this American experience and observed the evil of “gradual slavery” perpetrated by “their” government in Great Britain. She says:

“When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man [Sir William Keith] who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.”[4]

Not much has changed since 1775 and 1776, because human nature never changes. So, it is no wonder why the second amendment was insisted upon, such that the federal government had no power to forbid militias or prevent the armament of the people of the States. Militias were in fact what stood between freedom and tyranny, in the minds of our founding generation.

Acknowledging the existence and strength of the citizens’ militia in 1787, Alexander Hamilton even found it hard to believe that the federal government would ever usurp power not granted to it by the people of the States because of well-regulated militias (one of the presumptions for the states ratifying the constitution). Hamilton observes: “dangers [from the federal government] so formidable can[not] assail the whole Union...if we take into our view the aid to be derived from the militia.”[5]

Compare today, where anyone who suggests that the states need well-regulated militias strong enough to defend their state from the potential of U.S. military force would be labeled as a terrorist or extremist and would perhaps end up in prison like these arrested in Michigan. Like Sir William Keith, who betrayed the freedom of the colonists for the sake of empowering Great Britain, there are betrayers, instigators and propagators doing the federal government’s bidding today.

Understanding how this agenda has been successful is no wonder. Consider the sources used and implemented by the media, law enforcement and the federal government concerning militias and other “hate groups”: sources that are proposed as being “credible,” like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which allegedly “monitors hate groups and other fringe organizations.”[6] Advocacy groups like this are the same groups which feed information to fusion centers throughout American concerning “hate groups,” and these fusion centers are the same governmental agencies that create reports such as the highly-suspect “MIAC” report, which suggested that supporters of Chuck Baldwin, Ron Paul and Bob Barr should be watched closely as potential terrorists.[7]

And so the manipulation takes hold into every fabric of society. This understanding is easy enough to grasp considering that millions of American do very little independent thinking (if at all); do very little or no study concerning principles of freedom and American and world history (and I’m not talking about books written by Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and the like); conduct little or no research of their own concerning what they hear on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. When Americans hear a story about a crazy “militia” group in Michigan and then hear a fusion center report about Chuck Baldwin, Ron Paul or Bob Barr being leaders of terrorist mentality, they easily make the logical leap: militia equals bad; Chuck Baldwin equals bad; Ron Paul equals bad; firearms equal bad; state sovereignty equals bad. Don’t even suggest to them that a State actually maintain a well-regulated militia for second amendment purposes!

These tactics of delusion and manipulation are obvious and their purposes are known. They go right along with the agenda to strip this country, these states and these people of all effective and meaningful means by which independence, self-government, limited government, constitutional government, state sovereignty, individual sovereignty, and natural rights and freedom are secured.

So, what is the effect of this purpose-driven manipulation? I recently had a person email me in response to my article, “National ID: Who Will Resist?” in context of this recent Michigan “militia” arrest story. In his email, he expresses his trepidation of the federal government as a result of their prosecuting this alleged “militia” group, saying: “Are you kidding? Resist that? You will lose....Find a different way.” And so the federal government parades: Goal accomplished! Thankfully, not everyone thinks this way.

Let us theorize for a moment: what if a state revives a state militia, for the sole and expressed purposes of defending that state against foreign and domestic tyranny and usurpations, as expressed in the second amendment? What if three-fourths of the states deny this state the right of protecting its freedom, independence and sovereignty through a well-regulated militia? What if the federal government attempts to shut the militia operation down and criminally prosecutes those participating?

As I have repeatedly stated, the States in America are choosing (and will be forced to choose) which path they are going to take: the road to freedom or tyranny? Some will choose the path of truth and freedom. Others will choose the path of manipulation, lies and slavery. And so the principles of limited government may be able to thrive once again in those states that choose freedom.

Let us get this straight at least: if we do not have a generation of people in the States that are willing to do what our founding generation did in securing freedom, then how dare we claim to love them, their ideas and what they attempted to bequeath to us. Just as in generations past, “it has grown the fashion to praise the men of former times but to deny their ideal of Independence.”[8] Praising our founders does nothing to preserve freedom.

To such a slothful attitude and philosophy, perhaps the following statement is appropriate: “Why, had we resigned without a struggle that which our ancestors encountered every danger to win, who would not have spit on you?”[9] Indeed, if our founding generation had the opportunity to spit on us, it is doubtful that they would find it worth their time to indulge us so.

It is past time that the people of these States get a grip of reality concerning the “course of human affairs,” in which we live. It is time that men become men, who are willing to both live and die for freedom. Quit pandering and cowering to these manipulations and threats perpetuated by anti-freedomists. Insist that your state legislators, governors and sheriffs uphold their oath to the Constitution by resisting unconstitutional federal actions. In truth, insist that your state and county officials (and candidates) implement and resurrect the second amendment as it was designed: TO PROTECT YOUR “FREE STATE”!

Footnotes:

1, CNN Wire Staff, Militia Arrests Timed To Prevent Violence, CNN News, (March 31, 2010)
2, United States Constitution, Second Amendment.
3, Hannis Taylor, The Origin and Growth of the American Constitution, (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1911), 232–233.
4, Kate Mason Rowland and General Fitzhugh Lee, intro., The Life of George Mason, 1725–1792, vol. 2, (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1802), 409.
5, Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 26.
6, CNN Wire Staff, Militia Arrests Timed To Prevent Violence, CNN News, (March 31, 2010)
7, Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, Missouri MIAC Documents Scandal Leads to Advisory on SPLC & ADL, (March 26, 2009)
8, Terence MacSwiney, Principles of Freedom, (New York, NY, E.P. Dutton & Co., 1921), 242.
9, Terence MacSwiney, Principles of Freedom, (New York, NY, E.P. Dutton & Co., 1921), 239.

© 2010 Timothy N. Baldwin, JD - All Rights Reserved

http://www.newswithviews.com/Timothy/baldwin129.htm

Related:

Time to Revitalize the Constitutional Militias

The Original Anti-Government, White Supremacist, Pro-Militia, Freedom-loving, Anti-Tax, Gun-toting "Radical Rightwing Extremist Domestic Terrorists"

Jew Proxies Obama and ATF Attempting to Violate 10th Amendment State Sovereignty on Recent State Firearm Laws

Obama going after state gun laws

July 20, 2009
Clyde Middleton
Examiner

Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is claiming constitutional supremacy to kill the 10th Amendment-driven state statutes to exempt in-state firearms from federal regulations. Their mode? Reminding gun dealers of their federal obligations.

Here's the ATF&E's letter to Tennessee federal firearms licensees. An extract:

"The purpose of this letter is to provide guidance on your obligations as a Federal firearms licensee ...
The passage of the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, H.B. 1796, 106th Leg. (Tenn. 2009) 1796 ("Act"), effective June 19, 2009, has generated questions form industry members as to how this State law may affect them while engaged in a firearm business activity. The Act purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the State, and which remain in the State, from most Federal firearms laws and regulations. However, because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supercedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply."

Montana FFLs got a similar letter.

Tennessee's law reads, in part:

"Federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in Tennessee and remains in Tennessee. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state."

The argument is the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution:

Article VI (in part): This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The key phrase in Article VI above is "in pursuance thereof." The Constitution was written from the perspective of restricting the powers of the Federal government, and expressly lists the only powers the Feds have. Nowhere does the Constitution give the Federal government the power to legislate on general matters within the states (as in performing the functions of a state legislature). It only allows the Feds to regulate in matters of "interstate commerce" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3). All other powers are reserved to the people and the states.

Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Twenty-three state AGs tell Holder no dice on semi-auto ban renewal

June 15, 2009
Examiner

On June 11, 23 state attorney generals signed and sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder advising him that they are opposed to renewal of the 1994 Clinton administration’s ban on semiautomatic firearms, erroneously dubbed “assault weapons” by proponents of the ban.

A list of those attorneys general is included below, and surprisingly, it does not include Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna.

This is a remarkable letter, made public by the National Rifle Association. It follows three months after 65 House Democrats sent a similar letter to Holder, admonishing him for remarks made earlier this year suggesting that the Obama administration would like to see the ban renewed. That March 17 letter took issue with Holder, and others, who at the time were using the drug cartel wars in Mexico as an excuse to push for renewal of the ban, which expired in September 2004 after having accomplished pretty much nothing.

[...]

It is not “bullying” in which the pro-gun attorneys general are engaging with Holder, but frank conversation about a subject that should be dead and buried. All 23 of these chief law enforcement officers concur that “additional gun control laws are unnecessary” and that the individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment “should not be encroached upon without sound justification – and a clear law enforcement purpose.”

"Because fully automatic machine guns have already been banned, we do not believe that further restricting law-abiding Americans’ access to certain semiautomatic firearms serves any real law enforcement purpose."

The only logical purpose of reinstating the ban, expanding it as proponents desire and making it permanent would be to strip American citizens of their legally held property and make it seem acceptable. Once the gun prohibition lobby can sell the notion that banning a specific type of firearm is okay, they will wait a while and then move to ban another specific type of firearm, all under the guise of public safety.

As with the case of the letter from the 65 Democrat congress members in March, this letter did not get any news coverage, at least not yet. You can rest assured that if 23 attorneys general had signed a letter calling upon the Obama administration to push for renewal of the ban, it would have occupied all of the Sunday morning news/talk programs.

The 23 state Attorneys General who signed the letter are:
Arkansas – Dustin McDaniel
Alabama - Troy King
Colorado - John W. Suthers
Florida - Bill McCollum
Georgia - Thurbert E. Baker
Idaho - Lawrence G. Wasden
Kansas - Steve Six
Kentucky - Jack Conway
Louisiana - James D. Caldwell
Michigan - Mike Cox
Missouri - Chris Koster
Montana - Steve Bullock
Oklahoma - W.A. Edmonson
Nebraska - Jon Bruning
Nevada - Catherine Cortez Masto
New Hampshire - Kelly A. Ayotte
North Dakota - Wayne Stenehjem
South Carolina - Henry McMaster
South Dakota - Lawrence Long
Texas - Greg Abbott
Utah - Mark L. Shurtleff
Wisconsin – J.B. Van Hollen
Wyoming - Bruce A. Salzburg

Reminder of necessity of right to bear arms - College student fights off two armed gunmen who were going to rob/rape/kill his 9 friends

Deceased intruder and would-be rapist/murderer Calvin Lavant.

College Student Shoots, Kills Home Invader

May 7, 2009
WSBTV News


COLLEGE PARK, Ga. -- A group of college students said they are lucky to be alive and they’re thanking the quick-thinking of one of their own. Police said a fellow student shot and killed one of two masked me who burst into an apartment.

Channel 2 Action News reporter Tom Jones met with one of the students to talk about the incident.

“Apparently, his intent was to rape and murder us all,” said student Charles Bailey.

Bailey said he thought it was the end of his life and the lives of the 10 people inside his apartment for a birthday party after two masked men with guns burst in through a patio door.

“They just came in and separated the men from the women and said, ‘Give me your wallets and cell phones,’” said George Williams of the College Park Police Department.

Bailey said the gunmen started counting bullets. “The other guy asked how many (bullets) he had. He said he had enough,” said Bailey.

That’s when one student grabbed a gun out of a backpack and shot at the invader who was watching the men. The gunman ran out of the apartment.

The student then ran to the room where the second gunman, identified by police as 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, was holding the women.

“Apparently the guy was getting ready to rape his girlfriend. So he told the girls to get down and he started shooting. The guy jumped out of the window,” said Bailey.

A neighbor heard the shots and heard someone running nearby.

“And I heard someone say, ‘Someone help me. Call the police. Somebody call the police,’” said a neighbor.

The neighbor said she believes it was Lavant, who was found dead near his apartment, only one building away.

Bailey said he is just thankful one student risked his life to keep others alive.

“I think all of us are really cognizant of the fact that we could have all been killed,” said Bailey.

One female student was shot several times during the crossfire. She is expected to make a full recovery.

Police said they are close to making the arrest of the second suspect.

Anti-gun protest backfires - Gun rights supporters upstage and outnumber anti-gun activists at Virginia Capitol

About 100 supporters of a bill tightening Virginia gun control staged a lie-in on the Capitol lawn, but were outnumbered 3-1 yesterday by opponents who wielded signs declaring "Here Lie Disarmed Victims."

source

The Original Anti-Government, White Supremacist, Pro-Militia, Freedom-loving, Anti-Tax, Gun-toting "Radical Rightwing Extremist Domestic Terrorists"

"...That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government..."--Declaration of Independence

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." -Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code.





"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." -James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)





"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." --Patrick Henry

"We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists." - Patrick Henry

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." —Patrick Henry






"The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." —Samuel Adams





"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master." --George Washington

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -George Washington







"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." --Thomas Paine

"...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them." -Thomas Paine




"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson


"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson







"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." --Abraham Lincoln


“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

-Abraham Lincoln, Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858

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."

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.

[...]

The Founders on the Right To Keep and Bear Arms

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." -Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code. "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." -James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789) "We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists." - Patrick Henry"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." —Patrick Henry"The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." —Samuel Adams "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -George Washington"...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them." -Thomas Paine"The Constitution of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -Thomas Jefferson"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." -Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).

Huge surge in gun sales following Obama 'victory'

http://www.counton2.com/cbd/news/national/article/gun_sales_spike_after_obama_election/16523/

Gun sales spike after Obama electionNBCPublished: November 6, 2008Texas gun stores reported a huge surge in sales following the presidential election. “It’s incredible,” said DeWayne Irwin, president of Cheaper Than Dirt, a Fort Worth gun shop. On Wednesday, the day after Sen. Barack Obama was elected president, sales topped $100,000, a record. Irwin said employees are having a hard time keeping the shelves stocked, and prices on some models have shot up $200 almost overnight.“It’s a run on guns for the simple fact that Obama did win,” Irwin said. “And people perceive him as a Democrat, a liberal. They think ‘they’re going to come get our guns.’” “That’s the reason I’m here,” said customer James McIntosh, of North Richland Hills. “Everybody is freaking out, worried about what will happen.” Obama’s official Web site says he supports the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, but adds he also favors “common-sense” restrictions, such as making guns childproof and better tracking of guns sold at gun shows. Obama also supports making the now-expired ban on assault weapons permanent. “Such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets,” Obama’s Web site says. Irwin, the gun store president, now sells assault weapons. “It’s good for business now, but I foresee in the future we are going to have to change our business because we won’t be able to sell these,” Irwin said, pointing to a number of assault rifles on the wall. He said gun sales first started shooting up a few weeks ago when it appeared likely Obama would win. Cheaper Than Dirt sold a million dollars in guns in October, more than double the normal amount, Irwin said.

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."