Home

H. Res. 814: In defense of the second amendment

10 Comments

Marti Oakley (c) Copyright 2012 All Rights Reserved

_________________________________________________________________

Apparently there are still a few public officials who will honor the Constitution left in the House of Representatives.  Many of these representatives recognized the threat to the second amendment inherent in the UN Small Arms Treaty.  This treaty, which the president has indicated he would sign, bypassing congress and ratification by the states, is intended to be handed back over to the Secretary of State to implement by agency decree and imposed upon the states.

While being sold to the public as simply a guideline for limiting the sales of small arms to the same countries we are many times waging war with, the treaty would severely affect the sale and ownership of small arms i.e., private gun ownership, here in the states.  The obvious end goal included in many other global goals,  is the disarmament of US gun owners.

The UN Small Arms treaty is nothing more than the effort to end all gun ownership anywhere in the world, except those weapons used by the military forces around the globe. With the UN attempting to gift itself the right to construct its own military with an eye on becoming the only military force on the planet, our right to keep and bear arms is more important than ever.

The Small Arms Treaty will not slow down or even minimally impact the arms trading and dealing that is conducted globally.

Arms controls for peace while we expand the global wars

“In what has to be the epitome of duplicity, Hillary Clinton is now conspiring with UN officials to begin the disarmament of the citizens of the US via this pseudo-treaty. Its all for world peace, right? Obviously not, as Clinton gave an excited speech in May 2012, to the Special Operations Forces Industry Conference describing the new six-point global plan for war intended to encompass numerous countries and her obvious desire for her department to be part and parcel of the newly emerging “global wars everywhere” plan. Clinton’s obvious disregard or refusal to acknowledge the deaths of children resulting from these wars is clearly an indication that the woman is lying about her desire for world peace. But I think we already knew that.”

Please contact your representatives and encourage them to support H.Res. 814.  It may well be just another half-hearted effort to make you think they are actually opposed to this treaty, but it will give you a chance to voice your objections directly to your representative.  FIND YOUR REPRESENTATIVE

Read the bill …. More

Another attack on the Second Amendment: UN Small Arms Treaty

36 Comments

Marti Oakley        ©    Copyright 2012 All Rights Reserved

___________________________________________________________

The United Nations, that bastion of self-enriching, bloated gas bags, will soon be holding a month long convention on the UN Small Arms TREATY between 192 nations. Of course, Hillary Clinton is right in the middle of things in an effort to commit the US to this unconstitutional treaty.

Because this is a treaty, and not one of those federal corporate contract agreements the presidents are so fond of, it will have to be brought to the states for ratification (See U.S. Const. art. II, § . Section 3 provides the power to make treaties (with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate)) except I don’t believe that will ever happen.  Some, never heard of before, political slight of hand will be given as the reason as to why ratification of the treaty by the states was by-passed

Clinton will agree to the treaty on behalf of the US and Obama will sign it with great pleasure.  For decades it has been the intent of the federal government to disarm lawful gun owners in the US.. Every possible excuse and reason has been used to try and sell the idea of striking down the 2nd Amendment by both partys.  The actual intent is, by U.N. mandate to disarm private individual gun owners in America claiming a global treaty banning the ownership of small arms.  Its all for world peace!  It will make the military assaults on all nations far easier if the general population isn’t armed and able to mount even a limited defense.

Don’t look to the District of Criminals for help!

If you think other than a few Republicans and even fewer Democrats will half-heartedly object or stand to defend our constitution or our inalienable rights of any kind, much less the right to keep and bear arms, you are sadly mistaken.  Both partys have been equally active in their assaults on the constitution, with members of both partys actively promoting the militarization of local law enforcement against their respective communities.  Our police and many sheriffs departments are now para-military organizations capable and willing to turn on their own communities in subservience to Homeland Security edicts and orders.  Regarding this, the District of Criminals couldn’t be happier. More

H.R. 45: The ‘Legal’ Foundation for Gun Confiscation

5 Comments

H.R. 45, or the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, is, on its face, a complete violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Never mind the seventy-five years of gun control laws that have come before H.R. 45, the Constitution is still the ultimate law of the land, by which all other laws are to be assessed. Therefore, it seems almost pointless to go into the minutae of this new law and explain what is wrong with each and every one of its points, but I will cover the main points, nevertheless.

First of all, Section 2: Findings and Purposes makes it quite clear that the government is attempting to justify this bill on the grounds of interstate and intrastate commerce regulation. The suggestion is made that, because firearms are a part of interstate and intrastate commerce, it is unavoidable that they should be regulated just like all other goods that are shipped between and within the states. However, where this argument breaks down is that, rarely is anyone required to be licensed to own a lawnmower, a sofa or any of the millions of other products shipped across the country every day. No one is required to take and pass a test certifying that they know how to properly use a blender, a toaster or a can opener, either. Yet, if this bill becomes law, firearms – out of all the millions of products shipped each day – will become the only products for which you will be required to be licensed and certified in order to merely possess, let alone use.

The law applies only to what it calls “qualified firearms,” those being “any handgun or any semi-automatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device.” Antique firearms are exempt and, given this definition, so would be bolt-action rifles and single-shot or pump action shotguns, presumably, though the bill doesn’t mention these at all.

Under H.R. 45, everyone will be required to apply for and receive a license to own any “qualifying firearm” (see definition above). The requirement makes it illegal to possess such guns two years after the enactment of H.R. 45 for any guns purchased before the passage of H.R. 45 and one year after enactment for any guns purchased after the enactment of H.R. 45. So, depending upon when H.R. 45 is passed into law (it’s almost a certainty that it will be, since whatever the government feels like doing these days, it simply does, regardless of what we the people may have to say about it), you may have up to two or more years before you’ll be forced to comply with this law. By the way, did I mention that you’ll be required to be fingerprinted as part of your licensing process?

For those who fail to comply, the penalty will be a fine or two years imprisonment, or both. My bet is on both.

Who will decide the plethora of regulations that will be enacted (and no doubt periodically expanded) under this law? The Attorney General, not the Congress. So, if you don’t like the regulations, writing to your congressman will do you no good, since it’s all up to the sole discretion of Eric Holder and his successors. Not only does the Attorney General have this power under H.R. 45, but he will also have the power to “enter any place where firearms or firearms products are manufactured, stored or held, for distribution in commerce, and inspect those areas the products are so manufactured, stored or held.” As broadly worded as this is, it could be construed to mean Eric Holder and his successors can enter your home to inspect your guns. Of course, I rather doubt Eric, himself will have the time to do this, so you can probably count on an army of inspectors being hired and trained (at your expense, of course) to assume this duty. It doesn’t say anything, however, about what that inspection may consist of or what may result from it, but one can infer that, if you are unable to produce the required documentation of your registration, license and certification, your guns will be seized and you’ll be subject to arrest and punishment by fine and two years in prison.

In short, this is, by far, the most draconian gun control law ever written. This law will be used to justify the confiscation of millions of handguns and rifles throughout America. What else can be said, except that this law has to be one of the best pieces of evidence yet that we are living in a police state.

What More Proof Do We Need That the NRA Isn’t What it Claims to Be?

Leave a comment

I have been writing, for some time, now, on Second Amendment issues and, in particular, about the fact the National Rifle Association (NRA) is a Trojan horse organization that has no interest in protecing the Second Amendment. I have presented a solid case here, before, that shows the NRA has, for seventy-five years, not only refused to call for the repeal of all existing gun laws (which is the only way to truly save the Second Amendment from further infringement), but that they have, in case after case, actually backed more gun control laws.

Usually, though, the NRA will attempt to disguise their actions by occasionally appearing to oppose some new gun law, now and then, just to keep up appearances. This is usually enough to fool their supporters who blindly continue to believe that the NRA is fighting for their rights. Funny thing, though; if that’s what the NRA is truly doing, then why are our Second Amendment rights almost gone now, as compared to decades ago?

Well, in yet another moment in its history in which its members should be finally made aware that the NRA is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, the NRA has mysteriously remained mute on the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Sotomayor, a gun rights opponent, has ruled, in lower court cases, that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the states, for one thing. Need I remind Ms. Sotomayor that the Constitution – of which the Second Amendment is a part – is the law of the land and overrides all other laws? No state, according to their constituional limitations, may pass laws that are in violation of the Constitution, anymore than the federal government may do so.

While, supposedly, Senate Republicans were hoping that the NRA would have something to say about Sotomayor’s appointment to the Supreme Court, strangely enough (or not), the NRA has stayed out of the issue, claiming it’s waiting for the Senate confirmation hearings. This should be interesting. I’ll wager right here and now that Sotomayor is appointed to the court no matter what the NRA may have to say about it. It’s already a done deal behind closed doors.

Gun Control & The False Left-Right Paradigm

Leave a comment

To read the news, lately, it would seem that we have the so-called “liberal left” gun grabbers on one side vs. the “conservative” Republican “defenders of the Second Amendment” on the other, which of course, includes the National Rifle Association (NRA). No other version of the debate over gun control is ever offered or publicized by the corporate-controlled mainstream media. Thus, the debate is framed in a false perspective in which the only options are to either favor gun control or to favor less of it – while leaving the bulk of it in place. What the public doesn’t understand is that this still violates the Second Amendment.

There is a third option, one that lies outside the false left-right paradigm, and that is the Constitutionalist option, which would demand the full repeal of all gun laws. This is the only option that is truly in support of protecting the Second Amendment. Anything else simply allows the Second Amendment to remain eviscerated – if not to remove it entirely.

As I have written before, one doesn’t compromise with our inalienable rights. The moment we begin to do so is the moment we have kissed those rights goodbye. That moment was allowed to occur seventy-five years ago, with the passage of the first gun control law, the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the fallout from that act has been accumulating ever since – with the full blessing of both “sides” of the false left-right paradigm.

While so-called Democrats have historically campaigned openly for more and tighter gun controls – if not the outright banning of guns – thus, playing the role of the “bad guys” in the debate (depending upon which side of the false left-right paradigm you look at it from), the “opposing” side – the so-called “conservative Republicans” – have played their “good guy” role, pretending to be staunch defenders of the Second Amendment, while voting in favor of many gun control laws and never demanding the repeal of the hundreds of existing gun control laws. Thus, the so-called “right-wing,” with its tough-sounding anti-gun control rhetoric, creates a facade of standing up for our constitutional rights, all the while supporting policy that leaves gun control intact and even allows it to continue growing.

As I have pointed out before, the NRA – the nation’s oldest and most vocal (as well as best funded) “gun rights” organization is the tip of the spear on the phony “conservative” side, having pretended for seventy-five years to be fighting against infringement of the Second Amendment while, at the same time, endorsing more laws that violate it. Even when they are endorsing laws that give the appearance of “lifting restrictions” or of “granting rights” to gun owners, they are still knowingly supporting gun control, as that is what these laws truly are. The only thing that is necessary to restore the Second Amendment – and the only action that will do so – is to repeal all the laws that violate it, in the first place. The NRA has never advocated this. Instead, they have played their role in the false left-right paradigm, pretending that asking the government to not infringe the Second Amendment quite so much as they have been is somehow a “victory” for gun owners. It is not. Anything short of full repeal does not serve the interests of anyone but the gun grabbers and until all gun control laws have been repealed, we will always remain vulnerable to the specter of gun confiscation.

While the gun control advocates of the so-called “left” are perfectly obvious (they’re supposed to be. That’s their role), not as obvious and, thus, even more dangerous to our liberties, are those on the so-called “right” who make the pretense of being defenders of the Second Amendment. It is harder for a dumbed-down public to see through their charade and to realize that both “sides” serve the same agenda.

One example of this is Rep. Mary Fallon (R-Oklahoma), who serves my district. I have met Mary Fallon, just before her election to Congress. This was before I had awakened to the horrific fact our own government staged 9/11. Once I was aware of this and had begun researching the New World Order, I found, among many things, that Mary Fallon was among those to have supported the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. Fallon is but one of many in Congress who are engaged in the same sort of subterfuge.

This morning, I read an article by Rep. Fallon, in which she refers to herself as a member of the NRA and pledges that she will “continue to support the Second Amendment to our Constitution.”She is playing her role to the hilt, arguing against the passage of H.R. 45, a massive bill that will greatly infringe the Second Amendment, but then, she’s supposed to argue against it, as the NRA is appearing to do, as part of the act. Later, as usual, there will be an NRA-backed “compromise” version of the bill that will fly through the Congress, mark my words. The result: the NRA and its supporters on the phony “right” will appear to have, once again, gallantly defended the Second Amendment and they will even be lauded for having achieved a “great victory” for the Second Amendment by allowing a slightly less dangerous version of yet another gun control law to come into existence, further violating the Second Amendment. This is how they operate. By pretending to fight against further restrictions, they are actually approving them, and the NRA has been doing this for decades.

Of course, the public doesn’t know enough about “our” Constitution to realize that it is the Federalist Constitution of 1787 that laid the groundwork for the rise of a large central government with a central bank and that our original constitution, The Articles of Confederation, was replaced by it for exactly that purpose. The Articles of Confederation didn’t necessitate any amendments to protect our rights because it was written to protect them all, in the first place and provided a far superior system of checks and balances for doing so. The Federalists, who were agents of the Rothschilds – the international bankers who sought (and still seek) to rule the world through the control of its money supply – had a mission to accomplish for their masters in London and that mission was to scrap the Articles of Confederation and replace it with a constitution that guaranteed the eventual growth of central government power. We see the result of their success all around us today.

Governments have, historically, never relinquished their power willingly and the biggest threat to a fascistic government is an aware, armed populace. The founders knew this and they also knew that, unchecked, our government would become just as despotic as every government before it had. Thus, the Second Amendment was included in the Constitution to secure our existing right to self-defense.

The Bill of Rights was tacked onto the Constitution, not by “the founders,” as we were told in our government run schools, but by the seldom mentioned Anti-Federalists who opposed the Federalist Constitution, to begin with and who insisted upon protecting our rights by adding a Bill of Rights and the ten Amendments to the Federalist Constitution. The two factions fought tooth and nail over this, the Federalists fighting to exclude these additional measures, as they were not aligned with the objectives of their corporate masters in London.

For all we know, the Anti-Federalists may well have been role-playing, just as the NRA and the Republicans are today. They succeeded in getting a Bill of Rights and the ten amendments added to the Constitution, but, obviously, that wasn’t sufficient to prevent the rise of a centralized totalitarian state, for the Federalist Constitution itself laid the groundwork for that centralization, despite the addition of the Bill of Rights and the ten amendments. Perhaps, as today, that was also by design. We may never know the truth.

Chuck Baldwin: “Montana has it Right!” But, Do They?

Leave a comment

In an editorial former Presidential candidate (Constitution Party) Chuck Baldwin posted today on his website, he says that “Montana has it right,” referring to their declaration that, if the federal government continues to violate the Constitution, Montana will declare that its contract with the federal government is null and void.

However, when I consider several factors, I have to wonder about Montana’s sincerity in saying so. First of all, focusing on the Second Amendment alone, as Baldwin does in his article, I have to ask the glaring question, why has Montana waited until now to finally say something about this when both the federal government and nearly all fifty states – including Montana – have violated the Second Amendment repeatedly, passing law after law that abridges it – since 1934? Why, indeed, has Montana violated its own constitutional resolution concerning the Second Amendment, which Baldwin proudly states has not been changed since 1884?

If Montana was concerned about the Second Amendment at any time during the past seventy-five years, it certainly has remained mute on the subject until lately.

Even when Montana has made the pretense of concern over the Second Amendment it has been a hollow one, as in its recently much publicized HB246, which was boasted to “protect” Montana’s gun owners from federal infringement of their right to self-defense, while in fact only extending such protection to those few who own firearms made in Montana.

If the state of Montana is so uncomfortable with the federal government’s attempts to ban so-called assault weapons, where were they during the Clinton years, when that ban was actually in effect? In fact, where were any of these states, now declaring their supposed sovereignty, when this was happening?

Another question is, why are all these states doing this now, at a time when mainstream media talking heads are now admitting that martial law is coming and that FEMA camps do exist – something they heretofore denied? Complicit in all of this and more are the fifty states, which have gone along with the Federal government on everything from gun control to abortion and many other infringements upon human rights and decency, including recent attempts to corral and control our food supply.

Now that Glenn Beck and Fox News Channel have recently made media denial of the existence of FEMA camps impossible to get away with any longer, how does the “sovereign” state of Montana answer the charge that it has such a facility at Malmstrom Air Force Base? In fact, forty-six of the fifty states have such facilities and many of them have multiple facilities that are to be used for detaining American citizens in violation of their constitutional rights. The only reason it’s not all fifty states is because it hasn’t yet been verified as to whether some of them have such camps.

Can any of the several states be trusted to do what they are now claiming they will do in light of their long history of flirtation with not only federal controls, but with the several secret societies that have long ago invaded and subverted our nation at every level of government? It flies in the face of reason, in the first place, that the same states that have not only tolerated federal abuses for generations, but have, in fact, welcomed many of them in the name of getting federal handouts, are now all of a sudden making these hollow resolutions of sovereignty – none of which have been backed with anything other than hot air and paper, so far. I fear the majority of Americans will be, as after 9/11, fooled again into believing that, somehow, government has their best interests in mind.

More So-Called “Pro-Gun” Laws Being Passed

Leave a comment

Just days after declaring its “sovereignty” from the federal government, the state of Tennessee has just ushered through three new allegedy “pro-gun” bills, HB959, HB960 and HB961. However, the net effect of these bills is that it simply further codifies having to get the state and federal government’s permission to exercise one’s existing right to keep and bear arms, which has been – in flagrant violation of the Second Amendment – nearly legislated out of existence over the course of three generations.

HB959 protects concealed carry permit holders from having their permit application information made public. It would impose a $2,500 fine for each offense. However, it certainly affords no protection at all from the prying eyes of government officials and bureaucrats, who will still have full access to the information. They just can’t publish it publicly, that’s all. So, this bill will do nothing for concealed carry permit holders except to bar their information from becoming a matter of public record. Never mind that any state or federal agency can still know everything about the permit holder and it is government intrusion into our privacy – not the public’s – that most people should fear.

Both HB960 and HB961 deal with “protecting” one’s right to carry a handgun in a state or national park in Tennessee. Both bills rescind the current ban against carrying a gun in state or national parks, which was imposed by the Bush administration. However, the lifting of this restriction only applies to those citizens who have dutifully bowed down to the government by obtaining a concealed carry handgun permit from the state of Tennessee. Never mind that the concealed carry permit is, itself, a regulation of the Second Amendment and, as such, is a violation of the Second Amendment, as all laws regulating firearms are. So, all these two laws do is add yet another layer of bureaucracy to the mountain of red tape that has already strangled our existing right to self-defense. But, so-called “pro-gun” organizations like the NRA don’t see that as a bad thing and applaud these laws as some sort of “progress” for gun rights. Never mind the fact that they never call for the repeal of all gun laws, which would be the only logical way of lifting the restrictions imposed by 75 years of violations of the Second Amendment. Gun owners, swayed to believe organizations like the NRA are on their side, also stupidly applaud the further regulation by government of their fundamental existing right to defend themselves against government, which is what the Second Amendment is all about.

The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. – Tacitus (A.D. 55?-130?)

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: