Hunting For Guns One House At A Time

I wonder how far this will go?

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Do Something About Your Carbon Footprint

What are you doing about your carbon footprint?

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Tennessee Passes “Firearm Freedom Act”

Both Houses of the Tennessee Congress has passed a firearms freedom act. More info on this can be found at, “I Will Defend the Constitution“.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Pastor To His Flock: “Piece” Be With You When You Come To Church

“New Bethel Church is welcoming “responsible handgun owners” to wear their firearms inside the church June 27, a Saturday. An ad says there will be a handgun raffle, patriotic music and information on gun safety.

“We’re just going to celebrate the upcoming theme of the birth of our nation,” said pastor Ken Pagano. “And we’re not ashamed to say that there was a strong belief in God and firearms — without that this country wouldn’t be here.”" <<<Read the rest>>>

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

NRA Appeals Seventh Circuit Ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court

Fairfax, Va. - Today, the National Rifle Association filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of NRA v. Chicago. The NRA strongly disagrees with yesterday’s decision issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments.

“The Seventh Circuit got it wrong. As the Supreme Court said in last year’s landmark Heller decision, the Second Amendment is an individual right that ‘belongs to all Americans’. Therefore, we are taking our case to the highest court in the land,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “The Seventh Circuit claimed it was bound by precedent from previous decisions. However, it should have followed the lead of the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Nordyke v. Alameda County, which found that those cases don’t prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

This Seventh Circuit opinion upholds current bans on the possession of handguns in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois.

“It is wrong that the residents of Chicago and Oak Park continue to have their Second Amendment rights denied,” Cox concluded. “It’s time for the fundamental right of self-defense to be respected by every jurisdiction throughout our country.”

-NRA-

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Chicago Will Continue Gun Ban Despite Heller Supreme Court Decision

It matters not what the U.S. Supreme Court says about the Second Amendment? Are we to disregard rulings from our highest court? Evidently. Despite the 5-4 decision of SCOTUS in District of Columbia vs. Heller, cities such as the District of Columbia, New York and Chicago, refuse to accept that the Heller ruling has any affect on cities and states that want to ban guns at will.

A U.S. Court of Appeals has upheld the Chicago gun ban.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Is Obama Blatantly Manipulating The Courts With His Selection Of Sotomayor?

It would be naive to think that no president ever considered his appointments to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court as a way to help protect or promote his ideals. How far is a president willing to go to intentionally attempt to manipulate the system in order to achieve personal agendas?

When Senator Barack Hussein Obama was a candidate for president of the United States, I spent a great deal of time writing about his history when it comes to Second Amendment issues. This also included multiple articles on the most prominent Second Amendment case the Supreme Court ruled on in recent history - District of Columbia vs. Heller.

Over seven months ago I brought you a story that got very little attention and few people know about even today. Perhaps it is time to revive that story a bit.

From 1994-2002 Obama was director of an organization called the Joyce Foundation. It’s aim was the destruction of the Second Amendment. This foundation, led by Barack Obama, tried to manipulated the courts, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court by stuffing the law review libraries in several prominent law schools.

At the Supreme Court level, we know there are very few prior cases that deal with the Second Amendment. After all, it took well over 200 years before the court would finally make a ruling on whether the Second Amendment actually did guarantee individual citizens the right to keep and bear arms. (District of Columbia vs. Heller)

It is known that all stewards of the law have to rely on past cases in presenting an argument as do judges in rendering decisions. If there is no actual case history, often lawyers and judges will refer to articles written at law school review libraries. These articles carry some weight because they are accepted and approved before being published.

It was Obama’s contention and that of the Joyce Foundation that if they stuffed enough anti-Second Amendment law review articles into college libraries, this would help sway the courts to render decisions against the Second Amendment. Class act wouldn’t you say.

As they say, there’s more than one way to skin a cat. We now wonder how Obama will achieve what many of us already know - his desire to rid the country of guns and destroy the Second Amendment.

We know since becoming president he has tried to reduce the availability of ammunition. He was unsuccessful in ordering all military spent brass, used by companies to reload and resell, destroyed and rendered useless.

We also know that when Obama traveled to Mexico recently, he told leaders he would encourage his Congress to ratify CIFTA - a global treaty former assault-weapons-banner-in-chief, Bill Clinton, tried to get passed. This treaty would submit U.S. citizens under the power of a U.N. entity that would take away our guns.

We can feel quite confident that Obama will find any means necessary to take our guns. (laugh if you want to). He is not afraid of slimy court manipulations and fraud to influence the courts nor is he shy about bringing in outside gangs to help him with his agenda.

So, with all this said, can we begin to think that just maybe Obama is using an anti-gun Sonia Sotomayor as another game piece to achieve his ends? For those who care enough to learn, we have come to realize that Sotomayer is about as anti-Second Amendment as they come. Consider this.

Six months after Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in upholding the belief that the Second Amendment was a guaranteed individual right, given to us by God and not allowed by the Constitution, Federal Appeals Court judge Sonia Sotomayor completely disregarded District of Columbia vs Heller.

In Maloney vs. Cuomo, she ruled that the Second Amendment had nothing to do with individual rights nor did the federal government have any say in the matter. She claimed the states had the right to make any gun banning laws they wanted regardless of what the Second Amendment said (my words not hers).

Of course I have no idea where gun banning sits on Obama’s priority list. Does anyone? But we know it is there. He stated clearly that he wanted an “empathetic” justice who could rule by having a better understanding of the way things are in our country today, and it appears he found one of those. If gun banning is second, third or lower on Obama’s wish list of rights to take away in order to achieve his fascists regime, picking Sotomayor may have been just another bonus feather in his cap - kind of a two or more for the price of one.

Obama is a big enough narcissist that he believes, like back in the Joyce Foundation days, he can manipulate even the United States Supreme Court in order to fulfill his fascist agenda.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Don’t Think For One Minute Obama And His Regime Doesn’t Want Your Guns

A Washington Times article today seemed a bit boastful that gun rights advocates were winning the battle against gun control freaks even though Congress is completely controlled by the left. But as supporters of the Second Amendment we shouldn’t be hasty in thinking we have an upper hand. It is only temporary, if we have any power to claim at all.

Obama and his administration want your guns. Make no mistake about it and they will get them one way or another. There is one major deterrent to any politician running for office - the quickest way to lose an election is to be vocal about wanting gun control. Al Gore and John Kerry were latest victims of such ignorance.

Obama, during his campaign, began changing his spots in an effort to convince voters that he was a supporter of the Second Amendment. A review of his past history on guns tells us that is a fairy tale.

The democratically controlled Congress wants to keep it that way and one thing that might upset the apple cart is if Congress begins spouting off about wanting more gun control, especially at a time when polls show Americans don’t want more gun control. We also know that immediately after Obama was elected president, Americans made a run on guns and ammunition, buying up anything and everything they could get their hands on. That trend continues although it has ebbed somewhat in some regions.

As a politician, especially one like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is looking at reelection in 2010, has to be asking themselves why American voters are hoarding guns and ammunition. A move to counter that action and the majority wishes of the people would prove fatal for Reid.

Recently Congress passed legislation that would allow for guns in National Parks. As crazy at it may seem, that change was included as an amendment to a credit card bill. There a couple things to bear in mind in regards to that bill passage.

First, we don’t know what kind of behind the scenes wheeling and dealing went on to get that amendment added. Second, if republicans can attach an amendment to a credit card bill to gain back freedom to access our Second Amendment rights at a time when they have a small minority, the near super majority democrats can just as easily slide an assault weapons ban or some other such ban onto a piece of legislation down the road.

As supporters of the Second Amendment, it’s easy to say we’ll take whatever we can get, whenever we can but there is a certain amount of danger in that as well as leaves us with a few unknowns. One of those unknowns is that without a straight up or down vote, we don’t know how specific politicians vote on the issue.

I would much rather see a bill like this one dealing with National Parks and guns, in a stand-alone format so we can get a clear picture of how each member votes. To slide it into another bill as an amendment frightens me because we never know what’s really behind the effort.

So, while we lick our chops, what might appear to be a majority of Americans opposed to further gun restrictions and a Congress seemingly timid to seek gun bans, we can’t get very comfortable. When the opportunity is right, the anti-gun movement, lead by President Obama, will move ahead. When votes for reelection are not at stake, politicians let their true colors come shining through.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Man About To Become U.S. Citizen Arrested For Having Too Much Ammo

This is indecent to say the least and it happen in the great police state of Massachusetts. Keni Garcia, who recently moved from New Hampshire to Massachusetts, was arrested and held without bail because he had 30,000 round of ammunition - .38 caliber, 9mm and .22 caliber. He also owns those guns.

Garcia, from the Dominican Republic and scheduled to become a U.S. citizen yesterday, was arrested while driving his car yesterday. Police found 10,000 rounds of ammo in his car. After searching his home, police confiscated another 20,000 rounds of ammo, one .38-caliber and two 9 mm handguns, and $25,000 in cash.

So, where’s the crime? Garcia says the ammo is for target shooting. Police say that’s unrealistic. Is it? I don’t think it is and even if it is “unrealistic”, what’s the crime? Is it a crime to possess “too much” ammunition?

Police wonder if he isn’t selling the ammo back to people in his home country. Is he? Is that against the law? If it is prove it BEFORE you arrest someone and hold them without bail.

If police are going to begin arresting people for having 30,000 rounds of ammunition on hand, I have a feeling they could be busy. With the recent run on guns and ammunition, I suspect there’s a fair amount of stockpiling going on.

Have we really become a nation of lawlessness, where rights and the U.S. Constitution are disregarded? If this guy’s a crook, then do the investigation and then arrest him once you have proof. Because some police department thinks 30,000 rounds of ammo is “too much”, isn’t reason to arrest someone.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Complaint Filed Against Gary Marbut, President Montana Shooting Sports Association

Many of you probably are already familiar with Gary Marbut. Mr. Marbut, in his capacity as President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association is responsible for the promotion of several bills brought before the Montana Legislature over the course of the legislative season.

Perhaps the highest profile bill that recently wound its way through the Montana Congress and onto the desk of Gov. Brian Schweitzer, of which was signed into law, was HB246, the Montana-Made Gun Bill. This bill challenges the power of the federal government to impose gun restrictions on the citizens of the state of Montana. HB246 declares that any gun or gun product manufactured in Montana and remains in Montana cannot be regulated by the federal government.

Montana was the first state to enact such a bill and has since gone viral with other states enacting or proposing similar bills. Many of these bills are being recognized under the name of, “Firearms Freedom Acts“. They have gained in such popularity, that Marbut recently traveled to New York City to appear on the Glenn Beck Show to talk about HB246.

The complaint filed against Marbut comes from Jim Smith, a lobbyist for the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (MSPOA). The complaint, lodged with the Commissioner of Political Practices, alleges that Marbut was being paid to lobby all or part of the Montana legislature on behalf of the MSSA and others, which would be a violation of Montana lobbying laws.

Marbut is not a registered and licensed lobbyist but neither is he paid for any of his lobbying. His position as President of MSSA, and he also sits on the Board of Directors, is strictly volunteer. His time spent promoting gun rights and related bills is his own. He is not employed by MSSA or any other groups he speaks for, according to Marbut.

Marbut has sent a letter to Mr. Dennis Unsworth, Commissioner of Political Practices, asking that the complaint be dropped.

Re: Complaint by Jim Smith

Dear Commissioner Unsworth,

I have reviewed the complaint filed by Jim Smith of the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association accusing me of illegally lobbying without being registered with your office.

Specifically excluded from the definition of a lobbyist is any individual who receives payments from one or more persons that total less than the amount specified under Mont. Code Ann. 5-7-112 in a calendar year. I received no payments for my activities on behalf of MSSA before the Montana Legislature. My time was donated. Thus, I am not a “lobbyist”, as that term is defined in the Montana Code.

I request the complaint be dismissed.

Sincerely,

Gary Marbut

Back at the end of April 2009, Marbut worked with MSSA and others to get passed HB228. HB228 is really kind of a modified “stand your ground” gun rights bill. This bill was opposed by the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and the Montana County Attorneys Association. This leaves us wondering if this is some attempt by Smith to discredit or even harass Marbut. It certainly appears to at least be aimed at intimidation.

If Marbut is correct about his understanding of the Montana statutes governing lobbying and he has not received compensation for the work he has done, then Smith’s efforts are a waste of taxpayer money. Being a lobbyist himself, certainly he must know and understand the laws. If he has evidence to show otherwise that Marbut has been paid, then at some point that will have to be presented.

Stay tuned.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

“An Economic Cataclysm On The Horizon, And Mostly, People Just Fear Their Government”

Karen DeCoster has an article at LewRockwell.com and the above title she gives as a reason patriotic Americans are buying up guns and ammunition at a rate that some people seem to have no explanation for. The title of her piece is, “All Patriots Are Gun Owners But Not All Gun Owners Are Patriots”. She says some gun owners get it and some don’t.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Marshall Sage: Government Control by “Eliminating The Sovereignty Of The States”

The following is a guest article. I asked Marshall Sage for permission to publish his response to a discussion on state sovereignty and the decimation of the United States Constitution by progressives.

Marshall Sage is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel who has enjoyed the freedom to hunt and fish throughout much of the free world. Most recently radio host for “Outdoor Life” a hunting and fishing program in Southwestern Idaho. A life member of SCI and the NRA. Contact at msage22@gmail.com.

Our founding fathers gave our nation a blueprint on how to avoid a centralized, authoritarian government from taking away our individual freedoms (endowed by our Creator) and rights (Bill of Rights). This blueprint was our Constitution. It’s no accident that in less than 200 years of following this blueprint the United States of America became the most prosperous and industrious nation on earth.

Since the 30’s under the Roosevelt Administration the elitist, intellectuals have been advocating “change” to the Constitution. Incrementally they have selectively chipped away at the Bill of Rights to suit their progressive agenda. They found a “separation of church and state” in the 1st Amendment where there was none. They tried and persist in claiming that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right of citizens to be armed. They have used an all encompassing “commerce clause” to render the 10th Amendment impotent.

When you think about it, how would you achieve a centralized authoritarian government controlling the lives of everyone? Well you could disarm the people and then control them by force as has been done through out history (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro). You could take away their faith in God and their belief that their is a higher power than the state (Roman Empire, USSR, Communist China). In spite of the attempts to take God out of the public square, public schools, public media and discourse, the majority of citizens in our country remain people of faith although not politically correct. But the progressives have learned that they can control the people rather effectively by eliminating the sovereignty of the states as granted by he 10th Amendment. It only took a compliant Supreme Court to take God out of the public schools; the 10 Commandments off of public buildings; a ban on “assault weapons” etc.

Without the Supreme Court protecting the Constitution the Congress and the President have been able to take more and more of the states sovereignty away. The environmental extremists ( the “green” movement worldwide became the new home for communists/Marxists idealogs after the fall of the USSR ) have used the ESA to exercise federal control over our land, water, and individual/property rights by federal mandate. They accomplish the same agenda through federal bureaucracies ( unelected officials ) like the EPA, BLM, US Forest Service, USFWS etc.

Finally, we the people are beginning to say enough is enough. Thanks to the brave elected representatives from states like Oklahoma, Texas, and Montana, the people are demanding the enforcement of the 10th Amendment and the Bill of Rights. My hope and prayer is that Idaho will join this fight with the full support of our state. We can win this fight and reclaim our Constitution and our heritage if we are willing to fight for it. Remember freedom isn’t free.

Marshall Sage

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Minnesota Proposes “Firearms Freedom Act”

Yesterday I reported that Montana’s “Montana-Made Gun Bill” has gone viral and that states are jumping on the opportunity to follow suit. Montana’s bill states that any gun, gun accessory or ammunition manufactured in Montana and stays in Montana cannot be regulated by the Federal Government. Not only is this a bold attempt at protecting the Second Amendment rights of Montanans it all sends a message to the U.S. Government that Montana is a sovereign state and will not be controlled by the feds.

Yesterday, South Carolina introduced a similar bill and it now appears that Minnesota has done the same - HF2376.

Here’s a list of other states with similar bills.

Montana HB 246
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

Alaska HB 186
http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_bill_text.asp?hsid=HB0186D&session=26

Texas HB 1863
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HB01863I.htm

Tennessee
HB 1796
http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB1796
SB 1610
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Bill/SB1610.pdf

South Carolina S. 794
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/794.htm

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Florida Legislators Raid CCW Trust Fund - Try to Intimidate Governor

In a last minute sneak attack on gun owners, the Florida Legislature raided the concealed weapons and firearms licensing trust fund. This not only effects resident CCW license holders, but non-resident Florida license holders as well!

They took $6 million from the Division of Licensing Concealed Weapons and Firearm Trust Fund that is intended, by law, to be used solely for administering the concealed weapons and firearms licensing program. (Read background information below)

Please Call, Fax, or Email Governor Charlie Crist IMMEDIATELY, and ask him to veto the $6 Million trust fund sweep from the Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services Division of Licensing authorized under Section 59 of the Conference Report of SB-2600.

Please send your email today!!!!!

And/or please contact the Governor’s office by phone or fax ASAP.

Phone number: (850) 488-4441 or (850) 488-7146
Fax number: (850) 487-0801

Send your email to the Governor at this address: Charlie.Crist@MyFlorida.com

Posted by Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

South Carolina Introduces “Firearms Freedom Act”

Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, one of the lead organizations to push through and get passed Montana’s Montana-made firearms bill, HB246, announced today that South Carolina is introducing a similar bill. The other day I told you that the news about HB246 was catching on quickly around the nation and had gone viral.

Senator Lee Bright just introduced another clone of Montana’s HB 246 as the “South Carolina Firearms Freedom Act,” S. 794.

Below is a list of the other states that have similar bills and the links to information about those bills.

Montana HB 246
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

Alaska HB 186
http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_bill_text.asp?hsid=HB0186D&session=26

Texas HB 1863
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HB01863I.htm

Tennessee
HB 1796
http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB1796
SB 1610
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Bill/SB1610.pdf

South Carolina S. 794
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/794.htm

Montana’s HB246 essentially says that any gun, ammunition or gun accessory/parts that are manufactured in Montana and remain in Montana cannot be controlled by the Federal Government. This is a major line being drawn in the sand that challenges the U.S. Government to butt out of state’s affairs and reinforces the 10th Amendment.

Rumors are flying around that other states are working on similar legislation. They are, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, and Washington.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Next Page »