CATI Blog

gun rights

Viewing posts tagged gun rights

PROOF – BLM Stealing Texas Land

According to a recent Bureau of Land Management statement, the Federal Government is not expanding it's holdings on the Red River between Texas and Oklahoma.

However if that were true, why would prominent and established politicians such as Gov. Rick Perry, Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, risk their careers and reputations by speaking out against an eminent BLM land grab in Texas?

A BLM spokesperson also assured me during a recent interview that the BLM is not interested in the "surface management" of what they refer to as the "Red River Management Area" (RRMA) but just like their claim of Red River Management Area Map Astewardship over 116 miles (or more than 90,000 acres) of Texas land, this is utter falsehood.

The fact is, the Bureau of Land Management is expanding  their holdings along the border between Texas and Oklahoma and I can prove it.

 

Concerning the issue of Surface Management:

On the Bureau of Land Management's website there is a recent document that mentions the RRMA, only once, under the sub-heading: BLM Oklahoma Field Office Mission – Surface Management. How about that? The very first area mentioned in the portion of the document dealing with surface-management is none other than RRMA!

Oddly enough, in my second interview with the same Oklahoma BLM spokesperson, I was told some of the specific ways in which the BLM intends to manage the surface of the RRMA.

ATVs RedRiver

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For all of you that enjoy your weekends along the Red River, near the HWY 79 bridge between Beyers, TX and Waurika, OK, enjoy it while you can. The BLM was there just recently with Texas DOT officials and in their estimation your recreation is damaging the bridge supports in addition to ruining the environment.
 

 Over the past few weeks there's been a lot of talk concerning exactly how the Red River has changed its course over the years and thereby altered the land around it. Presumably, this disputed fact has some bearing on who owns and/or manages the land on either side of the river.

There is a legal tradition for this, know as Riparian Law, which dates back to Roman times. However, according to the Bureau of Land Management, this common law standard has no bearing on their position. In fact the BLM operates under the US Dept of Interior's Riparian Policy. In interest of full disclosure the DOI itself lists this policy as an opinion, as it's web address makes clear: http://www.doi.gov/solicitor/opinions/M-37028.pdf .

Now here's where things get really strange.

The BLM states that according to a survey done in 1923, the southern boundary of federally held lands was marked along the median line of the Red River. Everything south of the midpoint of the river was Texas. This survey line was marked with wooden stakes which, obviously, are no longer present. There seems to be no argument that the river has moved northward but the BLM states that regardless of this fact, their 'border' remains in that fixed spot on the planet. I pressed the BLM spokesperson on how they can sure of where their 'border' lies given the fact that the stakes are gone and that the survey team in 1923 had no GPS technology. The BLM could not answer this question.

At the time that the survey was done however it was understood that the river shifted and yet no mention was made that the 'border' would remain fixed. In fact the only datum by which the 'border' can be delineated (according to the survey) is the course of the river itself.

It certainly seems like the BLM is making up the rules as it goes along doesn't it?

Yet the most damning evidence against the BLM's unlawful land-grab comes once again from their very own documents. Much of the information that I used for this article can now be easily found on the internet; but when I first started investigating this issue any mention of the Red River of the South by the BLM was completely absent on every search engine. Humorously enough it was only after speaking with the BLM the first time that I was able to find these documents that so clearly dispute their claims.poster

This link will take you to the BLM's Oklahoma Resource Management Plan (RMP). If you follow that link and scroll down to document page 101 or .pdf page 107, you will find the section labeled THE RMP FOR ISSUE 4. RED RIVER MANAGEMENT.

The first sentence states: "A unique situation exists in relation to the issue of the Red River area management. The area itself cannot be defined until action by the U.S. Congress establishes the permanent state boundary between Oklahoma and Texas."

Another undeniable fact in this case is that in the year 2000, U.S. Congress did in fact make a decision regarding the state boundaries between Texas and Oklahoma, a fact that is not disputed by any of the interested parties. The northern boundary of Texas is the vegetative line of the south bank of the Red River.

referenced here by the State of Oklahoma and here by the State of Texas

The Oklahoma RMP goes on to lay out three scenarios for management based on speculation on how the U.S. Congress was expected to rule at the time that the plan was accepted.

  • In plan 4a, the BLM would gain no additional land and be left with it's contemporary holdings of 958 acres.
  • Plan 4b would provide for an additional 1,400 acres but states that the BLM could end up acquiring  upwards of 46,000 acres should they manipulate the courts successfully.
  • The scenario imagined in Plan 4c, in stark contrast to what Congress actually decided, envisions the BLM being granted 90,000 acres of land that was then and is still owned by Texas farmers and ranchers.

This 1994 OK RMP is still the plan under which the Bureau of Land Management operates. While this plan is currently under revision in regards to future management of currently held land, it makes clear that the Red River Boundary Compact decision of the U.S. Congress did not grant any additional acreage to the federal government. As it stands, the BLM's Red River Management Area consists of 958 non-contiguous acres, all of which lay beyond that vegetative line on the south bank of the Red River.10172630_10200910729210864_3202847317246571132_n

It is for this reason that Texans will be coming from across the state to rally, celebrate and make claim to our sovereign land. Our
gathering will be a peaceful one, so long as our public servants are mindful of their place.

GOD BLESS TEXAS!!!

James Robert Franklin - dontcomply.com & Come and Take It Texas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gun Control Is Racist!!!

Gun control....That's racist

1640    -Virginia       Race-based total gun and self-defense ban. “Prohibiting Negroes, slave and free, from carrying weapons including clubs.” (Los Angeles Times, To Fight Crime, Some Blacks Attack Gun Control, January 19, 1992)

10306260_476305045804865_4466831399592517460_n1640    -Virginia       Race-based total gun ban. “That all such free Mulattos, Negroes and Indians … shall appear without arms.” [7 The Statues at Large; Being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619, p. 95 (W. W. Henning ed. 1823).] (GMU CR LJ, p. 67)

1712    -Virginia       Race-based total gun ban. “An Act for Preventing Negroes Insurrections.” (Henning, p. 481) (GMU CR LJ, p. 70)

1712    -South Carolina  Race-based total gun ban. “An act for the better ordering and governing of Negroes and slaves.” [7 Statutes at Large of South Carolina, p. 353-54 (D. J. McCord ed. 1836-1873).] (GMU CR LJ, p. 70)

1791    -United States  2nd Amendment to the U. S. Constitution ratified. Reads: “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.”

1792    -United States  Blacks excluded from the militia, i.e. law-abiding males thus instilled with the right to own guns. Uniform Militia Act of 1792 “called for the enrollment of every free, able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-five” to be in the militia, and specified that every militia member was to “provide himself with a musket or firelock, a bayonet, and ammunition.” [1 Stat. 271 (Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 80, No. 2, “The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration,” Robert Cottrol and Raymond Diamond, 1991, p. 331)]

KKK-pic41806    -Louisiana      Complete gun and self-defense ban for slaves. Black Code, ch. 33, Sec. 19, Laws of La. 150, 160 (1806) provided that a slave was denied the use of firearms and all other offensive weapons. (GLJ, p. 337)

1811    -Louisiana      Complete gun ban for slaves. Act of Apr. 8, 1811, ch. 14, 1811 Laws of La. 50, 53-54, forbade sale or delivery of firearms to slaves. (Id.)

1819    -South Carolina Master’s permission required for gun possession by slave. Act of Dec. 18, 1819, 1819 Acts of S. C. 28, 31 prohibited slaves outside the company of whites or without written permission from their master from using or carrying firearms unless they were hunting or guarding the master’s plantation. (Id.)

1825    -Florida        Slave and free black homes searched for guns for confiscation. “An Act to Govern Patrols,” 1825 Acts of Fla. 52, 55 - Section 8provided that white citizen patrols “shall enter into all Negro houses and suspected places, and search for arms and other offensive or improper weapons, and may lawfully seize and take away such arms, weapons, and ammunition …” Section 9 provided that a slave might carry a firearm under this statute either by means of the weekly renewable license or if “in the presence of some white person.” (Id.)

AfricanAmericanSoldierbetween1860-70-5001828-   Florida Free blacks permitted to carry guns if court approval. Act of Nov. 17, 1828 Sec. 9, 1828 Fla. Laws 174, 177; Act of Jan. 12, 1828, Sec. 9, 1827 Fla. Laws 97, 100 - Florida went back and forth on the question of licenses for free blacks; twice in 1828, Florida enacted provisions providing for free blacks to carry and use firearms upon obtaining a license from a justice of the peace. (Id.)

1831    -Florida        Race-based total gun ban. Act of Jan. 1831, 1831 Fla. Laws 30 - Florida repealed all provision for firearm licenses for free blacks. (Id. p. 337-38)

1831    -Delaware       Free blacks permitted to carry guns if court approval. In the December 1831 legislative session, Delaware required free blacks desiring to carry firearms to obtain a license from a justice of the peace. [Herbert Aptheker, Nat Turner’s Slave Rebellion, p. 74-75 (1966).](GLJ, p. 338)

1831    -Maryland       Race-based total gun ban. In the December 1831 legislative session, Maryland entirely prohibited free blacks from carrying arms. (Aptheker, p. 75) (GLJ, p. 338)

1831    -Virginia       Race-based total gun ban. In the December 1831 legislative session, Virginia entirely prohibited free blacks from carrying arms. (Aptheker, p. 81) (GLJ, p. 338)

1833-   Florida Slave and free black homes searched for guns for confiscation. Act of Feb. 17, 1833, ch. 671, Sec. 15, 17, 1833 Fla. Laws 26, 29 authorized white citizen patrols to seize arms found in the homes of slaves and free blacks, and provided that blacks without a proper explanation for the presence of the firearms be summarily punished, without benefit of a judicial tribunal. (Id. p. 338)

1833    -Georgia        Race-based total gun ban. Act of Dec. 23, 1833, Sec. 7,

1833-Ga. Laws 226, 228 declared that “it shall not be lawful for any free person of colour in this state, to own, use, or carry fire 12257866171225786857larms of any description whatever.” (Id.)

1840    -Florida        Complete gun ban for slaves. Act of Feb. 25, 1840, no. 20, Sec. 1, 1840 Acts of Fla. 22-23 made sale or delivery of firearms to slaves forbidden. (Id. p. 337)

1840    -Texas  Complete gun ban for slaves. “An Act Concerning Slaves,” Sec. 6, 1840 Laws of Tex. 171, 172, ch. 58 of the Texas Acts of 1850 prohibited slaves from using firearms altogether from 1842-1850. (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University, Vol. 85, No. 3, “Gun Control and Economic Discrimination: The Melting-Point Case-In-Point”, T. Markus Funk, 1995, p. 797)

1844    -North Carolina Race-based gun ban upheld because free blacks “not citizens.” In State v. Newsom, 27 N. C. 250 (1844), the Supreme Court of North Carolina upheld a Slave Code law prohibiting free blacks from carrying firearms on the grounds that they were not citizens. (GMU CR LJ, p. 70)

1845    -North Carolina Complete gun ban for slaves. Act of Jan. 1, 1845, ch. 87, Sec. 1, 2, 1845 Acts of N. C. 124 made sale or delivery of firearms to slaves forbidden. (GLJ, p. 337)

1847    -Florida        Slave and free black homes searched for guns for confiscation. Act of Jan. 6, 1847, ch. 87 Sec. 11, 1846 Fla. Laws 42, 44 provided that white citizen patrols might search the homes of blacks, both free and slave and confiscate arms held therein. (Id. p. 338)

1848    -Georgia        Race-based gun ban upheld because free blacks “not citizens.” In Cooper v. Savannah, 4 Ga. 68, 72 (1848), the Georgia Supreme Court ruled “free persons of color have never been recognized here as citizens; they are not entitled to bear arms, vote for members of the legislature, or to hold any civil office.” (GMU CR LJ, p. 70)

1852    -Mississippi    Race-based complete gun ban. Act of Mar. 15, 1852, ch. 206, 1852 Laws of Miss. 328 forbade ownership of firearms by both free blacks and slaves. (JCLC NWU, p. 797)

1857    -United States  High Court upholds slavery since blacks “not citizens.” In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U. S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), Chief Justice Taney argued if members of the African race were “citizens” they would be exempt from the special “police regulations” applicable to them. “It would give to persons of the Negro race … full liberty of speech … to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” (Id. p. 417) U. S. Supreme Court held that descendants of Africans who were imported into this country and sold as slaves were not included nor intended to be included under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, whether emancipated or not, and remained without rights or privileges except such as those which the government might grant them, thereby upholding slavery. Also held that a slave did not become free when taken into a free state; that Congress cannot bar slavery in any territory; and that blacks could not be citizens.


1860    -Georgia        Complete gun ban for slaves. Act of Dec. 19, 1860, no. 64, Sec. 1, 1860 Acts of Ga. 561 forbade sale or delivery of firearms to slaves. (GLJ, p. 337)

1861    -United States  Civil War begins.

 

images

 "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do
it;... What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." - Abraham Lincoln


1861-   Florida Slave and free black homes searched for guns for confiscation. Act of Dec. 17, 1861, ch. 1291, Sec. 11, 1861 Fla. Laws 38, 40provided once again that white citizen patrols might search the homes of blacks, both free and slave, and confiscate arms held therein. (Id. p. 338)

1863    -United States  Emancipation Proclamation President Lincoln issued proclamation “freeing all slaves in areas still in rebellion.”

1865    -Mississippi    Blacks require police approval to own guns, unless in military. Mississippi Statute of 1865 prohibited blacks, not in the military“ and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county” from keeping or carrying “fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife.” [reprinted in 1 Documentary History of Reconstruction: Political, Military, Social, Religious, Educational and Industrial, 1865 to the Present Time, p. 291, Walter L. Fleming, ed., 1960.] (GLJ, p. 344)

1865    -Louisiana      Blacks require police and employer approval to own guns, unless in military. Louisiana Statute of 1865 prohibited blacks, not in the military service, from “carrying fire-arms, or any kind of weapons … without the special permission of his employers, approved and indorsed by the nearest and most convenient chief of patrol.” (Fleming, p. 280) (GLJ, p. 344)

1865    -United States  Civil War ends May 26.

1865    -United States  Slavery abolished as of December 18, 1865. 13th Amendment abolishing slavery was ratified. Reads: “Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or in any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

1866    -Alabama         Race-based total gun ban. Black Code of Alabama in January 1866 prohibited blacks to own or carry firearms or other deadly weapons and prohibited “any person to sell, give, or lend fire-arms or ammunition of any description whatever” to any black. [The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates, p. 209, (Alfred Avins ed., 1967)] (GLJ, p. 345)

1866    -North Carolina Rights of blacks can be changed by legislature. North Carolina Black Code, ch. 40, 1866 N. C. Sess. Laws 99 BLAKE10stated “All persons of color who are now inhabitants of this state shall be entitled to the same privileges, and are subject to the same burdens and disabilities, as by the laws of the state were conferred on, or were attached to, free persons of color, prior to the ordinance of emancipation, except as the same may be changed by law.” (Avins, p. 291.) (GLJ, p. 344)

1866    -United States  Civil Rights Act of 1866 enacted. CRA of 1866 did away with badges of slavery embodied in the “Black Codes,” including those provisions which “prohibit any Negro or mulatto from having fire-arms.” [CONG. GLOBE, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pt. 1, 474 (29 Jan. 1866)] Senator William Saulsbury (D-Del) added “In my State for many years … there has existed a law … which declares that free Negroes shall not have the possession of firearms or ammunition. This bill proposes to take away from the States this police power …” and thus voted against the bill. CRA of 1866 was a precursor to today’s 42 USC Sec. 1982, a portion of which still reads: “All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every state and territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property.”

1866    -United States  Proposed 14th Amendment to U. S. Constitution debated. Opponents of the 14th Amendment objected to its
adoption because they opposed federal enforcement of the freedoms in the bill of rights. Senator Thomas A. Hendricks (D-Indiana) said “if this amendment be adopted we will then carry the title [of citizenship] and enjoy its advantages in common with the Negroes, the coolies, and the Indians.” [CONG. GLOBE, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pt. 3, 2939 (4 June 1866)]. Senator Reverdy Johnson, counsel for the slave owner in Dred Scott, opposed the amendment because “it is quite objectionable to provide that ‘no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States’.” Thus, the 14th Amendment was viewed as necessary to buttress the Civil Rights Act of 1866, especially since the act “is pronounced void by the jurists and courts of the South,” e. g. Florida has as “a misdemeanor for colored men … and the punishment … is whipping …” [CONG GLOBE, 39th Con., 1st Session, 504, pt. 4, 3210 (16 June1866)].

download
1866    -United States  Klu Klux Klan formed. Purpose was to terrorize blacks who voted; temporarily disbanded in1871; reestablished in 1915. In debating what would become 42 USC Sec. 1983, today’s federal civil rights statute, Representative Butler explained “This provision seemed to your committee to be necessary, because they had observed that, before these midnight marauders [the KKK] made attacks upon peaceful citizens, there were very many instances in the South where the sheriff of the county had preceded them and taken away the arms of their victims. This was especially noticeable in Union County, where all the Negro population were disarmed by the sheriff only a few months ago under the order of the judge … ; and then, the sheriff having disarmed the citizens, the five hundred masked men rode at nights and murdered and otherwise maltreated the ten persons who were in jail in that county.” [1464 H. R. REP. No. 37, 41st Cong., 3rd Sess. p. 7-8 (20 Feb. 1871)]

1867    -United States  The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867. Report noted with particular emphasis that KKK-pic4under the Black Codes, blacks were “forbidden to own or bear firearms, and thus were rendered defenseless against assaults.” (Reprinted in H. Hyman, The Radical Republicans and Reconstruction, p. 219, 1967.) (GMU CR LJ, p. 71)

1868    -United States  14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution adopted, conveying citizenship to blacks. Reads, in part: “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” “Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

1870    -Tennessee      First “Saturday Night Special” economic handgun ban passed. In the first legislative session in which they gained control, white supremacists passed “An Act to Preserve the Peace and Prevent Homicide,” which banned the sale of all handguns except the expensive “Army and Navy model handgun” which whites already owned or could afford to buy, and blacks could not. (Gun Control: White Man’s Law, William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985) Upheld in Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.)165, 172 (1871) (GMU CR LJ, p. 74) “The cheap revolvers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were referred to as ”Suicide Specials,“ the ”Saturday Night Special“ label not becoming widespread until reformers and politicians took up the gun control cause during the 1960s. The source of this recent concern about cheap revolvers, as their new label suggest, has much in common with the concerns of the gun-law initiators of the post-Civil War South. As B. Bruce-Briggs has written in the Public Interest, ”It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the “Saturday Night Special” is emphasized because it is cheap and being sold to a particular class of people. The name is sufficient evidence -- the reference is to “niggertown Saturdaynight.” (Gun Control: White Man’s Law,William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985)

1871    -United States  Anti-KKK Bill debated in response to race-motivated violence in South. A report on violence in the South resulted in an anti-KKK bill that stated “That whoever shall, without due process of law, by violence, intimidation, or threats, take away or deprive any citizen of the United States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the defense of his person, family, or property, shall be deemed guilty of a larceny thereof, and be punished as provided in this act for a felony.” [1464 H. R. REP. No. 37, 41st Cong., 3rd Sess. p. 7-8 (20 Feb. 1871)]. Since Congress doesn’t have jurisdiction over simple larceny, the language was removed from the anti-KKK bill, but this section survives today as 42 USC Sec. 1983: “That any person who, under color of any law, … of any State, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any person … to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities to which … he is entitled under the Constitution … shall be liable … in any action at law … for redress … .”
15129_476305089138194_388478187635167965_n
1875    -United States  High Court rules has no power to stop KKK members from disarming blacks. In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. at 548-59 (1875) A member of the KKK, Cruikshank had been charged with violating the rights of two black men to peaceably assemble and to bear arms. The U. S. Supreme Court held that the federal government had no power to protect citizens against private action (not committed by federal or state government authorities) that deprived them of their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment. The Court held that for protection against private criminal action, individuals are required to look to state governments. “The doctrine in Cruikshank, that blacks would have to look to state government for protection against criminal conspiracies gave the green light to private forces, often with the assistance of state and local governments, that sought to subjugate the former slaves and … With the protective arm of the federal government withdrawn, protection of black lives and property was left to largely hostile state governments.” (GLJ, p. 348.)

1879    -Tennessee      Second “Saturday Night Special” economic handgun ban passed. Tennessee revamped its economic handgun ban nine years later, passing “An Act to Prevent the Sale of Pistols,” which was upheld in State v. Burgoyne, 75 Tenn. 173, 174 (1881). (GMU CR LJ, p. 74)

1882    -Arkansas       Third “Saturday Night Special” economic handgun ban passed. Arkansas followed Tennessee’s lead by enacting a virtually identical “Saturday Night Special” law banning the sale of any pistols other than expensive “army or navy” model revolvers, which most whites had or could afford, thereby disarming blacks. Statute was upheld in Dabbs v. State, 39 Ark. 353 (1882) (GMU CR LJ, p. 74)

1893    -Alabama        First all-gun economic ban passed. Alabama placed “extremely heavy business and/or transactional taxes“ on the sale of handguns in an attempt ”to put handguns out of the reach of blacks and poor whites.“ (Gun Control: White Man’s Law, William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985)
gun-control-is-racist
1902    -South Carolina First total civilian handgun ban. The state banned all pistol sales except to sheriffs and their special deputies, which included the KKK and company strongmen. (Kates, ”Toward a History of Handgun Prohibition in the United States“ in Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, p. 15, 1979.) (GMU CR LJ, p. 76)

1906    -Mississippi    Race-based confiscation through record-keeping. Mississippi enacted the first registration law for retailers in1906, requiring them to maintain records of all pistol and pistol ammunition sales, and to make such records available for inspection on demand. (Kates, p. 14) (GMU CR LJ, p. 75)

1907    -Texas  Fourth ”Saturday Night Special“ economic handgun ban. Placed ”extremely heavy business and/or transactional taxes” on the sale of handguns in an attempt “to put handguns out of the reach of blacks and poor whites.” (Gun Control: White Man’s Law, William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985)

1911    -New York       Police choose who can own guns lawfully. “Sullivan Law” enacted, requiring police permission, via a permit issued at their discretion, to own a handgun. Unpopular minorities were and are routinely denied permits. (Gun Control: White Man’s Law, William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985) “(T)here are only about 3, 000 permits in New York City, and 25, 000carry permits. If you’re a street-corner grocer in Manhattan, good luck getting a gun permit. But among those who have been able to wrangle a precious carry permit out of the city’s bureaucracy are Donald Trump, Arthur Ochs Sulzburger, William Buckley, Jr., and David, John, Lawrence and Winthrop Rockefeller. Surprise.” (Terrance Moran, Racism and the Firearms Firestorm, Legal Times)

1934    -United States  Gun Control Act of 1934 (National Firearms Act) passed.

1941    -Florida        Judge admits gun law passed to disarm black laborers. In concurring opinion narrowly construing a Florida gun control law passed in 1893, Justice Buford stated the 1893 law “was passed when there was a great influx of Negro laborers … The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the Negro laborers … The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied … .” Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla. 516, 524, 4 So. 2d 700, 703 (1941) (GMU CR LJ, p. 69)


The Following Historical Events Are Included as Context for Passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968:


1954    -United States  Supreme Court held racial segregation of schools violates 14th Amendment.

1955    -United States  Alabama bus segregation ordinance held unconstitutional after boycott and NAACP protest.

1956    -United States  Massive resistance to Supreme Court desegregation ruling called for by 101 Southern congressmen.

1957    -United States  Congress approved first civil rights law for blacks. Governor ordered National Guard troops to prevent nine blacks from entering all-white high school in Little Rock; President Eisenhower had to send federal military troops to enforce court order that Guardsman be removed.

1960    -United States  Sit-ins began February 1 when four black college students in Greensboro, NC, refused to move from a lunch counter after being denied service; by 1961, more than 700, 000 students, black and white, had participated in sit-ins.

1962    -United States  3,000 troops were required to quell riots after University of Mississippi accepted first black student.

1963    -United States  200, 000 people participated in March on Washington, at which Dr. Martin Luther King gave his famous “I have a dream” speech. President John F. Kennedy assassinated in November.

1964    -United States  Omnibus civil rights bill barring discrimination in voting, jobs, discrimination, etc.; three civil rights workers reported missing in Mississippi, found buried two months later, 21 white men arrested, seven of whom an all-white federal court jury convicted of conspiracy only.

1965    -California     34 dead in race riot in Watts area of Los Angeles, CA.33_HarryBenson_GodisLove Wattsreplacement scan

1966    -United States  First black U. S. senator in 85 years elected (Edward Brook, R-MA)

1967    -United States  Race riots in Newark, NJ, kill 26, injure 1, 500, with over 1, 000 arrested. Race riots in Detroit, MI, killed at least 40, injured 2, 000 and left 5, 000 homeless; was quelled by 4, 700 federal paratroopers and 8, 000 National Guardsmen. Thurgood Marshall sworn in Oct. 2 as first black justice of the U. S. Supreme Court.

1968    -United States  Martin Luther King assassinated in April. Robert F. Kennedy assassinated in June.

1968    -United States  Gun Control Act of 1968 passed. Avowed anti-gun journalist Robert Sherrill frankly admitted that the Gun Control Act of
1968 was “passed not to control guns but to control Blacks.” [R. Sherrill, The Saturday Night Special, p. 280 (1972).] (GMU CRLJ, p. 80) “The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks, and inasmuch as a majority of Congress did not want to do the former but were ashamed to show that their goal was the latter, the result was they did neither. Indeed, this law, the first gun-control law passed by Congress in thirty years, was one of the grand jokes of our time. First of all, bear in mind that it was not passed in one piece but was a combination of two laws. The original 1968 Act was passed to control handguns after the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., had been assassinated with a rifle. Then it was repealed and repassed to include the control of rifles and shotguns after the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy with a handgun … The moralists of our federal legislature as well as sentimental editorial writers insist that the Act of 1968 was a kind of memorial to King and Robert Kennedy. If so, it was certainly a weird memorial, as can be seen not merely by the handgun/long-gun shell game, but from the inapplicability of the law to their deaths.” (The Saturday Night Special and Other Guns, Robert Sherrill, p. 280, 1972)

1988    -Maryland       Fifth “Saturday Night Special” economic handgun ban passes. Ban on “Saturday Night Specials,” i.e. inexpensive handguns, passes.

1988    -Illinois       Poor citizens singled out for gun ban in Illinois. Starting in late 1988, the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) and the Chicago Police Dept. (CPD) enacted and enforced an official policy, Operation Clean Sweep, which applied to all housing units owned and operated by the CHA. The purpose was the confiscation of firearms and illegal narcotics and consisted of warrantless searches and of a visitor exclusion policy severely limiting the right of CHA tenants to associate in their residences with family members and other guests, tenants had to sign in and out of the building, producing to the police or CHA officials photo Id. Relatives, including children and grandchildren, were not allowed to stay over, even on holidays. CHA tenants who objected or attempted to interfere with these warrantless searches were arrested. The ACLU filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the CHA tenants against the enforcement of Operation Clean Sweep. The complaint was filed in the United Sates District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on December 16, 1988, as Case No. 88C10566 and is styled as Rose Summeries, et al. v. Chicago Housing Authority, et al. A consent decree was entered on November 30, 1989 in which the CHA and CPD agreed to abide by certain standards and in which the scope and purposes of such “emergency housing inspections” were limited. (GMU, p. 98)

1990    -Virginia       Poor citizens singled out for gun ban in Virginia. U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia upheld a ban imposed by the Richmond Housing Authority on the possession of all firearms, whether operable or not, in public housing projects. The Richmond Tenants Organization had challenged the ban, arguing that such requirement had made the city’s 14, 000 public housing residents second-class citizens. [Richmond Tenants Org. v. Richmond Dev. & House. Auth., No. C. A. 3:90CV00576 (E. D. Va. Dec. 3, 1990).] (GMU, p. 97)

1994    -United States  President seeks to single out all poor citizens residing in federal housing for gun ban. The Clinton Administration introduced H. R. 3838 in 1994 to ban guns in federal public housing, but the House Banking Committee reject edit. Similar legislation was filed in
1994 in the Oregon and Washington state legislatures.

1995    -Maine  Poor citizens singled out for gun ban in Maine. Portland, Maine, gun ban in public housing struck down on April 5, 1995.



Peace out~ Jason Orsek

1797521_476305105804859_2675582878838317594_n

I Will Not Comply!

7 20 perfect smaller

Roughly a year ago I saw the video below and it inspired me. I sent a Facebook friend request to Connecticut fireman John Cinque and quietly studied Connecticut's descent into tyranny with the aid of local insight. A few weeks ago John made a chilling post about how odd it was to go to bed not knowing if he would awaken to his door being kicked in. He's shown the courage and conviction to stand up for what's right and like it or not, it almost certainly has made him a target for the socialist legislators in Connecticut.

When I re-posted this video on my Facebook page this month I was assuming that everyone had already seen it, but now with Connecticut in the news again John's defiance to anti-American gun laws has gone absolutely viral. I'm glad for that, the people of Connecticut need to know that we support them. It can't be easy standing alone at the front lines of a battle like theirs. Like you, I am a gun-owner, a Liberty-lover and I have a family that I intend to keep safe. While gun-confiscation and arrests may not yet be happening where you are, you would be fooling yourself to believe that it won't be attempted. If we each demonstrate the strength that this man has shown we will save our country and restore the republic. If we fail, then all is lost and our children will bear the worst of what would follow.

It's high time that we send a chilling message to the enemies of Freedom that have infiltrated our halls of government. Share this video with everyone you know and join the thousands of us that are pledged to stand and declare as John did: "I WILL NOT COMPLY!"

Thank you John,

your Brother-in-Arms,

James Franklin

Obama’s Budget Contains New Gun Control Measures

TRNS - The president's new budget aims to strengthen background checks, invest in mental health.

Obama

Talk Radio News

(TRNS) – After a tough year for proponents of gun control laws, President Obama appears to be continuing his push for gun control measures headed into the next fiscal year.

Obama released his fiscal year 2015 budget on Tuesday, and contained within it were proposals aimed at reducing gun violence through methods such as the strengthening of background checks, mental health initiatives, and inspections of firearms dealers.

The White House released the following as a summary of the President’s overall budget proposal.

Supports the “Now is the Time” initiative, the President’s plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun violence through improved background checks by the FBI and improved data via the National Criminal History Improvement Program, inspections of Federally-licensed firearms dealers, improved tracing and ballis­tics analysis, and efforts to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals. The Budget provides training for State and local law enforcement to prevent and respond to active shooters and prevent mass casualties, invests in programs to identify mental health issues early and continues the Comprehensive School Safety Program and other initiatives to enhance school security.

The president’s strong push for gun control legislation began last year following the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012 when a gunman killed 26 people, including 20 children. Obama made a strong push for an assault weapons ban, magazine limits and universal background checks.

The debate over gun control gripped Capitol Hill and dominated the national dialogue for the majority of the first half of 2013. However, in the end the Senate was unable to pass any new reforms, including a bill that would have strengthened background checks for all gun sales....

Read Full Story: TRNS

Texas Veterans Illegally Arrested, Guns Confiscated

 

On the evening of November 30, 2013 Joey Posey, a veteran of the Army's 101st Airborne was arrested and jailed by police in Andrews, TX. He had taken a walk with his children to get ice cream and french fries and decided to openly carry his AR-15 in addition to his legally concealed handgun. Although the open carry of a longarm is legal in Texas, it was for this reason that he and his children found themselves forced to the ground as soon as the police arrived on the scene. For two months now SPC Posey has been in legal limbo. There have been no charges filed yet, his weapons have not been returned and his concealed-carry license has been suspended. What Joey didn't know when he left his house that night was that he was not the first person whose firearms rights have been suppressed in Andrews.

To show support for Joey Come and Take It Midland/Odessa organized an open carry walk in Andrews in the weeks after Joey's arrest. As the walk was coming to an end, Andrews police approached the group of demonstrators telling them that if they did not disperse they would be in violation of a municipal code that pertains to motor vehicle operation.

corner

Following that incident, three members of Come and Take It Texas met with Andrews, TX Police Chief Bud Jones to ensure that the rights of Texans would no longer be suppressed by his department and to get permits signed for their upcoming demonstrations in Andrews. In that meeting the Chief assured them that and understanding had been reached. He gave his word that he would do everything in his power to protect the legal rights of gun owners in the future.

At one time, when a Texan made a promise and shook your hand, you could rest assured that he would keep his word. Unfortunately, Chief Bud Jones failed to keep his word, and he failed to honor the oath that he swore to the Constitution.

On January 22nd, 2014 former Army Sergeant Michael Keoughan, one of the CATI members that met with Chief Jones, went to Andrews to survey the approved route for their next open carry walk. Given the multiple reports that Andrews PD had used intimidation to 'convince' people not to open carry in Andrews, Michael also wanted to film himself open carrying that day and prove to the members of the the new CATI chapter in Andrews that they no longer needed to fear their police department. Sadly, Michael was illegally arrested that day, and his weapons were unlawfully confiscated. CATI recorded their meeting with the Chief, and have posted some of that interview on their YouTube channel but the local media refuses to address this part of the story. It seems the 'good ol' boy' system is still alive and well in West Texas.

As if this story wasn't bad enough;

When a local news station posted a story on their Facebook page about Keoughan's arrest and the upcoming CATI demonstration to be held in Andrews, a resident of that town made threats against the group in the comments section of the post.

threat 1 threat 2

Two of CATI's members were so concerned by the threats that they contacted Andrews PD to file a report in case the man did make good on his threats. One of the members, an over-the-road trucker, was told that a report would not be taken. The officer went on to inform the caller that the town was full of "rednecks" that would likely shoot members of CATI and that the victims could expect that the person would never be found or brought to justice. After that the officer hung up and did not answer again.

A Sheriff's Deputy was recorded as he made a similar comment to CATI members while they were waiting for Keoughan to be released from Andrews County Jail. 
 

Another CATI member was told that a report could not be made over the phone but, if she would make the seventy mile drive to Andrews, that a report could be made in person. She immediately drove to Andrews only to find that the entire police department was too busy "in a meeting" to speak with her. A Texas Ranger stationed in Andrews made it clear that no one was going to take a report, calling the posts a "perceived threat".

Local media has ignored these two cases of dereliction of duty, just as they have refused to report the facts showing that both of these veterans have been victims of Official Oppression
 
Michael Keoughan and Joey Posey - CATITX
Michael Keoughan and Joey Posey - CATITX

Come and Take It Texas will be holding another demonstration in Andrews, Texas on February 15th, 2014 as they continue to seek justice for these soldiers. However the struggle is far from over. If you would like to contribute to their legal defense, click on the following links for Joey Posey and Michael Keoughan.  Please help this story go viral! Spread this link and these [one] [two] [three] to everyone you know including other news outlets. You can also contact Police Chief Bud Jones and help us respectfully educate him on the meaning of the oath that he swore to uphold.

James Franklin - CATI TX

UPDATE:

10478241_160812600755957_698141323229237571_n

In the last week of May 2014 the City of Andrews Police Department officially ceased it's attempt to charge Joey Posey with a crime having found no wrongdoing and Joey's lawfully owned weapons were finally returned to him. However Michael Keoughan is still facing charges and will appear in court on Sept. 03, 2014 with his lawyer at the expense of $10,000. Please contact Police Chief Bud Jones concerning this financial oppression and help us achieve a victory for human rights in west Texas.

 

Texas Senator John Cornyn Joins Obama in the War On Guns

Image

It was announced earlier this week that Texas Senator John Cornyn has introduced a bill called the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. 

Supporters say that this is an important bill that, if ratified, would help to preserve our embattled Second Amendment and prevent federal infringement upon the rights of gun owners.

But let’s examine that assumption more closely.

For starters, our founders intended that our right to arms would never be infringed upon. Meaning that American citizens should be able to freely keep and bear all of the military armaments necessary to defend our country from our enemies both foreign and domestic. Yet each time the federal government has overstepped it’s bounds and enacted weapons regulations we have seen our rights infringed upon. These infringements often violate multiple amendments in the Bill of Rights simultaneously.

This week the progressive propaganda machine strategically filled the wires with fluff pieces about a Senator that one would assume to be a political enemy and helped to shore up Cornyn’s ‘conservative’ credentials in the wake of recent attacks on his record. Similarly the NRA has endorsed Senator Cornyn which stands out as a red flag to politically savvy gun owners.

What the bill’s supporters fail to mention is that concealed-carry reciprocity is already well established by the states that are not waging a jihad on all things weapon-related.  It’s this fact that highlights what may be the most glaring flaw in the perspective of the bill’s supporters. This bill is another assault on our Tenth Amendment that would further strip away states’ rights and grant unconstitutional authority to the federal government.

Clearly, the deceptively named “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act” is a fraud from the start reminiscent of Obama’s “Affordable Health Care Act”. It’s certainly believable that a politically shrewd Senator Cornyn may have proposed the bill at this time in an attempt to distract Liberty-conscious voters from his political record.

One of the hottest debates in Texas politics right now is whether or not John Cornyn is a ‘liberal’ or a ‘conservative’. However we can make short work of this debate simply by reading Senator John Cornyn’s Top Ten Worst Votes as posted by FreedomWorks] There we find that the Senator works to represent the interests of the federal government to the detriment of all Americans.

Perhaps that’s why the opponents of Senator Cornyn’s bill argue that it's true purpose is to be the first step on the road towards federal gun permits.  Cornyn’s proposed legislation is not just unnecessary but the implementation of it will certainly necessitate additional government spending. Given that our nation nearly went bankrupt only two months ago, even Constitutionally-indifferent Americans have good cause to call foul on Cornyn’s fraud.

[photo source: nationalreview.com]