CATI Blog

news

Viewing posts tagged news

Facebook Bans Gun Safe Ads – In The Name of Safety

Robert Farago - The Truth About Guns

moms

You may recall that Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America demanded that Facebook prevent netizens from selling firearms via the service. The social media giant agreed to “delete reported posts that indicate that the seller will not conduct a background check or that a buyer is seeking to avoid a background check” and “block all children (under 18) from viewing reported posts from individual gun sellers or gun pages where guns are sold or traded.” The former depends on snitches and the latter is unenforceable. But that hasn’t stopped Facebook from [further] trampling gun rights on the advertising side . . .

Grass Roots North Caroline press release [via Ammoland.com]:

Hyatt Guns, in Charlotte, North Carolina, recently posted an ad for safes and vaults on their Facebook page as part of a Veterans Day promotion. Almost immediately, Facebook’s speech police swooped in and ripped the ad from Hyatt’s page.

The social networking giant asserts that since Hyatt sell guns, which are banned from Facebook advertising for these other, innocuous products is also banned, although Facebook’s official policy does not seem to support that.

Facebook seems concerned that clicking on a safe ad might lead to another click that could lead to another click that could lead to a gun advertisement somewhere else . . . or something like that.

This is what Facebook’s representative had to say about it:

“Your ad was rejected because it violates the Ad Guidelines. Ads may not promote firearms, ammunition or weapons (ex: paintball guns, BB guns, knives, etc)… This decision is final. Please consider this the end of our correspondence about your ad.”

This must be corporate Facebook’s version of “free and open dialogue.”

Facebook ‘Unlikes’ Gun Safety

It is so-called “gun safety” groups that initially pressured Facebook to ban certain discussions and images from its site, and certainly it’s safety that is used as the overall pretense for the site’s gun ban. With “safety” as cover for an anti-gun stance, it is then painfully ironic that Facebook has now banned a business from advertising products that are about nothing BUT gun safety.

Safes are not weapons, so they do not violate Facebook’s policy. And clearly, the sole purpose of safes and vaults is to keep weapons out of the wrong hands—burglars, children, etc. This is the very definition of smart, responsible gun safety.

As though it weren’t bad enough that Zuckerberg’s censors have banned gun talk, now they’re banning anything that might make one even think of gun talk. Below, see how you can quickly and easily send a message to Mark Zuckerberg about his policing of gun-related speech, and his corporation’s inexplicable ban on gun safety products.

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!

Use the information below to contact Mark Zuckerberg. Let him know that you don’t appreciate his censorship of speech on Facebook. Point out to him that promoting gun safety products, like safes and vaults, does not violate Facebook’s stated policies, and banning them is counterproductive if one believes that gun safety is a worthy pursuit.

Phone Mark Zuckergerg, CEO of Facebook at this number: (650) 543 4800. Deliver the following message:

I’m calling because as a Facebook user and someone who is interested in gun safety, I am shocked to hear that Facebook bans the promotion of safes and gun locks. These items are not on your list of banned products, and in fact are used to promote and implement safe practices. Gun safety is a worthy pursuit, and it ought to be embraced by Facebook, not rejected. I strongly encourage you to lift the ban on safety-oriented products such as gun safes, vaults and locks. Thank you.

E-mail Mark Zuckergerg using this address: mark.zuckerberg@fb.com. Use the copy/paste message in the “Deliver this Message” section, below.

Tweet Mark Zuckerberg using the following text and Twitter handle:

Why has Facebook banned ads for gun safety products? Gun safes save lives!http://tinyurl.com/q8ewfqy @finkd @GrassRootsNC

Post to Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook page here: www.facebook.com/zuck?fref=ts. Use this copy/paste message:

Why is Facebook banning ads that promote gun safety? Safes and vaults save lives and aren’t on FB’s list of banned products (xxx).

DELIVER THIS MESSAGE

Suggested Subject: “Don’t ‘Unlike’ Gun Safety”

Dear Mr. Zuckerberg:

I have recently been informed that you have banned the advertisement of gun safety products from your social networking site, Facebook. Some time back, you elected to censor speech regarding guns and other weapons, and although I see this as misguided, you certainly have the right to police speech on your own site. However, if gun safety is truly a concern of yours, denying companies the ability to advertise products such as safes, vaults and gun locks is entirely counter-productive. I will also note that safes and vaults are not on Facebook’s list of banned products (they are not weapons).

I ask that you please review your company’s policy of censoring ads depicting gun safety products such as safes and vaults. I do not believe these products violate Facebook’s anti-gun policy. Conversely, these products promote safety, a worthy pursuit that ought to be embraced by Facebook.

Thank you in advance for your serious consideration on this matter. I will continue to monitor this issue via alerts from Grass Roots North Carolina.

Respectfully,

About: Grass Roots North Carolina is an all-volunteer organization dedicated to preserving the freedoms guaranteed us by the Bill of Rights. Our main focus is the right to keep and bear arms. GRNC was central to drafting and passing North Carolina’s concealed handgun law and since that time has continued to push for improvements to gun laws. Visit: www.grnc.org

Israel Eases Restrictions on Carrying Guns after Synagogue Killings

Robert Farago - The Truth About Guns

Jerusalem-synagogue-attac-012

“In the coming hours, I will ease restrictions on carrying weapons,”Israeli Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch announced today on public radio. Aharonovitch indicated the liberalization would only apply to licensed gun carriers, such as private security guards and off-duty army officers. The change does NOT mean that anyone with a gun can carry a gun, or that the State will make it easier for Israeli citizens to get a gun license. As TTAG has reported, the Jewish State has been moving in the opposite direction, towards civilian disarmament, for years. If that blows your mind check out the Sephardi chief rabbi of Israel’s reaction to today’s synagogue slaughter [via jta.org]. . .

Following the attack, Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, the Sephardi chief rabbi of Israel, said that Jews in Israel should not pray in a synagogue unless there is an armed guard. Yosef called on the government to help in funding the extra security.

“In every other public place security guards are stationed; there is no reason synagogues should remain defenseless,” Yosef said, according to the NRG news website.

The slaughter of four unarmed rabbis in Jerusalem may trigger something a sea change in terms of Israelis looking to exercise their natural and practical right to keep and bear arms. We shall see. [h/t AP, Pascal]

 

DC Police: Even Female Assault Victims have No Right to Carry Firearms

Emily Miller is the senior editor for the Washington Times Opinion pages. She served as the Deputy Press Secretary at the U.S. State Department for Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. She is the author of 'Emily Gets Her Gun: But Obama Wants to Take Yours' which details her struggle to legally own a handgun Washington D.C.

Emily Miller is the senior editor for the Washington Times Opinion pages. She served as the Deputy Press Secretary at the U.S. State Department for Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. She is the author of 'Emily Gets Her Gun: But Obama Wants to Take Yours' which details her struggle to legally own a handgun Washington D.C.

 Emily Miller, FOX 5 WASHINGTON D.C. -

I am a registered gun owner, but I feel that I'm in more danger on the streets of Washington, D.C. than inside my home. So when D.C. recently passed a new law allowing for some rights to carry a gun outside the home, I decided to apply for a permit. I quickly found that it is still impossible to exercise my Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Until July, Washington, D.C. was the only place in the country did not allow for any right to carry a gun outside the home. A federal district court judge ruled in the Palmer case that the total ban was unconstitutional.

The D.C. attorney general said last week that the city will appeal the ruling. While the issue goes through the courts, the Metropolitan Police Department has started giving out applications, so I went to the firearms registration office to start the process.

Milton Agurs, a civilian police department employee was at the front desk. I told him why I was there.

“You need to meet two criteria,” Agurs explained. “First that your life is in danger, your family or your property, or you have the type of business you carry large sums of money, jewelry. Under those circumstances, you can get a carry permit in DC.”

“To prove my life is in danger?” I asked. “Obviously there is a rising crime rate and a high rate of murders and sexual assaults in D.C. -- is that enough to say I want this for self-defense?”

“You have to prove you need concealed carry as opposed to just wanting one,” he replied.

Prove a need for a constitutional right? That's what D.C.'s new law says.

DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG
The application that Agurs gave me said that living and working in a high crime city is not enough to get a carry permit. I read further down where it says that it has to be “a special danger to your life."

What's the difference between a regular danger -- like getting raped and murdered on the street --- and a special danger? You have to prove you are being targeted.

“Do I have to give evidence?” I asked.

“Yes ma'am,” said Agurs.

“I was a victim of a home invasion. And I've gotten a threat against me. Do I just give the police records?” I asked.

“Yes, ma'am,” he said.

I asked Agurs who will decide whether or not my self-defense needs are special?

That's something the chief of police will do,” he said, referring to Chief Cathy Lanier.  “But you'll have your reasons why you feel like you need it.”

“The chief of police personally will decide whether or not I get a carry permit?” I asked.

“You know it usually works-- it's going to be her or someone on her staff,” he said.

Proving a “need” is just one part of the carry permit application.  You have to do 16 hours of classroom training, plus two hours at the range.

“Where do I go to do that?” I asked Agurs.

“Unfortunately, I think they are still setting up the classes,” he replied.

There's the rub.  The city isn't actually abiding by the court decision. No one can apply for a carry permit because the police haven't certified any trainers for the mandatory classes. That might be partly because D.C. charges trainers $400 to be certified.

In contrast, Virginia accepts any class that is certified by the NRA. And there's no minimum time requirement for training.

So I asked Agurs:  "The Second Amendment right to bear arms just doesn't fully apply here?"

"I believe when the Second Amendment was written, that was more or less for when the British were coming."

When the British were coming? The Bill of Rights is no longer relevant?

Well, I spoke with Alan Gura, the lawyer for the plaintiffs in the Palmer case. He said that the city's new carry permit law is unconstitutional and does not adhere to the court ruling. Gura has filed a request for a permanent injunction, which a district court judge will hear on Nov. 20.

So I can't go any further in the application process until the police certify someone to teach the 18 hours of classes. The police gun registration office told me to keep calling to find out when that happens.

Gun Culture 2.0

AAC

Rachel Aust, Welder/Machinist/Gunsmith for Advanced Armament Corp. at Shot Show

Richard L. Johnson

The gun community has forever changed.  Once in a supposed slow decline, the popularity of shooting and gun ownership has come roaring back during the past couple of decades.  Sales of firearms are setting all kinds of records, and gun ranges are frequently packed with people.

Michael Bane calls the latest generation of gun owners “Gun Culture 2.0,” which I find to be an exceptionally apt description.  Much like the move from the “old” internet, to the current generation of interactive and social web sites was called “Web 2.0,” the Gun Culture 2.0 is a similarly remarkable change in our own community.

But the new generation of gun owners no longer fit the old-school sportsmen look of yesteryear.  The new generation of gun owners are fiercely independent, yet socially active – especially in the online space.  The new generation comes from urban centers as well as middle America.  New gun owners are of all genders, colors, creeds and social strata.  They are not Elmer Fudd.

Unlike the reserved approach to politics that the traditional firearms lobby has taken, the new generation is outspoken, unashamed and willing to fight for what they believe.  They are educated on the origins of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right to be free.  They do not advocate for the Second Amendment as a right to hunt, rather they perceive it as a guaranteed ability to resist an oppressive government.

But, why the shift?  There are a variety of reasons, but I contend the internet is the primary reason for the revolution in the gun culture.

No single material thing is likely to have had a greater impact on humanity than the internet.  The internet, and more specifically, the world wide web, has allowed people to communicate around the country and all over the world with virtually no interference from the government.  Being able to come together and share ideas about politics, self defense and recreational shooting has helped cause a surge in new gun ownership – especially by people who have never been exposed to the “traditional” methods of introduction into our community.

Instead of the image of the white male father dressed in flannel taking his son off to the woods for the traditional deer hunt, the new image of gun ownership is much broader and more diverse.  The members of the 2.0 gun culture are more likely to own an AR15  with a suppressor than a Winchester Model 70.  And, you can rest assured that a new gen gun owner is likely to be carrying a Glock or KelTec when you run into them at the local coffee shop.

In today’s gun culture, there are many more women, a broader mix of races and a wider range of backgrounds.  Instead of being a clean cut poster child of the 1950’s many gun owners are bikers or body art enthusiasts covered with tattoos.  Others are fashion conscious while others still are computer nerds.  Members of the new gun generation range in age from teens to retirees.

The point is, our culture has changed.  And, it has changed for the better.  We attract all kinds of people into the gun world because all of the lies about us are easily disproven now that the mass media no longer has control over what people know.  The internet has allowed the truth about firearms to get out.

How the industry will respond to the culture shift remains to be seen.  Some companies, like Advanced Armament Corporation (AAC), have fully embraced the new paradigm.  As a result, they have gained the confidence of many members of the gun culture and have played a role in shaping the future.

AAC, for example, is a manufacturer of silencers.  Some 20 years ago, silencers were considered the tools of assassins and criminals.  Through the educational work of AAC and others like them, perspective on sound suppressors has radically changed, and they are far more common on the range today than they ever have been in the past.  Without embracing Gun Culture 2.0, the upswing in acceptance of silencers would never have taken place.

Others, however, have not made any moves to change with the times.  I fear that some of those companies will not survive.  I overheard two executives from a major firearms company discussing the internet culture in the airport after the SHOT Show this year.  It was obvious they had no idea how to approach the new crop of gun owners so they were trying to convince themselves that they didn’t matter.  I wonder if those two used to sell typewriters or pagers?

The gun culture has changed.  If you are from the old guard, reach out to the new shooters every chance you get.  They are a powerful force that can help safeguard all of our freedoms going forward.

(original post at HumanEvents.com)

Open Carry Book for Children is #1 Bestseller on Amazon.com

My Parents Open Carry, a book authored by founding members of Michigan Open Carry and Michigan Carry, has become a number one bestseller on Amazon.com proving once again that the true majority of Americans overwhelmingly oppose gun control despite earnest attempts by groups like Moms Demand Action to portray Americans as helpless hoplophobes in need of an ever-expanding nanny state.

The book's website explains:

"My Parents Open Carry was written in the hope of providing a basic overview of the right to keep and bear arms as well as the growing practice of the open carry of a handgun. We fear our children are being raised with a biased view of our constitution and especially in regards to the 2nd Amendment."

In contrast to the statist myth that people are afraid of guns, the authors express a very real and justified fear resulting from the literal "brainwashing campaign" by Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson and others to convince people that owning a gun is "...not cool, that it's not acceptable."
"We have to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way." - US Attorney General Eric Holder

"We have to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."                                                       - US Attorney General Eric Holder

In a 1995 speech by Eric Holder that was aired on C-SPAN, the Obama regime's Attorney General deviously fantasized about devolving the American mind so that the natural right of self-defense would be as shameful as the self-detrimental habit of smoking. Holder explained: "over time, we changed the way that people thought about smoking, so now we have people who cower outside of buildings and kind of smoke in private and don’t want to admit it.”
Reflecting the true nature and traditions of American culture; the authors of My Parents Open Carry, Brian Jeffs and Nathan Nephew, took it upon themselves to address a neglected need thereby working to protect the rights of all Americans, regardless of whether or not they support human rights in regards to self-defense.

"Before writing this, we looked for pro-gun children's books and couldn't find any. Our goal was to provide a wholesome family book that reflects the views of the majority of the American people, i.e., that self-defense is a basic natural right and that firearms provide the most efficient means for that defense. We truly hope you will enjoy this book and read and discuss it with your children over and over again."

My Parents Open Carry is sold on Amazon.com for only $10.76 and is eligible for free shipping; evidence that the authors are motivated by a love for Liberty, not cashing in on the media frenzy surrounding the open carry issue. Bulk discounts are also available through the publisher, White Feather Press, LLC.
Even for families that are pro-gun, owning multiple copies of this important book is worth considering. While the book undoubtedly makes an excellent gift for nieces and nephews growing up in "progressive" households; too often parents passively assume that their values will be absorbed by their offspring instead of actively teaching the importance of, and reasons for, traditional values.

Today's children are increasingly likely to become adults that are diametrically opposed to the  Renaissance ideals that propelled Western civilization to the heights of human development. This is of course due in large part to the concerted effort by Globalists like Eric Holder that have permeated every facet of civilization.
In 2008 Professor of Advanced Constitutional Law at Denver University, David Kopel, addressed this threat in a piece entitled The Human Right of Self-Defense.  

"The United Nations Human Rights Council has declared that there is no human right to self-defense. Moreover, the Council has ordered all governments to enact very restrictive gun laws (more severe than those of Washington, D.C., or New York City, for example), and has declared that failure to enact such laws constitutes a human rights violation. Further, the HRC states that it is a human rights violation for a government to allow a person to use a firearm in self-defense against a rapist or other criminal who is not attempting homicide."

-  David Kopel, The Human Right of Self Defense

Let that sink in for a moment...
"This can only be achieved through  the progressive strengthening of international institu-  tions under the United Nations and by creating a  United Nations Peace Force to enforce the peace as  the disarmament process proceeds."        -Freedom From War, US State Department 1961

"This can only be achieved through
the progressive strengthening of international institutions under the United Nations and by creating a United Nations Peace Force to enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds."    - Freedom From War, US State Department 1961

The United Nations has declared that you have no right to self defense! To accept this edict means that even the provisional allowance of firearms use in order to prevent homicide is nothing more than a privilege granted by our self-appointed overlords! This 'privilege' would certainly be revoked should we allow the US State Department to fully implement Freedom From War, the 1961 plan for "General and Complete Disarmament".
This plan is publicly available on the Library of Congress website and reveals that the State Department has been working with the UN to render the world's population defenseless for more than half a century.
When John Kerry signed the infamous UN Arms Trade Treaty last year, the state media insisted that it was only a harmless piece non-binding, feel good philosophizing on the part of global orchestrators. However, that will change ninety days after the ATT has been ratified by 50 countries making it a binding and enforceable treaty. On June 4th of last year the UN gloated that eight more countries had signed on bringing the number to 40, only 10 short of the number necessary to begin disarmament of the world's population, forcibly if necessary.
The enemies of Freedom and Liberty are monolithic, tireless and unyielding. In contrast, the Liberty Movement has for too long stagnated; crippled by infighting, a lack of mutual support and laziness. We can no longer be contented by complaining and playing at armchair politics. We face a very real effort to literally enslave our own children that will succeed if we do not overcome our apathy, ignorance and laziness. For less than the cost of a fast-food meal one could purchase a copy of My Parents Open Carry and use it as a tool to strengthen mankind's defenses against tyranny.

Isn't that the least we could do?

 - James Franklin is an activist and writer whose work focuses on issues of liberty, human rights and government accountability. His work has been read by millions online at The Examiner, Freedom Outpost, Intellihub, The Daily Sheeple, Gun Owners of America, The Daily Paul, DontComply.com, Come and Take It America and many other sites. He is a husband, a father of three boys and a native Texan. He works as an electronics specialist in the West Texas oil fields, as Regional Director for Come and Take It Texas and as a contributor for DontComply.com. Follow him on Twitter @mailboxuno.

Federal Judge Rules Aurora Victims Were ‘Sitting Ducks’

In a move that could signal a positive change in movie theater policies regarding a patron's right to self-defense, a Federal Judge has ruled that Cinemark Theaters in Aurora, Colorado should have had more security measures in place prior to the July, 2012 massacre. Obviously one of the most basic security allowances that Cinemark could implement would be allowing customers to be armed on the premises in accordance with state law.

A 2009 Federal Court ruling condemned Alamogordo, NM police officers that forcibly disarmed a moviegoer that was openly carrying a firearm in accordance with state law. [click for article]

A 2009 Federal Court ruling condemned Alamogordo, NM police officers that forcibly disarmed a moviegoer that was openly carrying a firearm in accordance with state law. [click for article]

U.S. District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson's ...ruling does not decide the lawsuits' ultimate question: Did Cinemark do enough to try to prevent the shooting? The lawsuits argue Cinemark should have had extra security measures in place to discourage the attack and to stop it more quickly once it began.

Instead, Jackson's ruling denies what is known as a "motion for summary judgment" filed by Cinemark. Similar to a previously denied motion, the theater chain had argued that the lawsuits should be dismissed because the attack was "legally unforeseeable."

The trial is set for February.

[h/t] - Denver Post

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

CATI-Austin to Feed and Clothe the Homeless

CATI Austin, a community oriented, civil rights group focused on personal protection and self-defense will hold an event on May 31st to benefit the less fortunate in their local community.   aj redo pic

The Austin chapter of Come and Take It Texas is one of the nearly forty chapters across the state that is involved in organizing events designed to uplift the community.

Last year CATI Dallas partnered with DontComply.com in a similar event to feed the homeless.

The group provided over 300 fresh, hand prepared meals using both local produce and locally harvested game.

This month, C.A.T.I. Austin seeks to mirror that event and improve upon it by also distributing donated clothing and hygiene products.

Members of Come and Take It Texas say that they find it “incredibly fulfilling” to address these urgent needs that have become so common in today’s financial climate.

They’re also “especially proud” to be serving the many US military veterans that find themselves without any community support after they leave the service.

CATI Austin member Tom Jefferson stated: “We understand this is just one meal and a few items of clothes right now, but we hope to show the many in need that we have not forgotten about them.”

Come and Take It Texas is an entirely self-funded grassroots organization.

Their philosophy is inspired by civil rights heroes such as Rosa Parks who demonstrated the world changing power that one individual can wield when focused on societal evolution. They are quick to point out however that real change only occurs when others join in the effort.

Come and Take It Texas hopes that their projects inspire others to seek out a local chapter and help preserve the Texas traditions of responsibility and independence that are so crucial in maintaining a self-sustaining community.

Visit the event page here and volunteer to help!

“Be the change you wish to see” – attributed to Mahatma Gandhi