ICarry.org  
 • Home • Downloads • Your Account • Forums • 
Navigation
Site Info v2.2.2
Last SeenLast Seen
Server TrafficServer Traffic
  • Total: 44,091,547
  • Today: 13,322
Server InfoServer Info
  • Sep 02, 2014
  • 11:33 pm CDT
 

ICarry.org: ICarry.org



Search on This Topic:   
[ Go to Home | Select a New Topic ]


Page 1 of 7 (105 total stories) [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | > | >> ]  

ICarry.org

Mayor Bloomberg - the billionaire elitist protected by round-the-clock, taxpayer-funded, heavily-armed security, continues his one-madman crusade against private gun ownership.  In his view, guns should only be in the hands of a very select group - "government" and its political allies of the day.  This has been the favored view of dictators since...forever...and for good reason.  When those select few in power are armed, equipped, and trained in the use of weapons, and the many who are under their rule are not, it helps quell opposition a bit!  Violence is always the method employed to keep those who are governed NOT by consent under your thumb.

The use of violence and the chilling fear it creates must be carefully balanced.  Use too much, and resentment and opposition build.  Use too little, and people tend to do what they naturally do - lead peaceful, free, and productive lives.  Since your goal as a ruthless tyrant is to suck as much positive energy - life force, freedom - from your subjects as possible, you have to keep the laws, taxes, and the violence that back them cranked to the max at all times.  You're looking for that seemingly precarious yet remarkably sustainable point just before rebellion.  All you have to do at this point is keep perpetuating the corruption, taxation, laws, crime, and violence and unrest.  Did I mention violence?  You HAVE to make sure you use violence.  As ruler, your laws must be obeyed.  It doesn't matter if your laws prohibit perfectly peaceful behavior.

Traveling freely, owning land, voluntarily trading goods and services with others, and spending their time and money how your subjects want are examples of things you must regulate with violence.  Yes, you must actually INTRODUCE violence into situations where none existed before.  This is Tyranny 101 stuff.  For example, if your subjects are allowed to travel around when and where they want freely, without the ability to check and make sure they aren't on the black-bag (read "warrant") list, you've got a big problem.  That's right, your minions must be able to stop and check all subjects against your databases at all times.  This also helps with compliance to your countless edicts.  No matter how petty the violation, just issue a warrant to blag bag the dissident.  That threat of violence - handcuffing, stuffing, jailing - will keep the revenue streaming in.

Another example is private ownership of land.  Luckily this idea has been successfully re-engineered so that true ownership of land no longer exists in the minds of men and women.  Everyone accepts that they must pay "taxes" on the land they "own" and even accepts that "their" land will be taken away if they don't pay!  Just be sure you are always swift and violent at making good on that threat.  Private ownership of land, the old-fashioned meaning where if one owns something he/she doesn't have to pay another for its use, would be your certain downfall!  Taxes are a great way to introduce violence where none existed.  The masses won't grasp the idea that if a man or woman consents to being governed, he or she will freely pay or contribute to it.  Like any other good or service offered, one pays for it if it seems to benefit them.  They'll even pay on an ongoing basis, totally voluntarily!  Examples: utilities, groceries, optional insurance like life insurance, and many more.

Since your subjects don't really consent, even though you must always "remind" them that they "really do" because they "get to vote" for some of your puppets, the fees (taxes) you charge for your services cannot be voluntary.  Oh no - yours gotta have that understanding of an "or else" behind them.  Like any good "protection" racket, always remind them that you're offering an essential service, the price of which won't completely and utterly ruin them, be buddy-buddy with them and always give them a little hope for a better future, but make sure in the back of their minds they know the penalty for saying "no" to you and your goons.  Sometimes you gotta negotiate, offer a lower payment or lessened penalties for people here and there, but don't forget to crack enough skulls too!  The most important skulls to crack are people who question the entire scheme or refuse to participate.

It may seem like we got off on a tangent here, so let's clarify where this ties into violence and arms control.  The greater the disparity between your arms and capacity for violence and your subjects', the greater the violence you can employ!  The greater the violence - the greater the control and shaping of your subjects' lives, psychology, and most importantly the greater your control over the physical world.  The world/earth is supposed to be yours, after all, and don't ever forget it.  You were born to lead, chosen by God to rule, and yours is the one true vision of the future.  Your name will go down in history among the great rulers of the past, and your lineage will certainly carry on your majestic legacy.  Your rule could even be a landmark in the evolution of human perception, where the understanding of freedom and despotism change yet again.

Delectable, isn't it!?

Maybe now you can see how essential arms control is for any modern kingdom.  Visionaries like Mayor Bloomberg, who sit atop thrones of violence, will never stop convincing their idiot subjects to relinguish their arms, in favor of a system of ever-increasing armament of the select few.  (Advertisement: Does your local sector "law enforcement" need a war tank? Apply for a free MRAP today!)  You know you've really "arrived" as a leader when you were so successfully violent, sociopathic, murderous, a deceptive that future generations look back at you with disdain and disgust while simultaneously expanding upon your every method!  You gotta hand it to guys like Hitler - how impressive they were (and let's all admit - their uniforms were so snazzy!) - that so many movies and video games and references have been made by generations that embrace centralized rule by violence, propaganda, espionage, deception, global wars and imperialism, secret courts, pivotal false flags, experimentation, and all the other necessary and fun aspects of mandatory rule by force.

So remind them often that they're free, that their government by "consent" is still the best in the world, and all should be well.  Well, so long as what they see and hear can be neatly placed into the narrative created for them.  If the individual actions of violence that support oppression and mandatory rule by force are seen for what they really are - violence - the house of cards will come falling down.

One of Mayor Bloomberg's current activities is to try to get Target to discriminate against gun owners by banning gun owners from their stores.  Let's call Target and let them very politely and respectfully know the following:

  1. Thank You! for following and deferring to state law when it comes to firearms.
  2. Thank You! for respecting me and other gun owners and not discriminating against us.
  3. We are sorry Mayor Bloomberg is pressuring them to adopt an extreme agenda of discrimination against gun owners.
  4. We will continue to enjoy doing business with Target so long as target continues its present policy of NOT discriminating against lawful activity and responsible adults.

Call: 1-800-440-0680

Email: guest.relations@target.com

Posted by ShaunKranish on Friday, June 20, 2014 @ 15:05:56 CDT (615 reads)

ICarry.org

Original Article Here

by Greg Bishop

So, aside from training for the Lincoln Presidential Half-Marathon, I'm also finishing several big projects and trying to read through Carroll Quigley's 1300 page book Tragedy & Hope.

Who is Carol Quigley you may ask? Well, he's only a very influential historian who mentored people like Bill Clinton, that's all.


 

In his book, which takes the reader through an incredibly complex and multidimensional and interdisciplinary narrative of world and human history, he addresses weapons and the trends of who controls the weapons, controls the power.

I thought that with the conversation of late surrounding firearms in this country and Americans rights to keep and bear arms, it would be important to point out the true understanding of the elite central planners.

In his book, which you can read online here, Quigley says in the section "The Organization of Power:"

    "By the 'organization of power' in a society we mean the ways in which obedience and consent or acquiescence)are obtained. The close relationships between levels can be seen from the fact that there are three basic ways to win obedience: by force, by buying consent with wealth, and by persuasion.

    "When weapons are cheap to get and so easy to use that almost anyone can use them after a short period of training, armies are generally made up of large masses of amateur soldiers. Such weapons we call "amateur weapons," and such armies we might call "mass armies of citizen-soldiers."

So when weapons are readily available the military power lies in the hands of the citizen-soldier. OK.

    "[But when] weapons were expensive and required long training in their use. Such weapons we call 'specialist' weapons. Periods of specialist weapons are generally periods of small armies of professional soldiers (usually mercenaries). In a period of specialist weapons the minority who have such weapons can usually force the majority who lack them to obey; thus a period of specialist weapons tends to give rise to a period of minority rule and authoritarian government."

Right now there is a movement in this country by some people to label semi-automatic rifles "specialist" weapons by using the term "military grade" or even labeling them "assault" weapons.

The guns being targeted by legislators are firearms that takes one trigger-pull per round fired.  They are not high-powered fully automatic machine guns that allow multiple rounds per one trigger pull.  Those types of weapons are already banned.

Also something to note here ... think about the firepower that local police are increasingly being allowed to obtain. They include battering ram truck-tanks and other more sophisticated and truly "specialist" weapons.  Can we say sound weapons like the LRAD?

Say hello to authoritarian government, ladies and gentlemen!

Let's continue, shall we?

    "[A] period of amateur [as compared to the before mentioned 'specialist'] weapons is a period in which all men are roughly equal in military power, a majority can compel a minority to yield, and majority rule or even democratic government tends to rise."

That right there is a kill-shot, sniper-bullet right through the temple of tyranny. Let's read that one more time.

    "a period in which all men are roughly equal in military power, a majority can compel a minority to yield, and majority rule or even democratic government tends to rise."

Now, unfortunately, Quigley finishes up this short section of a massively long book on world history by saying the 20th century is the rise of authoritarian government because of things like the atom bomb and such. 

But for a thought exercise, let's imagine this on a much smaller scale.



Think about the government around you in your everyday life ... are they amassing more "specialist" weapons while trying redefine "amateur" weapons and tell you they should be banned?

The Second Amendment is not about hunting and it's not about skeet-shooting. Limiting and defining what arms the commoner can have versus what the state (government) can amass with the serf's tax dollars to use against the commoner to "enforce" law is tyranny.

Wake up and smell the authoritarianism and educate others about the real reason for gun control. It has nothing to do with saving lives.  It is all about control.

Posted by ShaunKranish on Friday, February 01, 2013 @ 08:41:28 CST (3713 reads)

ICarry.org

Federal firearms "laws" have been enacted over the years and have nearly abolished the right to keep and bear arms.  The original intent of the 2nd Amendment, which is to ensure that the citizens always maintain power over their own government, as well as be able to fight off any invasion by a foreign enemy (as every able bodied man or woman is a member of the militia).  As such, we are to be able to bear arms the likes of which the average military soldier would carry.  Yes, that DOES include fully automatic firearms as well as other devices.  However, over the years these have been slowly and methodically chipped away.  It has been done on purpose, and has been well designed.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate firearms at all though.  That would have to be left up to the states, because the constitution nowhere delegates this authority.

Thanks to www.OriginalIntent.org - we have a very thorough explanation of the fraud at how they've done this.  The good news is that you will see even the US Code shows they have no authority.  So now it is a matter of stopping the enforcement against peaceful gun owners.

Click here for PDF file

Share this information on Facebook and with every pro-gun organization in the country.  Everyone should know this!!!

The Federal Firearms Act

Where does the federal government get its Constitutional authority to enact laws such as the National Firearms Act, which has been codified to Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code? Upon whom are such laws operative, and where? Since a careful reading of the Constitution reveals that the federal government has no specifically delegated authority to regulate firearms, from where does the federal government's authority to regulate firearms come?

One would think with the high number of Americans supporting the right to keep and bear arms, this question is one that would be of some concern. We've never heard the question asked. One would think that the firearms industry would ask such a question if for no other reason than that they will surely be an industry of the past if anti-gun legislation continues to propagate. In other words, without a solution, the firearms industry as we know it today will cease to exist.

Over the last 30 years or so, laws concerning firearms have become a matter of "public policy", with no regard for the Constitutional elements involved. Why aren't more Americans challenging federal gun laws? We believe it is because The People of this great nation have an innate understanding that the federal judiciary is corrupt and will not honor the Constitution when required to do so.

We also believe that Americans are not willing to challenge federal firearms laws because over the last 40 years or so, laws have been written in an ever-increasingly deceptive manner. Even laws that were clear when originally enacted have been amended over the last 40 years to remove the specificity of the law and render them more vague, and more prone to "flexible" interpretations by "cooperative" judges. Ironically, this has been done under the guise of making these laws more clear! As many laws stand today, the average American cannot understand them and attorneys generally will not explain the true meaning, lest they lose their monopolistic advantage over the machinery of the legal system.

 

The Federal Firearms Act (as amended)
(18 USC, Chapter 44)

Try as you might to find the title, "Federal Firearms Act" associated with 18 USC, chapter 44, you will not. Why then do we refer to it as such here? Many of the provisions that are currently codified to Title 18, chapter 44, were not originally codified there.

The Federal Firearms Act was enacted in 1938 and it was originally codified to Title 15. So what is Title 15? It is entitled "Commerce and Trade". Do you remember that little discussion about creating vagueness where none originally existed? Well here is a stunning example. From 1938 until 1968, the Federal Firearms Act was within Title 15. That's 30 years folks! Despite the law operating just fine for 30 years, someone deemed it no longer proper to have the law contained within Title 15. Want to guess why? That's right - the government's jurisdictional limits were far too easy to ascertain when the law was within the "Commerce and Trade" title. If it wasn't moving in interstate or foreign commerce, then the US didn't have jurisdiction over it! However, by moving the Act to Title 18, and thus disconnecting the Act from the Title of "Commerce and Trade", there are few clues left to the law's original intent and its Constitutional limitations.

Despite the fact that chapter 44 of Title 18 has been amended many times, (most notably by the Gun Control Act of 1968) it is still essentially the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 [ch. 850, 52 Stat. 1252].

Having said all this, there is an interesting element to Chapter 44 and its interstate commerce authority that you should know about.

There are two different definitions for interstate and foreign commerce in Title 18. The first is found in §10 of the Title and is the definition that is generally applicable through the entire Title, unless re-defined for a specific chapter or section of the Title.

 

18 USC §10:
The term ''interstate commerce'', as used in this title, includes commerce between one State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and another State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia. The term ''foreign commerce'', as used in this title, includes commerce with a foreign country.

This is a pretty clear definition - and it will get clearer as this article proceeds!

Interestingly, "interstate commerce" and "foreign commerce" are redefined just for chapter 44. For use within chapter 44, they are no longer two separate items, but have been combined into one legal term, to wit:

 

18 USC §921(2)
The term ''interstate or foreign commerce'' includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term ''State'' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).
[emphasis and underlining added]

You should recognize that as a legal term, the phrase "interstate or foreign commerce" does not mean what logic might tell you it means. You must remember that it means only what Congress says it means and nothing more!

We have had to ask ourselves why the general definition provided in §10 was inadequate for use within chapter 44. If §10 was a good enough definition for all of Title 18 generally, why is it not adequate for chapter 44?

The only distinction we find is in the use of the words "...any place in a State...". Why is that change so essential? Why go through the hassle of altering the definition just to add two little words? On the surface it doesn't seem to make sense - or does it? Maybe we should ask what "place within a State" might the definition be referring to, and why would that distinction be important? Let's explore!

Title 18, §13 is a general provision section (which means it is operative throughout the Title) and is entitled "Laws of States adopted for areas within Federal jurisdiction". What does that title mean? One of the things it means is that there is "State jurisdiction" and there is "federal jurisdiction", and the two are not the same.

Before we explore §13 any further, we need to take a brief side trip and look at §7. We need to do this because §7 is specifically referred to in §13, and we'll get lost if we don't understand exactly what is being referred to in §7.

Section 7 defines the "Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States". Although the definition is a bit long and wordy, here is the essential part in reference to what we are discussing in this article:

 

 

18 USC §7(3):
Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.

 

The basic meaning of that definition is any location that is not under State sovereignty, but solely under federal sovereignty, or otherwise within federal jurisdiction. It must be remembered that such federal "places" exist within the states of the Union.

One should take note of the common language, and common meaning, between 18 USC §7, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution:

 

 

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same [federal place] shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings

 

Now that you can clearly see where §7 is taking us, let's go back to §13; specifically, subsection (a).

[Editor's Note: We've removed some of the excessive wordiness from §13(a) that might tend to confuse the meaning for the first-time reader.]

 

18 USC §13(a):
Whoever within...any places...provided in section 7 of this title...not within the jurisdiction of any State...is guilty of any act or omission which, although not made punishable by any enactment of Congress, would be punishable if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State...in which such place is situated...

Ah ha! Did you get that? Ladies and gentlemen, §13 (in conjunction with §7) defines the "places" that are referred to in the definition of "interstate or foreign commerce" at §921(2). The places made mention of in §921(2) are the "places...provided in section 7 of this title", which of course we now know are federal lands (and waterways) that are not within the jurisdiction of the State, but are within the geographical boundaries of the State!

Now let's do a little of our own alteration to §921(2). Let's add the specificity that the legislative draftsmen intentionally left out when they wrote the definition of "interstate and foreign commerce" (at §921(2)). Our "clarified" version reads like this:

The term ''interstate or foreign commerce'' includes commerce between any area of land under federal jurisdiction that is within a State and any area of land under federal jurisdiction that is outside that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia.

Boy, that sure changes the meaning that you had of §921(2) about 10 minutes ago, doesn't it? Also, please note that after the part of the definition that addresses "States" is complete, it goes on to define other federal areas. In that portion, "interstate or foreign commerce" means commerce [solely] within any possession of the United States or within the District of Columbia! My, my, my. Congress sure defines terms to mean whatever the hell Congress wants them to mean!

Are you getting the picture? Every "place" being referred to in §921(2) is a place within a State, or outside a State, that is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution. And the "interstate and foreign commerce" being described at §921(2), is a limited form that operates only between such "places". For the purposes of chapter 44, Congress has even defined "State" as "the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States". In short, it's all territorial.

The definition of "interstate or foreign commerce", at 921(2), is only a "red herring" placed there by the legislative draftsmen to make you think the authority is nation-wide and all-pervasive under the US Constitution's interstate commerce clause. In point of fact, certain sections of chapter 44, such as 922(o)(1), which makes the mere possession of a machine gun a crime, can only be territorial in nature because Congress has no authority to define any act that takes place within a state of the Union as a crime (except such acts as take place against federal property or persons). The federal government cannot define a crime that would take place within a state of the Union because the US has no police powers in a state of the Union.

Now do you see why it was so important that chapter 44 not use the general definition of "interstate commerce" provided at §10? Two little words - "any place" - needed to be added if the law was to pass Constitutional scrutiny.

If one reads the "Congressional Findings and Declarations" in the notes for §921, one finds that Congress enacted the Federal Firearms Act, and its various amendments, in order to [ostensibly] assist the States in controlling crime. Well guess what? The Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority to assist the States of the Union in combating crime. The federal government may regulate interstate commerce; it can define crimes that may take place upon federal property; and it can exercise police powers within places that are embraced by the "exclusive legislative control" clause, but it may not do any of that upon land that is under the sovereignty of a state of the Union.

Congress is free to make any asinine statement it wants about its "intentions" or its "goals", but the text of the laws it enacts must still adhere to the limits of federal power imposed by US Constitution.

 

Laws No Longer Printed

You should also be made aware that the historical notes reveal there have been some significant items that were "omitted" when the statutes were transferred from Title 15 to Title 18. It should be noted that there is no legal definition for the word "omit"; therefore it can only be defined by a standard English dictionary. The first definition that appears in Webster's II New Revised University Dictionary (1994) is, "Left out". When a section or portion of a statute is "omitted" it is exactly as Webster has stated - it is merely left out. The section or portion has not been repealed; it is still in full effect - it simply isn't printed in the United States Code any more!

[Editor Note - The original language, in its entirety, can still be found in the original Statute-at-Large. See "What is the United States Code" for more on the Statutes-at-Large.]

So what are these sections that have been left out? The most interesting items left out in 1968 were subsections (f) and (i) of then section 902 (Title 15), which speaks of the rule of "presumption from possession". While we've not looked up the old section 902, our experience with such statutory "presumptions" tells us that the section likely raised a rebuttable presumption that if you were found with any firearm, suppressor, etc., that is defined in [the current] chapter 44, you acquired it through an act of "interstate or foreign commerce". Of course for a presumption to be rebutted, the accused would have to know that the US Attorney's Office and the United States District Court were functioning under a statutorily created presumption to begin with. Needless to say, that's a bit difficult when the law isn't printed in the Code any more!

The other omitted items are subsections (b) and (c) of former section 902 which prohibits, "receipt with knowledge...that the transportation or shipment was to a person without a license where State laws require prospective purchaser to exhibit a license to licensed manufacturer or dealer, respectively." You've got to love what these guys choose to keep hidden from you!

 

Summary

Hopefully this article has helped you to understand the sophistry used when the legislative draftsmen wrote the text that now appears as chapter 44 of Title 18. Hopefully, this will assist Americans in not being wrongfully prosecuted for crimes they've never committed and hopefully this document will somehow get to the firearms industry, since it is the key to freeing that industry from the stranglehold of "public policy" law that will eventually take the industry's life, and with it the American Citizen's access to at least one form of arms.

Let's review what we've covered:

 

  1. Title 18 of the United States Code (USC), chapter 44, has its foundation as the Federal Firearms Act.
  2. The Federal Firearms Act was enacted in 1938 and was originally codified to Title 15, "Commerce and Trade".
  3. In 1968, most of the Federal Firearms Act was repealed and reenacted in Title 18.
  4. Certain elements of the Federal Firearms Act were never repealed, but are no longer printed in the USC. [This is why one must always read the actual Act of Congress to see what they're really up to.]
  5. Since 1968, chapter 44 has been amended numerous times, usually under the disingenuous rationale of securing the rights of law abiding gun owners!
  6. The foundation of the federal government's authority in chapter 44 is territorial, i.e., Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution.
  7. Chapter 44 does contain a certain limited form of commerce authority, but it only controls commerce between federal places within States, or commerce within a federal possession, or the District of Columbia.
  8. The definition of "interstate and foreign commerce" at §921(2) does not refer to the government's Constitutional authority to regulate commerce between the states of the Union. It is a territorial based power that relies on the federal government's police powers, which exist only within those places that are subject to the exclusive legislative authority of Congress.
  9. The "declarations" or "findings" that Congress may issue have absolutely no bearing upon the words of an Act Congress passes. Such declarations and findings may contain any manner of outrageous lies or distortions, but the language of the laws that Congress passes must still adhere to the Constitution.

 

If you have found this item to be informative, please send this URL to a friend, associate, or family member. http://www.originalintent.org/edu/chapter44.php

Posted by ShaunKranish on Monday, January 28, 2013 @ 21:03:35 CST (3892 reads)

ICarry.org
The Rockford Tea Party is hosting an open carry event at the Bullet Stop Gun Shop in Loves Park, IL. Sunday June 17th 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM.

I believe this will be the THIRD open carry event in Illinois history. So I'm excited about that. And I don't even have to travel very far (10 minutes ) to attend!!! Very cool indeed!!! I know the owner of the Bullet Stop personally, and I've spoken to the police chief of loves park in the past, so anyone interested in coming does not need to worry about arrests or anything else. The last time, when ICarry.org had Illinois' first open carry event at the Bullet Stop, the only cop I saw there was a guy that came in the morning to get work done on his AR. Other than that we had like 75 people open carry that day and no police presence even. So come out, I'm sure there will be food there or something, and have a good time with the family.

Here is the facebook event: http://www.facebook.com/events/447494098610914
Here is the event description from facebook:

Second Annual True Grit event will also be an Open Carry Event with Bullet Stop Gun Shop and the Rockford Tea Party together again hosting a 2nd amendment Rally on Sunday, June 17th from 2-4 pm at 2100 Harlem Road in Loves Park.

At this event we will have a petition to sign that seeks County Board Approval to pass a Conceal Carry Ordinance Locally. The last time it came up for a vote was in 2008, and it was defeated by the majority Democrats and RINO's. This time we have the advantage of seeking a vote on this before the November Elections so that every elected County Board member to include the Chairman will have to cast a vote that will give us all a clear view of where they stand on our God given rights to keep and bear arms. We hope you will attend and sign this very important petition.

Constitution of the State of Illinois
ARTICLE I
BILL OF RIGHTS

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This will be an exciting event with the Bullet Stop Gun Shop standing up and defending our Rights Given by God to keep and bear arms.
Posted by ShaunKranish on Thursday, May 24, 2012 @ 23:27:07 CDT (4615 reads)

ICarry.org
We have had a decent quantity of these t-shirts in stock. Since we shut down the store, these shirts have been taking up space and not going anywhere. Now since 49 states (these shirts say 48) have concealed carry, we need to liquidate them.

So, while supplies last, you can get one of our shirts at cost for just $9 including shipping!! That's all - just 9 bucks. Not a penny more.

First come, first serve. Order now and have one of our t-shirts delivered to your door for just $9.

Choose Size Here First!!!
Posted by ShaunKranish on Wednesday, February 08, 2012 @ 20:25:30 CST (3688 reads)

ICarry.org

Original Sun Times Article Here

AUSTIN, Texas — Texas is preparing to give college students and professors the right to carry guns on campus, adding momentum to a national campaign to open this part of society to firearms.

More than half the members of the Texas House have signed on as co-authors of a measure directing universities to allow concealed handguns. The Senate passed a similar bill in 2009 and is expected to do so again. Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who sometimes packs a pistol when he jogs, has said he’s in favor of the idea.

It would become the second state, following Utah, to pass such a law. Supporters argue that gun violence on campuses, such as the shootings at Northern Illinois in 2008, show that the best defense against a gunman is students who can shoot back. AP

Posted by ShaunKranish on Monday, February 21, 2011 @ 12:02:59 CST (6878 reads)

ICarry.org

Our very own Mike Basche was at the Illinois 8th district US Congressional debate being held at Grayslake Centra High (PUBLIC school) tonight - Wednesday Oct 20, 2010.  One of the audience members asked the forum leader if the pledge of allegiance would be said before the forum started, to which the forum leader responded "no, it will not."  Later she said, "I have absolutely nothing FOR or against saying the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of something like this..."  (perhaps this is a real sign of the pride people have in their Republic these days?)

The crowd then takes matters into their own hands and begins reciting the pledge together!!!  You can't find a more moving video than this.  This could very well go viral - indeed it's the kind of video that needs to.

Then Mike was escorted out because he was recording.  Keep in mind this is PUBLIC property and these are PUBLIC officials and PUBLIC figures.  There is absolutely no reason not to let people record.  It's one thing if phones are ringing and disturbing things, it's quite another to simply record.  Recording does not disturb or affect the process at all.  I'm sure incumbent Melissa Bean (soon to be ex-representative of the 8th district) insisted on this.  She knows America is tired of the socialism, the nanny state, the spending, and gun control.

"I have to say that being forced by having audience members stand up in presumably a planned way...seems a bit disrespectful."  The forum leader is so inept and out of tune to think this was staged or say this (does she really believe it?).  Why is the Pledge so offensive?   In the amount of time she spent talking about how the pledge should not have been said, the Pledge could have been said probably three dozen more times!!  Clearly time wasn't the reason...What is going on in this country.

Thank you Mike for capturing this - this is incredible.  The words of the forum leader droning on and on about it are actually quite freaky.  How can you argue with the Pledge of Allegiance?  Everyone wanted to do it - they did - so just move on.  It's very Orwellian to hear her disregard the flag, the pledge to the Republic, and patriotism.  Obviously a lot of people are moved right now to make right the many wrongs those in power have perpetrated on us.  It's showing, and it's powerful!!!!

Posted by ShaunKranish on Wednesday, October 20, 2010 @ 23:21:01 CDT (6370 reads)

ICarry.org

http://www.icarry.org/donate.html

Please use this link to donate to Wisconsin Carry, Inc's efforts in bringing suits against the City of Madison, Madison Police, Police Chief, and anyone else culpable (ICarry is making assumptions as to whom the defendants may be).

This is for the 5 men arrested for open carrying, minding their own business. They were NOT staging anything or trying to get arrested. Some of these men are known to us personally, and we know their intentions were nothing more than to meet with one another, share a meal and conversation, and be able to exercise their fundamental right to bear arms. These open carry meet-ups are happening everywhere, and this one was no different.

Someone called the police to inquire as to whether or not what they were doing (simply openly carrying pistols) is legal. Instead of informing the caller that it is, and asking the caller if anything else seems out of place, Madison PD sent 8 officers there to harass, intimidate, and violate many rights of the citizens.

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. has tried to solve this diplomatically, but Madison Police Chief Noble Wray has simply declared all-out war by charging all 5 men with disorderly conduct, despite the Wisconsin Attorney General stating that open carry is not disorderly conduct and should not be prosecuted!

Separately and privately, to no one else's knowledge, ICarry.org contacted Madison Police Chief Wray. We had a good conversation with him, and tried our best to make progress to deescalate this situation and get the police and law-abiding gun owners back on the same page. Chief Wray failed to mention his decision to charge all 5 men with disorderly conduct. Needless to say, we are very disappointed by this reaction of his, and we look forward to the day in court everyone will have.

We are calling on the entire country - particularly the grassroots gun rights groups like Wisconsin Carry and ICarry.org who really make the difference these days for support in this. Wisconsin is a most pivotal piece in the countrywide Right to Carry movement. Wisconsin is one of only 2 states left with completely concealed carry prohibition. As such, Open Carry has grown into a sensational movement unlike anywhere else in the nation.

All attempts will be made to transform Wisconsin into a state where law-abiding can choose which method to carry - open or concealed - based on what suits their needs and personal preferences. All attempts will be made to see this choice be a real right - no permit or license required - like Alaska, Vermont, and now Arizona.

Wisconsin can go from red to green on the Right to Carry map in one sure step after the upcoming election.

ICarry.org has witnessed countless open carry events - picnics, litter pickups, food drives, rallies, and simple casual get-togethers. These events are very spontaneous - anyone can decide to start one somewhere and people from nearby show up. Through these events, patriotic supporters of the right to bear arms have gotten to know one another, shared personal experiences, shared knowledge and education, comradery, and hopes.

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. has taken the lead to promote the safe and lawful exercise of rights for self-defense, educating the public, and staunch defense of open carry in Wisconsin. Through numerous lawsuits challenging things like the unconstitutional "gun-free school zones" relic law in Wisconsin, to blatant violations of an individual's rights, they have proven themselves to be an organization of action - not of words or politics.

ICarry.org considers Wisconsin Carry, Inc. to be one of the finest firearms rights organizations in the country. We consider ourselves blessed to work in the same state as them, assist them when possible, and simply share the Wisconsin Open Carry experience with them.

Please help us take the Wisconsin example beyond the border to the many states that need carry law reform. The right to carry is sweeping the nation, and the adamant defense of that right by organizations like Wisconsin Carry is creating the possibility for countrywide recognition of the fundamental right of peaceable citizens to bear arms - no questions asked.

Please help ICarry.org raise $5,000 for Wisconsin Carry's lawsuit and injunction against the City of Madison today. It will make a difference for all states!

http://www.icarry.org/donate.html

(You can view the live, to-the-second status of the fundraiser on the left side of the ICarry.org homepage. You can list your name if you create an account, or choose to be anonymous if you donate!)

Posted by ShaunKranish on Friday, September 24, 2010 @ 00:06:09 CDT (6188 reads)

ICarry.org
Posted by ShaunKranish on Thursday, September 23, 2010 @ 11:11:44 CDT (13552 reads)

ICarry.org

Senate Scheduled to Vote on anti-Free Speech Bill
-- DISCLOSE Act Vote Set For Thursday


Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://gunowners.org

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Anti-gun Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) is giving voters yet another reason why he must be defeated in November.

Preparing for heavy losses in the general election, anti-gun Democrat leaders like Reid and Charles Schumer (D-NY) appear to be readying for a vote on the so-called DISCLOSE Act, possibly this week.

While Reid has not yet officially taken the necessary steps to move the bill, his communications director sent out this Tweet on Tuesday: "We're debating DISCLOSE Act tomorrow [Wednesday] w/ vote Thursday."

You may recall that the DISCLOSE Act, which passed the House in June, died in the Senate in July after an intense lobbying effort by Gun Owners of America and other groups.

The bill, sponsored by Schumer, puts severe and unconstitutional limits on GOA's ability to hold individual congressmen accountable in the weeks leading up to an election.

Instead of protecting the most important type of speech protected by the First Amendment -- political speech -- this bill would force groups like GOA to "disclose" the names of donors in certain political advertisements.

Since Gun Owners of America is not willing to disclose its membership lists to the Federal Election Commission, we could be prohibited from running radio or TV ads exposing a federal candidate's voting record within 60 days of a general election.

This is just another attempt by pathetic, anti-gun politicians to save their jobs before the political earthquake in November strikes.

And, as has been the case so often over the past two years, Reid, Schumer and Co. are using the rules of the Senate to bring the bill directly to the floor. There have been no committee hearings to debate the merits of the bill, thus the American people have no opportunity to see just how egregiously DISCLOSE violates the Constitution.

While the bill does contain a controversial provision to exempt the National Rifle Association, GOA remains adamantly opposed to it on constitutional grounds.

Please urge your Senators to protect ALL of the Bill of Rights. Remind them that your ability to protect the Second Amendment relies on the safeguards of the First Amendment.

ACTION: Please contact your Senators and urge them to oppose the DISCLOSE Act. You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below.


----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

I stand with Gun Owners of America in opposing Senator Schumer's so-called DISCLOSE Act.

This bill was defeated once in the Senate, but now anti-gun Majority Leader Harry Reid plans to bring it back to the floor for another vote.

The DISCLOSE Act is just another attempt by politicians to cling to their jobs by silencing groups like Gun Owners of America.

And, as has been the case so often over the past two years, Reid, Schumer and Co. are using the rules of the Senate to bring the bill directly to the floor. There have been no committee hearings to debate the merits of the bill, thus the American people have no opportunity to see just how the ironically named DISCLOSE Act violates the Constitution.

Gun Owners of America represents the views of hundreds of thousands of Second Amendment supporters. Any bill that squelched the free speech rights of groups like GOA is also an attack on my rights.

Please vote NO on Sen. Schumer's DISCLOSE Act.

Sincerely,

Posted by ShaunKranish on Wednesday, September 22, 2010 @ 13:39:47 CDT (6614 reads)

ICarry.org

Gun Dealer Gets Prison for Selling to Illegal Immigrant; Illegal 'Middle Man' Not Charged

By Diane Macedo

Published September 10, 2010

| FoxNews.com

Breaking Fox News Article Here!!!

Gun rights advocates are up in arms that a Texas gun dealer was sentenced to six months in prison for selling a firearm to an illegal immigrant, but a "middle-man" who bought the gun for the immigrant -- and who was in the U.S. illegally himself, but had a valid driver's license -- was never arrested, charged or deported in the case.

Paul Copeland, 56, a Vietnam veteran, was sentenced to prison time and two years probation in federal court last week for selling a gun to an undocumented alien, Hipolito Aviles, at the Texas Gun Show in Austin in January. 

But Aviles wasn't the man who handed Copeland the money for the gun. That man was Leonel Huerta Sr., who presented as identification the valid Texas driver's license he had obtained before his visa expired in 2007.

Copeland claimed he was presented with a valid driver's license and had no way of knowing that the man he was selling the gun to was an illegal immigrant, or that he intended to give the gun to another illegal immigrant.

Huerta, in a phone interview with Copeland's attorney that was included in court documents, said he showed Copeland his driver's license in order to purchase the gun, and it wasn't until he was leaving the building that he handed the gun to Aviles.

But agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives testified that Copeland should have known that Huerta was buying the gun for Aviles. 

"Agents witnessed the Defendant (Copeland) negotiate a price for a handgun with Hipolito Aviles, who then handed cash to a second Hispanic male, who then handed Aviles' cash and his own identification to the defendant," the prosecution said incourt documents

"The Defendant in turn sold the firearm and handed it to the 'straw' purchaser, who then handed the firearm to Hipolito Aviles. The Defendant then instructed Mr. Aviles to hand the firearm back to the straw purchaser because he had 'bought' the firearm. Agents witnessed the straw purchaser hand the firearm back to Hipolito Aviles a short time later."

Aviles, the undocumented immigrant, was charged with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, served a little over six months in prison and was deported on July 8, U.S. Attorney's Office spokesman Daryl Fields said.

But Huerta, the "middle man" who bought the gun for Aviles and also was in the country illegally, suffered no legal consequences in the case. He is believed to still be living in the country illegally.

"Instead of busting the illegal alien for buying, they bust the citizen for selling," said Paul Velte, founder of Peaceable Texans for Firearms Rights, a gun-owners rights advocacy group from Austin. 

Copeland, in an interview with FoxNews.com, said he and several other witnesses, including Aviles and Huerta's son, who was present during the gun purchase, testified that the men never exchanged money in front of him. He said that throughout the purchase, he either talked with Huerta, who he says "spoke perfect English," or to the group in general, but never to Aviles directly.

"I never conversed with Hipolito at all," Copeland said. "The gentleman claims that he doesn't speak any English." 

But one thing all sides agreed on is that Huerta, using a valid Texas driver's license, knowingly bought a gun for someone who was ineligible to buy one himself -- all the while knowing that he, too, was in the country illegally. 

"SA [Special Agent] Jones interviewed Huerta, using an interpreter, and learned that he is also illegally in the United States and he showed SA Jones a work visa that expired in 2007," ATF wrote in its report of the incident. "SA Jones further interviewed Huerta and learned that he had just met Aviles for the first time at the gun show and he agreed to help Aviles purchase a gun because Aviles did not have proper identification." 

But, unlike Aviles, Huerta was not arrested at the gun show that day. And though the report said he was "to be indicted," the ATF said he was never charged in the case. 

"Apparently, Huerta was not charged because he was a witness," ATF spokeswoman Franceska Perot told FoxNews.com, adding that the bureau referred the case to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE spokeswoman Gail Montenegro said there was no record of Huerta in ICE's system, indicating that there is no effort underway to deport him.

Perot said that, to her understanding, Huerta wasn't arrested at the gun show because agents there felt "he was just a go-between for Aviles." She said she couldn't say specifically why the decision was made not to prosecute him later, other than to say that situations like this happen all the time.

"It's a prosecutorial decision. They decide, are we going to get more time for this guy, for his part, or are we going to use him as a witness for someone else? So I guess that was their decision," she said.

Velte says that decision should "enrage all Americans."

"The illegal alien walks free, but the citizen gets convicted," he said. "The same government charged with controlling immigration is the one using illegal immigrants to attack its own citizens. Does this make any sense?"

When asked about Huerta, the U.S. Attorney's Office said, "we do not comment about our prosecutorial decision making process."

Attempts to contact Huerta were unsuccessful.

As for Copeland, Perot said he may not like the verdict in his case, but it was issued by a jury fair and square.

"He was found guilty by a jury, so if he feels like he was unfairly tried then there's an appeals process for that," she said.

Copeland says he intends to explore that process to the fullest.

"The appeal's being filed as we speak," he said.

Posted by ShaunKranish on Monday, September 13, 2010 @ 21:08:18 CDT (6585 reads)

ICarry.org

This information has been available for a long time, but not widely-known.  At ICarry.org, we feel this article is a must read for every supporter of the right to own and carry firearms.  People often wonder how the federal government gets away with complete and utter regulation of the legal firearms trade in America, because the Constitution does not grant it any authority in this area (indeed, it is expressly prohibited for the federal government to infringe upon the rights of peaceable citizens to own and carry firearms).

Well, through a little legal trickery, a perversion of law and the Constitution, the federal government misapplies laws to citizens operating on land (areas within the several states of the union) that the federal government has no authority (not even through the interstate commerce clause) to operate on.  Grab some popcorn, and read very carefully!

Information provided by OriginalIntent.org - Article Available Here: http://www.originalintent.org/edu/chapter44.php

To download a printer-friendly copy of this important information, go here: Downloadable PDF Version of Files

 

The Federal Firearms Act

Where does the federal government get its Constitutional authority to enact laws such as the National Firearms Act, which has been codified to Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code? Upon whom are such laws operative, and where? Since a careful reading of the Constitution reveals that the federal government has no specifically delegated authority to regulate firearms, from where does the federal government's authority to regulate firearms come?

One would think with the high number of Americans supporting the right to keep and bear arms, this question is one that would be of some concern. We've never heard the question asked. One would think that the firearms industry would ask such a question if for no other reason than that they will surely be an industry of the past if anti-gun legislation continues to propagate. In other words, without a solution, the firearms industry as we know it today will cease to exist.

Over the last 30 years or so, laws concerning firearms have become a matter of "public policy", with no regard for the Constitutional elements involved. Why aren't more Americans challenging federal gun laws? We believe it is because The People of this great nation have an innate understanding that the federal judiciary is corrupt and will not honor the Constitution when required to do so.

We also believe that Americans are not willing to challenge federal firearms laws because over the last 40 years or so, laws have been written in an ever-increasingly deceptive manner. Even laws that were clear when originally enacted have been amended over the last 40 years to remove the specificity of the law and render them more vague, and more prone to "flexible" interpretations by "cooperative" judges. Ironically, this has been done under the guise of making these laws more clear! As many laws stand today, the average American cannot understand them and attorneys generally will not explain the true meaning, lest they lose their monopolistic advantage over the machinery of the legal system.

The Federal Firearms Act (as amended)
(18 USC, Chapter 44)

Try as you might to find the title, "Federal Firearms Act" associated with 18 USC, chapter 44, you will not. Why then do we refer to it as such here? Many of the provisions that are currently codified to Title 18, chapter 44, were not originally codified there.

The Federal Firearms Act was enacted in 1938 and it was originally codified to Title 15. So what is Title 15? It is entitled "Commerce and Trade". Do you remember that little discussion about creating vagueness where none originally existed? Well here is a stunning example. From 1938 until 1968, the Federal Firearms Act was within Title 15. That's 30 years folks! Despite the law operating just fine for 30 years, someone deemed it no longer proper to have the law contained within Title 15. Want to guess why? That's right - the government's jurisdictional limits were far too easy to ascertain when the law was within the "Commerce and Trade" title. If it wasn't moving in interstate or foreign commerce, then the US didn't have jurisdiction over it! However, by moving the Act to Title 18, and thus disconnecting the Act from the Title of "Commerce and Trade", there are few clues left to the law's original intent and its Constitutional limitations.

Despite the fact that chapter 44 of Title 18 has been amended many times, (most notably by the Gun Control Act of 1968) it is still essentially the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 [ch. 850, 52 Stat. 1252].

Having said all this, there is an interesting element to Chapter 44 and its interstate commerce authority that you should know about.

There are two different definitions for interstate and foreign commerce in Title 18. The first is found in §10 of the Title and is the definition that is generally applicable through the entire Title, unless re-defined for a specific chapter or section of the Title.

18 USC §10:
The term ''interstate commerce'', as used in this title, includes commerce between one State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and another State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia. The term ''foreign commerce'', as used in this title, includes commerce with a foreign country.

This is a pretty clear definition - and it will get clearer as this article proceeds!

Interestingly, "interstate commerce" and "foreign commerce" are redefined just for chapter 44. For use within chapter 44, they are no longer two separate items, but have been combined into one legal term, to wit:

18 USC §921(2)
The term ''interstate or foreign commerce'' includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term ''State'' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).
[emphasis and underlining added]

You should recognize that as a legal term, the phrase "interstate or foreign commerce" does not mean what logic might tell you it means. You must remember that it means only what Congress says it means and nothing more!

We have had to ask ourselves why the general definition provided in §10 was inadequate for use within chapter 44. If §10 was a good enough definition for all of Title 18 generally, why is it not adequate for chapter 44?

The only distinction we find is in the use of the words "...any place in a State...". Why is that change so essential? Why go through the hassle of altering the definition just to add two little words? On the surface it doesn't seem to make sense - or does it? Maybe we should ask what "place within a State" might the definition be referring to, and why would that distinction be important? Let's explore!

Title 18, §13 is a general provision section (which means it is operative throughout the Title) and is entitled "Laws of States adopted for areas within Federal jurisdiction". What does that title mean? One of the things it means is that there is "State jurisdiction" and there is "federal jurisdiction", and the two are not the same.

Before we explore §13 any further, we need to take a brief side trip and look at §7. We need to do this because §7 is specifically referred to in §13, and we'll get lost if we don't understand exactly what is being referred to in §7.

Section 7 defines the "Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States". Although the definition is a bit long and wordy, here is the essential part in reference to what we are discussing in this article:

18 USC §7(3):
Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.

The basic meaning of that definition is any location that is not under State sovereignty, but solely under federal sovereignty, or otherwise within federal jurisdiction. It must be remembered that such federal "places" exist within the states of the Union.

One should take note of the common language, and common meaning, between 18 USC §7, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution:

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same [federal place] shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings

Now that you can clearly see where §7 is taking us, let's go back to §13; specifically, subsection (a).

[Editor's Note: We've removed some of the excessive wordiness from §13(a) that might tend to confuse the meaning for the first-time reader.]

18 USC §13(a):
Whoever within...any places...provided in section 7 of this title...not within the jurisdiction of any State...is guilty of any act or omission which, although not made punishable by any enactment of Congress, would be punishable if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State...in which such placeis situated...

Ah ha! Did you get that? Ladies and gentlemen, §13 (in conjunction with §7) defines the "places" that are referred to in the definition of "interstate or foreign commerce" at §921(2). The places made mention of in §921(2) are the "places...provided in section 7 of this title", which of course we now know are federal lands (and waterways) that are not within the jurisdiction of the State, but are within the geographical boundaries of the State!

Now let's do a little of our own alteration to §921(2). Let's add the specificity that the legislative draftsmen intentionally left out when they wrote the definition of "interstate and foreign commerce" (at §921(2)). Our "clarified" version reads like this:

The term ''interstate or foreign commerce'' includes commerce between any area of land under federal jurisdiction that is within a State and any area of land under federal jurisdiction that is outside that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia.

Boy, that sure changes the meaning that you had of §921(2) about 10 minutes ago, doesn't it? Also, please note that after the part of the definition that addresses "States" is complete, it goes on to define other federal areas. In that portion, "interstate or foreign commerce" means commerce [solely] within any possession of the United States or within the District of Columbia! My, my, my. Congress sure defines terms to mean whatever the hell Congress wants them to mean!

Are you getting the picture? Every "place" being referred to in §921(2) is a place within a State, or outside a State, that is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution. And the "interstate and foreign commerce" being described at §921(2), is a limited form that operates only between such "places". For the purposes of chapter 44, Congress has even defined "State" as "the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States". In short, it's all territorial.

The definition of "interstate or foreign commerce", at 921(2), is only a "red herring" placed there by the legislative draftsmen to make you think the authority is nation-wide and all-pervasive under the US Constitution's interstate commerce clause. In point of fact, certain sections of chapter 44, such as 922(o)(1), which makes the mere possession of a machine gun a crime, can only be territorial in nature because Congress has no authority to define any act that takes place within a state of the Union as a crime (except such acts as take place against federal property or persons). The federal government cannot define a crime that would take place within a state of the Union because the US has no police powers in a state of the Union.

Now do you see why it was so important that chapter 44 not use the general definition of "interstate commerce" provided at §10? Two little words - "any place" - needed to be added if the law was to pass Constitutional scrutiny.

If one reads the "Congressional Findings and Declarations" in the notes for §921, one finds that Congress enacted the Federal Firearms Act, and its various amendments, in order to [ostensibly] assist the States in controlling crime. Well guess what? The Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority to assist the States of the Union in combating crime. The federal government may regulate interstate commerce; it can define crimes that may take place upon federal property; and it can exercise police powers within places that are embraced by the "exclusive legislative control" clause, but it may not do any of that upon land that is under the sovereignty of a state of the Union.

Congress is free to make any asinine statement it wants about its "intentions" or its "goals", but the text of the laws it enacts must still adhere to the limits of federal power imposed by US Constitution.

Laws No Longer Printed

You should also be made aware that the historical notes reveal there have been some significant items that were "omitted" when the statutes were transferred from Title 15 to Title 18. It should be noted that there is no legal definition for the word "omit"; therefore it can only be defined by a standard English dictionary. The first definition that appears in Webster's II New Revised University Dictionary (1994) is, "Left out". When a section or portion of a statute is "omitted" it is exactly as Webster has stated - it is merely left out. The section or portion has not been repealed; it is still in full effect - it simply isn't printed in the United States Code any more!

[Editor Note - The original language, in its entirety, can still be found in the original Statute-at-Large. See "What is the United States Code" for more on the Statutes-at-Large.]

So what are these sections that have been left out? The most interesting items left out in 1968 were subsections (f) and (i) of then section 902 (Title 15), which speaks of the rule of "presumption from possession". While we've not looked up the old section 902, our experience with such statutory "presumptions" tells us that the section likely raised a rebuttable presumption that if you were found with any firearm, suppressor, etc., that is defined in [the current] chapter 44, you acquired it through an act of "interstate or foreign commerce". Of course for a presumption to be rebutted, the accused would have to know that the US Attorney's Office and the United States District Court were functioning under a statutorily created presumption to begin with. Needless to say, that's a bit difficult when the law isn't printed in the Code any more!

The other omitted items are subsections (b) and (c) of former section 902 which prohibits, "receipt with knowledge...that the transportation or shipment was to a person without a license where State laws require prospective purchaser to exhibit a license to licensed manufacturer or dealer, respectively." You've got to love what these guys choose to keep hidden from you!

Summary

Hopefully this article has helped you to understand the sophistry used when the legislative draftsmen wrote the text that now appears as chapter 44 of Title 18. Hopefully, this will assist Americans in not being wrongfully prosecuted for crimes they've never committed and hopefully this document will somehow get to the firearms industry, since it is the key to freeing that industry from the stranglehold of "public policy" law that will eventually take the industry's life, and with it the American Citizen's access to at least one form of arms.

Let's review what we've covered:

  1. Title 18 of the United States Code (USC), chapter 44, has its foundation as the Federal Firearms Act.
  2. The Federal Firearms Act was enacted in 1938 and was originally codified to Title 15, "Commerce and Trade".
  3. In 1968, most of the Federal Firearms Act was repealed and reenacted in Title 18.
  4. Certain elements of the Federal Firearms Act were never repealed, but are no longer printed in the USC. [This is why one must always read the actual Act of Congress to see what they're really up to.]
  5. Since 1968, chapter 44 has been amended numerous times, usually under the disingenuous rationale of securing the rights of law abiding gun owners!
  6. The foundation of the federal government's authority in chapter 44 is territorial, i.e., Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution.
  7. Chapter 44 does contain a certain limited form of commerce authority, but it only controls commerce between federal places within States, or commerce within a federal possession, or the District of Columbia.
  8. The definition of "interstate and foreign commerce" at §921(2) does not refer to the government's Constitutional authority to regulate commerce between the states of the Union. It is a territorial based power that relies on the federal government's police powers, which exist only within those places that are subject to the exclusive legislative authority of Congress.
  9. The "declarations" or "findings" that Congress may issue have absolutely no bearing upon the words of an Act Congress passes. Such declarations and findings may contain any manner of outrageous lies or distortions, but the language of the laws that Congress passes must still adhere to the Constitution.

If you have found this item to be informative, please send this URL to a friend, associate, or family member. http://www.originalintent.org/edu/chapter44.php

Posted by ShaunKranish on Monday, September 13, 2010 @ 15:00:16 CDT (6038 reads)

ICarry.org

Firearms Training.......IN CHICAGO?!?!?!

Executive Director Shaun Kranish writes:

We've come across a real bulldog in the City of Chicago - a state licensed firearms instructor.  Chicagoland Detective Services/Firearm Training on Milwaukee Avenue!!!  As a state-licensed firearms training firm, they are exempt from Chicago's gun ordinances.  Chicago tried to shut them down long ago, but they prevailed in court and have been operating ever since.

They are offering NRA Basic and First Steps training so Chicago residents can get their Chicago permits.  They offer Utah CCW permit classes and processing, armed and unarmed state security training, and much more.

Because Chicagoland Detective Services/Firearm Training has stood up against the city, refusing to fold to pressure to shut down, and continues to train thousands of Chicago-area residents in firearm proficiency, ICarry.org has partnered with them to provide more training to more people with convenient online sign-up!!  Get fantastic training and support two organizations that are fighting Chicago to defend your rights.

Click Here to see our new Training Center in the ICarry Store and see what we're talking about.  You will also notice these classes appear on our Calendar.

Chicago and the surrounding areas are the front lines in Illinois fight to restore the protection of the individual's fundamental right to keep AND bear arms.  The more training, carry permits, FOID cards, gun ranges and shops, and gun owners we can accumulate in this area, the faster things will change.  It's time for gun ownership to come out of the closet.  Tell a friend you are proud to exercise the sacred right to self-defense - the right to own and carry a firearm.

Below is some interesting background info on Chicago

The eyes of the country have been on Chicago due to Mayor Daley and his political cohorts refusing to respect the individual's fundamental right to keep and bear arms.  Gun owners were forced to take Daley to court - all the way to the US Supreme Court to get him to live up to his oath to UPHOLD and DEFEND the Constitution. 

The Supreme Court declared the individual right to keep and bear arms to be a fundamental right, pre-existing to the Constitution itself, and enshrined in the Constitution to protect the individual from the federal government, state governments, and local governments.  How did Daley respond?

He said you can now own a pistol, but you can only have 1 usable gun in your home.  Your garage, porch, and yard aren't considered part of your home.  You can own a pistol, but you can't buy one in the city because gun stores are banned.  You MUST get training, and that training MUST include live fire.  Firing ranges are also banned, so you will have to travel out of the city to complete your training as well.

Pay us some money - $100 or more - go through all of our paperwork and training, and you can eventually own a gun legally.  Do you think that's what the framers of our Constitutional protections had in mind when drafting the 2nd Amendment - the right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Of course not!!!

ICarry.org, its attorney Walter Maksym of Chicago, and President Joe Franzese, a federally-licensed firearms dealer, were the first to file suit against Chicago after Mayor Daley passed (unanimous vote of city council) his new ordinance.

 

Posted by ShaunKranish on Friday, September 03, 2010 @ 14:55:02 CDT (9365 reads)

ICarry.org

 http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/08/205_71329.html


The U.S. government is opposing Korea’s bid to sell thousands of aging U.S. combat rifles to American gun collectors.

By Jung Sung-ki

The U.S. government opposed South Korea’s bid to sell hundreds of thousands of aging U.S. combat rifles to American gun collectors, a senior government official said Thursday.

The ministry announced the plan last September as part of efforts to boost its defense budget, saying the export of the M1 Garand and carbine rifles would start by the end of 2009.

The U.S. administration put the brakes on the plan, citing “problems” that could be caused by the importation of the rifles. 

The problems the U.S. government cited were somewhat ambiguous, said an official at the Ministry of National Defense on condition of anonymity.

“The U.S. insisted that imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents. It was also worried the weapons could be smuggled to terrorists, gangs or other people with bad intentions,” the official told The Korea Times. 

“We’re still looking into the reason why the U.S. administration is objecting to the sale of the rifles and seeking ways to resolve the problems raised,” he said.

Critics say the ministry pushed to sell the firearms in a hasty manner without enough consultation with the U.S. beforehand, as calls were growing to increase defense expenditure. 

The Seoul government sought to sell the outdated U.S guns back to the United States.

A total of 86,000 M1 rifles and another 22,000 carbines were to be sold, as the weapons have been mothballed for about five decades in military warehouses. The per-unit price of the M1 rifle is about $220 and the carbine is more than $140, according to the ministry. 

M1s were made first in 1926 and used in World War II and the 1954-1975 Vietnam War. The carbines were first produced in 1941 and used during the 1950-1953 Korean War.

Posted by ShaunKranish on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 @ 21:18:46 CDT (10745 reads)

ICarry.org

Chicago Tribune Article Here

By Annie Sweeney, Jeremy Gorner and Joe Germuska
Tribune staff

The bullets flew in neighborhoods from Roseland to Rogers Park, hitting victims ranging in age from 72 to just 1. The overwhelming majority of them were young men. The bullets nicked eyebrows and ankles. They also pierced whole communities, such as historic Woodlawn.

More than 300 people were shot in Chicago last month. At least 33 of them have died.

Some victims made headlines, like 13-year-old Robert Freeman Jr., who was fatally shot on his block while hanging out with friends. The city paused when two Chicago police officers — Michael Bailey and Thor Soderberg — were gunned down in uniform within weeks of each other.

Register with Chicago Tribune and receive free newsletters and alerts >>

But many more victims of shootings in July — historically among the city's most dangerous months — suffered unnoticed by the rest of the city.

Crime has been holding steady in Chicago in recent years. Through July, there have been 1,089 shootings in the city, a 2.4 percent decrease over last year. This July, police counted 221 shooting incidents, compared with 229 in July 2009. A review of seven years worth of shootings showed similar numbers.

In other words, this was a typical July.

The Chicago Police Department declined to provide the number of shooting victims in July or comment about the month's shooting tally. But a Tribune analysis of reported shootings, based on logs kept by police and reporting by the Tribune, counted 303 people who were injured in shootings last month.

The Tribune's analysis showed that shootings occurred in predictable places — the Far South Side and West Side, for instance, where violence has been a pervasive problem for decades. It also showed how a bullet — even one that doesn't kill — pierced a path of destruction in victims, families and the neighborhoods where they live.

 

ICarry commentary:  If you asked Mayor Daley what the problem was - he would blame the inanimate objects that people are using - guns.  We might as well blame spears, stones, knives, and clubs as well.  Despite Chicago's strictest-in-the-nation laws regulating the ownership and possession of guns, shootings are happening every day.

These shootings aren't with legally-owned and registered long guns.  The criminals aren't using pistols, which after nearly 30 years people in Chicago can finally own (after all the paperwork, waiting, training outside of the city, purchasing outside of the city, money, etc).  The criminals don't have FOID cards either!!! 

Isn't it time Daley stopped blaming guns and started blaming criminals?  Isn't it time he left gun owners and the Second Amendment alone?  Isn't it time Chicago did something real to stop crime - like lock the gangbangers away and throw away the key?  Instead, we're focused on arrested firemen who have guns.

Time to change, Chicago, your gun laws are only HELPING criminals prey on their victims.  The people of Chicago have the right to keep AND bear arms, it's a fundamental right, the Supreme Court of the United States told you this, and you've still ignored it.

ICarry.org was the first to file suit after Daley's new gun ordinance was rubber-stamped through city council.


Click here to join ICarry.org now and help us take down Daley once and for all.
Posted by ShaunKranish on Sunday, August 22, 2010 @ 13:21:04 CDT (6545 reads)



Page 1 of 7 (105 total stories) [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | > | >> ]  

Newsletter Signup








captcha
Federal Firearms Laws Fraud Revealed

The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to regulate firearms.  How then have all these federal laws been passed and enforced?  What about all the new laws that are always hanging over the heads of tens of millions of peaceful gun owners?

THE FRAUD EXPOSED HERE!!

Sadly, you will only find it here.  Encourage other pro-gun organizations to copy and post this information!!!

Old Articles
 
Cast Your Vote
Current big Survey...
What do you think is the most effective action?

Results
Votes :607


List of all Surveys
Join Us on Facebook!

Click here to join us on Facebook

Page Generation: 0.12 Seconds
:: fisubsilver shadow phpbb2 style by Daz :: RavenNuke theme by www.nukemods.com ::