Embed Code –

Molon Labe Industries, manufacturers of polymer magazines and accessories for the FN SCAR and AR rifle platforms, has begun shipment of its patent pending SCARmag to its pre-order customers.

“The SCARmag has undergone some great improvements since we initially announced the project in late 2012, making these new SCARmags even more reliable and indestructible than the original models,” Chris Gleason, Founder and CEO of Molon Labe Industries stated. “Our production is increasing every day to fulfill the many orders we have received over the past several months from our very excited customers.”

The SCARmag is designed to operate in the SCAR 17, SCAR 17s, SCAR H and MK17 rifle systems and is compatible with 7.62 mm / .308 Win. At half the weight of a factory FN SCAR magazine, the SCARmag will prove to be a great advancement in the world of FN SCAR magazines. The SCARmag has a zero-tilt, low-friction, self-lubricating follower system, so unlike the factory FN Herstal SCAR 17 magazine, it does not bind. The magazine spring is made from the highest quality stainless steel spring stock. The SCARmag is made of proprietary polymer that is virtually indestructible, exceeding Mil-Spec extreme temperatures parameters. Another unique feature of the SCARmag is the Stealth-Tex IR Signature Reduction Technology. The SCARmag also has enhanced grip protection.

The SCARmag is available in Black & Flat Dark Earth in 5, 10, 20 and 25 round capacities.

For more information on the advantages of using a Molon Labe Industries magazine on your rifle platform, visit www.molonlabeindustries.com. “Like” Molon Labe Industries on Facebook or check out the YouTube videos on the Molon Labe Industries advantage.

To all the thousands of Michael supporters,

Michael’s case, including the Petition, the Government Response, and the Reply to the Government Response, is now complete and before the Supreme Court. The Supremes have set Michael’s case to be initially discussed at their conference on May 30th which is ironically during the 50th Anniversary of Brady vs Maryland (the Supreme Court case demanding that prosecutors disclose all beneficial information to the criminally accused). During the conference, four out of the nine Supreme Court Justices must vote to hear the case in order to grant certiorari. If certiorari is granted in Michael’s case it would be the first time the Supremes would have granted a service member’s appeal from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF). Needless to say, anxiousness will abound for the next few weeks and prayers are certainly welcome. We should have the Court’s decision sometime during the first week of June. If the Court grants certiorari, Michael’s case would proceed through a briefing process, oral arguments, and a decision by the Supreme Court hopefully before the end of the year.

We can’t thank you enough for all the encouraging cards and letters that you sent to Michael for his birthday. As Michael told us this past weekend it is these cards and letters that help him navigate the sometimes helpless and hopeless thoughts that have haunted him these past four years behind prison walls. He reads every card and letter sent to him, but given his prison schedule of work, exercise time, meals and early lights out he unfortunately does not have time to send out very many thank you notes. For this he sends his apologies and hopes a day will come soon when he can thank all of you in person.

If you did not see the Mother’s Day tribute to Vicki last Sunday in the Oklahoman, hopefully the attached video and article will describe the huge appreciation we have for all your support and what your individual words of encouragement have meant to Michael and our whole family.

Vicki’s Mother’s Day Video – http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/2372015906001

Vicki’s Mother’s Day Article – http://newsok.com/behenna

The decision came one day shy of the two months since my arrest. In spite of numerous open records requests by my attorney, Kurt W. Glass, and numerous watchdog groups, the prosecutor, police department, and 911 call center have refused to release any of the exculpatory evidence in my case. The decision also comes a mere two days after the Texas House voted to pass the Michael Morton Act (it was signed into law by Governor Perry today), a measure designed to prevent wrongful convictions and named in honor of a Texan who spent nearly 25 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. It would create a uniform “open file” policy in Texas, compelling prosecutors to share case files with defense attorneys that can help defendants’ cases.

Section 552.001 of the Texas Government Code states that it is the policy of the government to recognize that “the people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed to implement this policy.”

Michael Morton was a Texan that spent wasted 25 years of his life in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. The law states that “as soon as practicable after receiving a timely request from the defendant the state shall produce and permit the inspection and the electronic duplication, copying, and photographing, by or on behalf of the defendant, of any offense reports, any designated documents, papers, written or recorded statements of the defendant or a witness, including witness statements of law enforcement officers but not including the work product of counsel for the state in the case and their investigators and their notes or report, or any designated books, accounts, letters, photographs, or objects or other tangible things not otherwise privileged that constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and that are in the possession, custody, or control of the state or any person under contract with the state.” Unfortunately, these changes to Article 39.14, Code of Criminal Procedure, don’t take effect until January 1, 2014. Why? If these changes are needed, they are needed now.

Morton, 58, was sentenced to life in prison for the 1986 slaying of his wife Christine, but freed in October 2011, after DNA testing was done on a bloody bandanna originally found near the couple’s Austin home. Investigators said the DNA evidence led them to another man, Mark Alan Norwood, whose DNA was in a national database as a result of his long criminal history.

The district attorney at Morton’s trial, Ken Anderson, now a state district judge in Georgetown north of Austin, is accused of deliberately withholding evidence from the defense that indicated Morton’s innocence. He is now facing criminal contempt and tampering with evidenced and government records charges.

The problem in Texas is that too many prosecutors, including those in Bell County, only release this information when it helps their side of the case. They have a history of withholding evidence when it makes law enforcement look bad, something I’m sure Texans didn’t intend when the Open Records Act became law.

While the judge ruled that the dashcam footage must be released to Mr. Kurt Glass, the Bell County Assistant Prosecutor Mark Danford requested that the judge also rule that the information not be shared with media or placed online. Danford complained about evidence that had supposedly already been released, generating a viral video and national attention. One has to wonder what reason Danford has in asking the judge to place a de facto gag order on the dashcam video and drag this case out any longer than it needs to be.

One could speculate that the request/decision was one of financial motivation. Let’s face it, they know that I am a career soldier with a family and farm to support. They have to know I’m not made of money. By preventing the video from getting out to the public, which could (would) generate further public support for my case; they also can potentially prevent further financial support to my legal fund. Additionally, they know that the longer this drags out, the more money I have to shell out in fees to my attorney. They’ve seen how much has been raised for my defense and I wouldn’t doubt that their object is to drain as much of that as possible, making this the most expensive Class B Misdemeanor case in the history of Bell County.

If they can drag out the legal process, limiting my ability to generate interest in my case and contributions to my legal fund, they could possibly impact the outcome of the proceedings. Mr. Glass has done a great job polishing this turd and trying to get the county to do the right thing.

It’s easy to complain that it should be the purpose of the Bell County Attorney to ensure that justice is done and that the courts aren’t used to waste taxpayer money on frivolous charges. Unfortunately, the word “justice” doesn’t appear anywhere on the County Attorney’s webpage. However, the page DOES frequently mention the mission to prosecute the more than 1,000 misdemeanors filed each week by Bell County LEOs. Based on how my case has been treated, I can’t help but wonder how many of those are as bogus and fraudulent as mine. How many innocent Texans are now convicted criminals because of lying police officers and a prosecution team that supports their schemes by refusing to drop charges and dragging out the sham case costing citizens thousands of dollars to defend themselves and taxpayers who knows how much?!

The video is going to be released one day. By delaying our ability to shed light upon the cockroaches infesting our city, the prosecutors are only allowing them to continuing spreading their germs around the city. The longer they delay righting the wrongs that have propagated against me, the worse they will look in the end. The new mayor and city council should be standing on County Attorney Jim Nichols desk and DEMANDING he put an end to this charade sooner rather than later.

This county needs an enema! I just wish I didn’t have to be the one providing the suppository.

“There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily.”

–George Washington, letter to Edmund Randolph, 1795

Please also read the Watchdog article by Lou Ann Anderson, who was also in the courtroom.

Here is the video of my arrest if you haven’t seen it yet. The dashcam footage shows only about two minutes prior to this, but those 2 minutes are extremely important…and gagged.

“The most common factor in the mass shootings over the past years is that people who should not have had access to firearms managed to acquire them anyway,” said Carter, a former Texas district judge. “We don’t attempt to address all the reasons for that in this bill, but specifically target better security of firearms by law-abiding citizens through incentives, not mandates.”

“While nationally there has been much discussion over how to prevent mass shootings, there is no debate over the need to promote responsible firearm ownership,” said Cuellar. “As a concealed handgun license holder and strong supporter of 2nd amendment rights, this is a common sense first step towards increasing access for Americans to purchase devices that will prevent the misuse of firearms. While this legislation is not meant to be a ‘fix-all’, this is a bipartisan idea that Congress should immediately act on. I’m proud to join my fellow Texan and friend, Chairman Carter on this important legislation.”

Mass shootings at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, and Newtown all involved people who should not have had access to firearms. The most recent Newtown tragedy revealed the shooter’s mother passed the federal background check, legally acquired weapons, and bought a safe, but apparently left the safe unlocked and the weapons exposed to her mentally unstable son.

“As responsible gun owners, let’s make sure our weapons are more secure in the future,” says Carter. “We can use this legislation to kick off a nationwide push to put gun safes or security devices in every home with unattended firearms by the close of 2014, and then let’s push for everyone to use them,” Carter says. “That’s a specific goal that will reduce gun violence by a date certain, and a goal that Congress, the President, and the firearms community can unite behind.”

The Secure Firearms Act includes:
* Up to a $1,200 tax deduction to purchase a gun safe and/or security devices through December 31, 2014.
* A prohibition on the IRS use of tax deduction claims to produce any form of gun owner registration.

Now, this may sound good in theory, but if you ask me it’s a trojan horse to gun registration. Just because there is a provision in the bill that prohibits the IRS from using tax forms of gun owners trying to claim the deduction to keep a list or register owners doesn’t mean it won’t happen in the future.

There is no such thing as an unrepealable or irreplaceable law. As such, any future congress can require that the IRS create such a registration. Additionally, most IRS information is considered public information. Organizations, government agencies, and others can file FOIA requests to find out who is claiming the deductions, thus informing them about who has guns in their homes.

The Secure Firearms Act is endorsed by the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of American, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

“The NRA is the national leader in teaching firearms safety, and we support the Secure Firearms Act of 2013 which encourages the safe storage of firearms in the home,” said James Baker, director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action Federal Affair Division. “Rep. John Carter is a leader on this issue, and we look forward to working with Members of Congress to pass this sensible legislation and provide a much-deserved tax credit to responsible firearm owners.”

“This proposal encourages improved firearms storage security with no threat to the right to keep and bear arms,” said Gun Owners of America President Larry Pratt. “The bill provides a solid benefit to law-abiding gun owners nationwide, and will increase public safety in the process. We need more well-conceived bipartisan legislation like this in Congress.”

“Members of America’s firearms industry thank Rep. Carter for his leadership in offering a real, bi-partisan solution that will help to make our families safer by helping gun owners to responsibly and safely store their firearms when not in use so that they are inaccessible to unauthorized and at-risk individuals,” saidLawrence G. Keane, National Shooting Sports Foundation senior vice president and general counsel.

If you are a member of these organizations and feel the same way I do about this legislation, please contact your representative in each organization and make your concerns known. I would also recommend you contact your representatives in Congress and let him/her know your opinions.

How much would someone have to pay you to allow them to assault you and steal your property?

What would it cost to allow your kids to witness you getting assault, having your personal property stolen, and then getting falsely arrested?

Is there a price for having your child put in a police car and being told they can’t get out until the officer gets what he wants?

Finally, if you could put a cost on your constitutional rights, how much would it cost to give them up?

I hate frivolous lawsuits. I hate the idea of people pretending to be “offended” or “inconvenienced” and demanding kajillions of dollars to “make it all right.” Remember the McDonald’s lawsuit that netted a woman nearly $3 million when she spilled her coffee on herself? Originally, the customer, Stella Liebeck, sought $20,000 in damages, but McDonalds refused to settle out of court. They should have. Liebeck was ultimately awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced to $160,000 because she was found to be twenty percent at fault. She was also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages.

Remember the judge that sued his dry cleaners when they lost his pants? Claiming emotional distress, he sued the cleaners for $67 million (eventually dropping it to a meager $54 million). This “judge” was lampooned when he cried during examination on the witness stand…by himself. The cleaners were able to find his pants and return them to him in court, but he wasn’t comforted by this.

Unfortunately, there isn’t a lot that can be done to force a government agency to change how it does business when the people they are meant to serve are wronged. Most government agencies will only respond to grievances when dollar signs are at stake. Besides, it’s not like those who have been wronged can get their time in prison back. They can’t have embarrassment reversed.

Such is the case of my illegal detention, assault, property theft, arrest, and violation of my constitution rights. I can’t very well tell my son to unsee or unexperience what happened to us on March 16th at the hands of the Temple Police Department. I won’t ever get those hours in jail back. The stress this entire incident has put on me, my son, and my family can’t exactly be paid back. The only way to right some wrongs is monetarily. And it sucks.

There are some things that the city and police department can do that involve no money, but go a long way to settling grievances:

* return my guns, accessories, and ammo immediately
* remove my booking photo and fingerprints from the system since they were acquired illegally
* publicly acknowledge that the officer lied on his police reports and has been accordingly reprimanded and punished
* train officers on how to properly respond to armed citizen reports without violating their rights
* create a partnership in policing program that assists law enforcement personnel through community involvement in crime prevention
* host a concealed carry class to encourage safe and legal carrying of firearms; this would go a long way in proving the department respects gun rights

In addition to righting wrongs, it’s important to ensure that these officers understand that there are consequences to violating the civil rights of the people they are sworn to protect and serve. The police department needs to understand that such actions by their employees ruin the trust and confidence between the citizenry and law enforcement. Who wants to move to a city that allows its police force to trample over the civil rights of its citizens unchecked?

In life, actions have consequences. Depending on the nature of the action, the consequences are positive or negative. The Psalms teach us that “Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O Lord, and teachest him out of thy law” (Psalms 94:12). Solomon taught in the Psalms the importance of establishing consequences for actions. He noted that sparing the rod means you don’t love your child and reminded us that we chastise those we love when necessary.

I love the City of Temple and I’ve always supported law enforcement, firefighters, and first responders. It’s the reason that I chose to move to Temple for my final years in the Army. We have a great city that is centrally located and provides all the necessities anyone could ask for. The cost of living is affordable and we have great schools. We have some of the best hospitals in the nation and our residency programs are constantly growing. Our mall could use some updating, but I don’t like going to malls anyway.

The only problem as I see it is that our police force (not including the Sheriffs Department) has become too disconnected from the people it serves. Instead of looking for ways to serve the community, they are more likely to serve themselves. When one of its officers gets out of line, it seems to me that the Temple PD tries to sweep it under the carpet or circles the wagon to protect one of its own. They spread lies about the citizens they falsely arrest instead of attempting to make it right and acknowledging their mistakes. They are quick to release dashcam footage when it’s in their best interests, but not when it would expose the illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral actions of its officers.

So, what do you do when you are on the receiving end of such actions? Do you just shrug your shoulders and hope that it doesn’t happen again? Or do you take an unpopular stand to some and file a lawsuit? Including those actions against my son, I have identified nine separate Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code violations that occurred during and after my arrest, not even including the constitution violations (2nd, 4th, and 5th to name just a few). How do you put a price on those? How do you get restitution for having to endure those?

Will an apology take away my son’s overwhelming fear and anxiety any time he sees a police officer? Will a slap on the wrist and a day or two of training for the officers make him feel comfortable and safe in his own home?

Some costs obviously need to be remedied: my bail, attorney’s fees, and private investigators just to have charges dropped or maintain my innocence.

Other costs require asking tough questions like the ones I asked above. How do you file a lawsuit to achieve restitution and get justice while not appearing greedy or in it for the money?

As we get ready to file our demand letter, those questions have weighed heavily on our minds (mine and my attorneys). We struggled with ensuring that any demands are not only necessary and appropriate, but that the price we place on them is reasonable and appropriate as well. I wish it didn’t have to be that way, but this is the system we’ve created to get justice.

In 2004 the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) enacted in 1994 reached its sunset date and expired without being renewed at the behest of the NRA, and it was curious why an organization that boasted their advocacy for firearm safety and hunting was adamantly opposed to banning weapons created for the battlefield and not duck hunting or home protection. Since then, the NRA actively promoted assault-style weapon ownership and spent no small sum of money paying congressional representatives for their votes to oppose any gun safety laws the NRA considered a direct assault on the United States Constitution Republicans are loathe to acknowledge as the law of the land. Throughout the NRA’s lobbying efforts to arm every man, woman, and child in America, reasonable Americans wondered if the NRA had an extrinsic reason for pushing the proliferation of assault weapons in the population, and if they were concealing a different intent from their stated reasons of protecting the people’s right to defend their homes and shoot birds.

First of all, when author Rmuse states that the NRA is solely responsible for the expiration of the AWB he is being ignorant and short-sighted. The fact is that the majority of NRA MEMBERS wanted the AWB to expire as well as millions of non-NRA Americans that wanted to own these weapons.

The second ignorant statement about the NRA that I’d like to clarify is the statement that the NRA is an organization dedicated to merely protecting duck hunting or home protection. That’s simply false and completely ignore the very founding of the organization.

The NRA was founded by Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate to improve the marksmanship of troops under their charge. In FACT, the primary goal of the association would be to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis,” according to a magazine editorial written by Church at the time. Please tell me where in there the NRA’s stated goal was “duck hunting” or “home defense.”

The NRA is dedicated to preserving the 2A and right of Americans to defend themselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The NRA believes that the government shouldn’t be dictating which guns Americans should have at their disposal to defend themselves. However, the NRA is also interested in promoting shooting sports and gun safety. The NRA is a multi-faceted gun rights organization that doesn’t focus on just one purpose, but in fact protects all lawful uses of firearms. They are a 360 degree organization that focuses first on safety and then the safe uses of firarms. The NRA is committed to training, education AND marksmanship.

The third ignorant statement made was that the NRA wants to “arm every man, woman and child in America” with so-called assault weapons (for what it’s worth, AR does NOT stand for “assault rifle.” It’s an abbreviation of the original rifle design by Armalite, but I digress.). The NRA isn’t arming anyone with anything. They do host raffles and giveaways from time to time, but their purpose isn’t to arm Americans, but to ensure that Americans can arm themselves.

Liberals believe in big government. The government exists, in their eyes, to manage every aspect of our lives. We need to be told how to raise our children, what to eat, what medical care we should have, what kind of lightbulbs we should own, what kind of cars to drive, etc. The reason they are so opposed to certain types of semi-automatic defensive rifles is because they threaten their desire for nationalization of America under an umbrella central government. Liberal opposition to these guns is not about safety, it’s about control. If it were about safety, these liberal gun-grabbers would be screaming for less gun control, not more.

According to the National Post and based off the Pew Research Center, “gun-related homicides dropped from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011. That’s a 39% reduction.” It’s a 39% reduction at a time when the population has grown as have the number of guns purchased during that time. In fact, just over the past four years since President Obama’s election, millions of additional guns were purchased. Today, just trying to find one of the guns that Politicus USA is so afraid of is difficult to find and, then, at a significantly higher price. So, gun crime is down and guns in the possession of Americans is up. one can only conclude that the inverse of the liberal argument is true.

I understand that Politicus USA is an extremist liberal rag, but it’s important that when such idiocy is shared openly that it is immediately countered for the record. The NRA, as I mentioned previously, is not some nebulous, autonomous organization. It operates with the support and approval of over 5 million Americans and millions of additional, no-paying supporters. Their involvement in countering gun control laws increases and decreases as the attacks on the 2A increase and decrease. Right now, there are many in government that are trying to infringe upon the 2A and the NRA is working with equal fervor to counter those attacks. If you aren’t supporting them in this endeavor – or some other gun rights group – then you’re a part of the problem, not the solution.

In the landscape of today’s constant attacks on our RKBA, it’s imperative that we stand united and with a loud voice. The NRA provides that voice and is on the frontlines of that battle.

There are many bills being circulated around Congress that aim to take away the abilities of Americans to either have access to or afford weapons and ammunition. I want to take a moment and just share a few of these and urge you to contact your congress critter and make your voice known about each one. None of these bills really stands a good chance of passing, but that doesn’t mean we should be complacent and ignore them.

S. 54: Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013

This deceptively named bill by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VA) has already garnered two (liberal) Republican co-sponsors. I don’t doubt that many more senators on both sides of the aisle may sign on to this as well, but this bill is destructive to our rights.

First of all, there are already laws against “illegal trafficking of firearms” in this country. We don’t need another law…unless you’re a liberal Democrat seeking to disarm the American populace.

This bill would penalize people that sold or gave away a gun to another person that uses that gun to commit a crime. It establishes the groundwork for a registration scheme in the country to track both ammunition and firearms. Anyone found to have sold or given a weapon to such a person could potentially lose everything they own. The law allows for the confiscation of “any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of” selling the weapon and “any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of” the sale or transfer.

This bill has the following co-sponsors:

Durbin, Richard [D-IL]
Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]
Collins, Susan [R-ME]
Gillibrand, Kirsten [D-NY]
Kirk, Mark [R-IL]
Sen. Mark Kirk [R-IL]
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY]
Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Sen. Alan “Al” Franken [D-MN]

H.R. 142: Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2013

This bill will require face to face ammunition purchases, effectively killing businesses like Cheaper Than Dirt, Ammunition To Go and others. Even though this a non-issue, there is no proof that any shooters purchased ammo through online suppliers and that forcing face to face purchases will do anything to stop criminals. I understand that stopping the criminals isn’t necessarily the goal of these Marxist/Socialist policies, but disarming the people is.

The main problem with this legislation – besides the obvious business-killing aspect – is that it forces ammunition sellers to “prepare a report of multiple sales or other dispositions whenever the licensee sells or otherwise disposes of, at one time or during any 5 consecutive business days, more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition to an unlicensed person. In other words, this bill is going to require Americans to get a license just to purchase ammunition and those purchases will be tracked by the federal government, especially if purchased in a cost-saving, bulk fashion.

These reports are then sent to the Department of Justice and disseminated to local and state law enforcement agencies. The sellers must submit these reports upon close of business daily. Is it any business of the federal government or any law enforcement agency what type and how much ammunition a private citizen purchases? No.

This bill, submitted by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY4], has the following sponsors so far that would also like to hear from you:

Cicilline, David [D-RI1]
Conyers, John [D-MI13]
Courtney, Joe [D-CT2]
Cummings, Elijah [D-MD7]
Eshoo, Anna [D-CA18]
Maloney, Carolyn [D-NY12]
Matsui, Doris [D-CA6]
Norton, Eleanor [D-DC0]
Perlmutter, Ed [D-CO7]
Quigley, Mike [D-IL5]
Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD8]
Doyle, Michael “Mike” [D-PA14]
Levin, Sander [D-MI9]
Markey, Edward “Ed” [D-MA5]
McCollum, Betty [D-MN4]
McGovern, James “Jim” [D-MA2]
Scott, Robert “Bobby” [D-VA3]
DeGette, Diana [D-CO1]
Holt, Rush [D-NJ12]
Sarbanes, John [D-MD3]
Schwartz, Allyson [D-PA13]
Bishop, Timothy [D-NY1]
Castor, Kathy [D-FL14]
Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX18]
Langevin, James “Jim” [D-RI2]
Pallone, Frank [D-NJ6]
Pocan, Mark [D-WI2]
Rep. Nita Lowey [D-NY17]
Rep. Stephen Lynch [D-MA8]
Rep. Judy Chu [D-CA27]
Rep. Janice Hahn [D-CA44]
Rep. Rick Larsen [D-WA2]
Rep. Henry Waxman [D-CA33]
Rep. Bill Pascrell [D-NJ9]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA19]
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY10]
Rep. James Himes [D-CT4]
Rep. Elizabeth Esty [D-CT5]
Rep. Michael Capuano [D-MA7]

H.R. 137: Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013

The purpose of this bill is to “ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale.” This is what is commonly referred among the low-information sector as the ill-named “gun show loophole.”

This bill penalizes states by withholding money if they fail to provide at least 50% of the records mandated by the Department of Justice to be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. My response to the states would be just stop sending the federal government an equal amount of its citizens taxes to offset these penalties. The penalties get worse as time goes on.

In addition to the current definition of “mental defective,” this bill adds more individuals to the list of those that suddenly have no constitutional, or God-given rights to self-defense. It states that any “lawful authority” may deem someone unqualified to own a firearm if they meet the new definition. Under this bill, you are deemed a “mental defective” just for seeking “counseling, medication, or testing to determine compliance with prescribed medications” for any mental health issue, including PTSD (it doesn’t mention PTSD specifically, but it also doesn’t exclude it).

Oh, and if you fall under that definition and want to have your name removed from the NICS…too bad. “An individual who has been adjudicated as a mental defective…may not apply for relief from disability.”

This is also one of many bills that mandates a background check for any and all transfers of weapons from one party to another, regardless of the circumstance. If this passes and you want to give away or sell a weapon to a friend or non-immediate family member, you must pay a licensed dealer to run a background check on that person. The bill makes exceptions for transfers to “immediate family members, including spouses, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, and grandchildren” but does not include cousins, aunts, uncles, or step-relatives.

This bill was also submitted by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY4] and includes the following sponsors as of this writing:

Cicilline, David [D-RI1]
Conyers, John [D-MI13]
Courtney, Joe [D-CT2]
Cummings, Elijah [D-MD7]
Eshoo, Anna [D-CA18]
Maloney, Carolyn [D-NY12]
Matsui, Doris [D-CA6]
Norton, Eleanor [D-DC0]
Quigley, Mike [D-IL5]
Tsongas, Niki [D-MA3]
Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD8]
DeLauro, Rosa [D-CT3]
Doyle, Michael “Mike” [D-PA14]
Ellison, Keith [D-MN5]
Grijalva, Raúl [D-AZ3]
Himes, James [D-CT4]
Holt, Rush [D-NJ12]
Markey, Edward “Ed” [D-MA5]
McCollum, Betty [D-MN4]
McGovern, James “Jim” [D-MA2]
Moore, Gwen [D-WI4]
Price, David [D-NC4]
Schiff, Adam [D-CA28]
Scott, Robert “Bobby” [D-VA3]
Slaughter, Louise [D-NY25]
Bishop, Timothy [D-NY1]
Carney, John [D-DE0]
DeGette, Diana [D-CO1]
Meng, Grace [D-NY6]
Miller, George [D-CA11]
Moran, James “Jim” [D-VA8]
Payne, Donald [D-NJ10]
Pingree, Chellie [D-ME1]
Sarbanes, John [D-MD3]
Schwartz, Allyson [D-PA13]
Serrano, José [D-NY15]
Speier, Jackie [D-CA14]
Tierney, John [D-MA6]
Brady, Robert [D-PA1]
Capuano, Michael [D-MA7]
Castor, Kathy [D-FL14]
Fudge, Marcia [D-OH11]
Israel, Steve [D-NY3]
Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX18]
Keating, William [D-MA9]
Langevin, James “Jim” [D-RI2]
Lynch, Stephen [D-MA8]
Neal, Richard [D-MA1]
Pocan, Mark [D-WI2]
Schakowsky, Janice “Jan” [D-IL9]
Sires, Albio [D-NJ8]
Smith, Adam [D-WA9]
Rep. Sam Farr [D-CA20]
Rep. Chaka Fattah [D-PA2]
Rep. Barbara Lee [D-CA13]
Rep. Nita Lowey [D-NY17]
Rep. Ed Pastor [D-AZ7]
Rep. Brian Higgins [D-NY26]
Rep. Judy Chu [D-CA27]
Rep. Janice Hahn [D-CA44]
Rep. Lois Capps [D-CA24]
Rep. Susan Davis [D-CA53]
Rep. Rick Larsen [D-WA2]
Rep. Jim McDermott [D-WA7]
Rep. Frank Pallone [D-NJ6]
Rep. Bill Pascrell [D-NJ9]
Rep. Henry Waxman [D-CA33]
Rep. Al Green [D-TX9]
Rep. Steve Cohen [D-TN9]
Rep. Theodore Deutch [D-FL21]
Rep. Karen Bass [D-CA37]
Rep. Alan Lowenthal [D-CA47]
Rep. Lois Frankel [D-FL22]
Rep. Matthew Cartwright [D-PA17]
Rep. Brad Sherman [D-CA30]
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter [D-NH1]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA19]
Rep. André Carson [D-IN7]
Rep. Elizabeth Esty [D-CT5]
Del. Donna Christensen [D-VI0]
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY10]
Rep. Frederica Wilson [D-FL24]
Rep. Ed Perlmutter [D-CO7]
Rep. John Garamendi [D-CA3]
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries [D-NY8]
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D-OR3]
Rep. Eric Swalwell [D-CA15]

H.R. 138: Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act

Ah, yes. Those evil magazines that can carry an arbitrary number of bullets. This bill is designed “to prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.” I highlighted that last phrase because when you see this in a bill, prepare for an encroachment into your life in some significant way. Also, be wary of terms like, “as the Secretary may direct.” This is basically how Congress delegates its authority to the Executive Branch.

When this bill mentions a “large capacity ammunition feeding device,” it’s talking about “a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.” Because we all know that “YOU DON’T NEED MORE THAN TEN ROUNDS TO KILL A DEER!” But, what if you do? What if the out of those ten rounds you fire at a deer, the first one hits the hind leg, the next three miss, the fifth one hits slightly above the shoulder, the next three miss, on hits the nose, and the last one misses?

Now you’ve got a severely injured deer making his getaway while you fumble for another magazine. Poor deer. But, I digress.

If you manufacture one of these menacing holders of self-initiated projectiles, you are required to put a serial number on it, just like the weapons themselves, as well as “such other identification as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe.” There’s that phrase I was telling you to look out for.

Oh, lookie here, this bill was submitted by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY4] as well and has the following co-sponsors:

DeGette, Diana [D-CO1]
Brady, Robert [D-PA1]
Capuano, Michael [D-MA7]
Castor, Kathy [D-FL14]
Cicilline, David [D-RI1]
Conyers, John [D-MI13]
Courtney, Joe [D-CT2]
Cummings, Elijah [D-MD7]
DeLauro, Rosa [D-CT3]
Deutch, Theodore [D-FL21]
Ellison, Keith [D-MN5]
Eshoo, Anna [D-CA18]
Frankel, Lois [D-FL22]
Fudge, Marcia [D-OH11]
Higgins, Brian [D-NY26]
Himes, James [D-CT4]
Huffman, Jared [D-CA2]
Israel, Steve [D-NY3]
Kaptur, Marcy [D-OH9]
Larson, John [D-CT1]
Levin, Sander [D-MI9]
Maloney, Carolyn [D-NY12]
Matsui, Doris [D-CA6]
McCollum, Betty [D-MN4]
Miller, George [D-CA11]
Moore, Gwen [D-WI4]
Moran, James “Jim” [D-VA8]
Norton, Eleanor [D-DC0]
Perlmutter, Ed [D-CO7]
Quigley, Mike [D-IL5]
Schakowsky, Janice “Jan” [D-IL9]
Schiff, Adam [D-CA28]
Sherman, Brad [D-CA30]
Slaughter, Louise [D-NY25]
Speier, Jackie [D-CA14]
Tierney, John [D-MA6]
Tsongas, Niki [D-MA3]
Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD8]
Yarmuth, John [D-KY3]
Brownley, Julia [D-CA26]
Carney, John [D-DE0]
Doyle, Michael “Mike” [D-PA14]
Green, Al [D-TX9]
Grijalva, Raúl [D-AZ3]
Markey, Edward “Ed” [D-MA5]
McGovern, James “Jim” [D-MA2]
Price, David [D-NC4]
Scott, Robert “Bobby” [D-VA3]
Davis, Danny [D-IL7]
Hinojosa, Rubén [D-TX15]
Holt, Rush [D-NJ12]
Meng, Grace [D-NY6]
Napolitano, Grace [D-CA32]
Payne, Donald [D-NJ10]
Pingree, Chellie [D-ME1]
Sarbanes, John [D-MD3]
Schwartz, Allyson [D-PA13]
Serrano, José [D-NY15]
Bishop, Timothy [D-NY1]
Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX18]
Langevin, James “Jim” [D-RI2]
Pallone, Frank [D-NJ6]
Pocan, Mark [D-WI2]
Smith, Adam [D-WA9]
Rep. Nita Lowey [D-NY17]
Rep. Stephen Lynch [D-MA8]
Rep. Ed Pastor [D-AZ7]
Rep. Judy Chu [D-CA27]
Rep. Janice Hahn [D-CA44]
Rep. David Loebsack [D-IA2]
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter [D-NH1]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA19]
Rep. Elizabeth Esty [D-CT5]
Del. Donna Christensen [D-VI0]
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D-FL20]
Rep. Susan Davis [D-CA53]
Rep. John Garamendi [D-CA3]
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries [D-NY8]
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D-OR3]

H.R. 21: NRA Members’ Gun Safety Act of 2013

With a title like that, how can gun owners NOT support it?! The purpose of this bill is short, sweet, and to the point: “To provide for greater safety in the use of firearms.” I don’t think I know of a gun owner anywhere that wouldn’t agree to that. Do we need legislation to make that happen? No, unless you’re a big-government intrusionist.

I’m not so sure that the either the NRA or “NRA Members” really would appreciate having their name attached to this legislation. It’s an obvious attempt to confuse the low-information voter (or entitlement whore) into thinking that this is common sense legislation.

However, this bill is actually quite similar to McCarthy’s “Fix Gun Checks Act” I discussed earlier. Our Congress is truly a duplicitous beast. The bill requires backgrounds for 100% of transfers of firearms and ammunition.

This bill requires additional reporting that McCarthy’s didn’t. For example, if my friend or extended family member give me two or more guns (including common revolvers or pistols) of any type within a 5-day period, the licensed dealer we went through for this transaction (assuming we actually went through a dealer) would have to file a report of the multiple transactions. Umm, what if we go through one dealer for one weapon and four other dealers for the other four? Crap! I just gave away my plan of attack. Expect an amendment to surface within 72 hours.

Another difference in this bill is that it makes it illegal for a firearms dealer to hire anyone that is barred from possessing weapons or ammunition. While, again, I’m pretty sure this is already happening without the government having to say, it wouldn’t really be valid without the government saying so.

Here’s the fun part of this monstrously crappy bill. If this is passed, it will be illegal to sell weapons or ammunitions to terrorists!! The bill doesn’t identify any exemptions for the Justice Department, so they may lose some jobs in the future. Here’s the scary paragraph inserted into this bill:

‘Sec. 922A. Attorney General’s discretion to deny transfer of a firearm
‘The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’

The word “terrorism” as defined by the government is quite broad. It includes anyone that would seek “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion” or even “to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.” If you’re Janet Napolitano, you may define teorrist this way:

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.

Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

This bill also gives the attorney wide latitude to unilaterally decide if he/she thinks that someone shouldn’t have a weapon based solely on “a reasonable belief that the applicant may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.” Couple that with the assessment made mere months after President Obama took office about returning combat veterans and it’s not hard to jump to reasonable conclusions.

The bill requires that the theft or loss of a firearm be reported within 48 hours of the loss being discovered. This is an arbitrary number that doesn’t take into account various possible reasons why it wouldn’t be reported.

Not wanting to stop at just intruding on the 2nd Amendment, this legislation also intrudes on 9th and 10th Amendment liberties. It mandates that states with concealed carry laws require its citizens to be licensed and tracked. It also requires them to establish rules for allowing them to carry between states or residents of other states carrying within its state limits.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t stop there. The bill mandates that states require citizens wanting a permit “to demonstrate good cause for requesting a concealed firearm permit.” No mention of what “good cause” is and how it would be applied uniformly. But that’s not all. The state must also “demonstrate that the applicant is worthy of the public trust to carry a concealed firearm in public.” Qualifying worth seems to a very subjective term. Yeah, I see Texas jumping all over this bandwagon! NOT!!

Like I said, there is nothing about this bill that the NRA would support. Nice try.

This bill was introduced by Rep. James “Jim” Moran Jr. [D-VA8] and has the following co-sponsors so far:

Doyle, Michael “Mike” [D-PA14]
Schwartz, Allyson [D-PA13]
Rep. Lois Capps [D-CA24]
Rep. Rick Larsen [D-WA2]
Rep. Henry Waxman [D-CA33]
Rep. Bruce Braley [D-IA1]
Rep. Steve Cohen [D-TN9]
Rep. Paul Tonko [D-NY20]
Rep. Karen Bass [D-CA37]
Rep. Suzanne Bonamici [D-OR1]

Surely there are more NRA supporters in the Senate than this…

H.R. 34: Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2013

The purpose of this bill is to “provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.”

Instroduced just four days after the Sandy Hook shooting, the bill is named after Blair Holt, a junior at Julian High School in the most dangerous city in American, Chicago. Hold “was killed on a public bus riding home from school when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire after a young man boarded the bus and started shooting,” according to the bill text. The bill’s author is the race-baiting, hoodie wearing representative from Illinois, Bobby Rush.

Rush is a disgraced former Soldier that went AWOL while a private in 1968. He is also the founder of the Black Panthers in Illinois. As a Black Panther, Rush was constantly calling for his fellow thugs to arm themselves to oppose police authority. Before I get into the entirety of Rush’s bill, let’s look at what kind of man Rush is.

They’ll elect all forms of extremism and thuggery in Chicago, won’t they? But, I digress.

This act has several stated goals:

(1) to protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with the unrecorded sale or transfer of qualifying firearms to criminals and youth;

(2) to ensure that owners of qualifying firearms are knowledgeable in the safe use, handling, and storage of those firearms;

(3) to restrict the availability of qualifying firearms to criminals, youth, and other persons prohibited by Federal law from receiving firearms; and

(4) to facilitate the tracing of qualifying firearms used in crime by Federal and State law enforcement agencies.

The bill requires the licensing of anyone wanting to purchase or possess a “qualifying firearm.” The bill uses the already established definition which includes “any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; the frame or receiver of any such weapon; any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.”

In other words, while Rush loved his guns to attack police officers and stick it to “the man” he wants to prevent you from owning one without permissions from the state. It doesn’t matter what kind of gun it is or how many bullets it can hold or fire.

In order to get a license under this bill, law-abiding citizens must submit an application with the following information:

(1) a current, passport-sized photograph of the applicant that provides a clear, accurate likeness of the applicant;

(2) the name, address, and date and place of birth of the applicant;

(3) any other name that the applicant has ever used or by which the applicant has ever been known;

(4) a clear thumb print of the applicant, which shall be made when, and in the presence of the entity to whom, the application is submitted;

(5) with respect to each category of person prohibited by Federal law, or by the law of the State of residence of the applicant, from obtaining a firearm, a statement that the individual is not a person prohibited from obtaining a firearm;

(6) a certification by the applicant that the applicant will keep any firearm owned by the applicant safely stored and out of the possession of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;

(7) a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination, which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding–

(A) the safe storage of firearms, particularly in the vicinity of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;

(B) the safe handling of firearms;

(C) the use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use;

(D) the legal responsibilities of firearms owners, including Federal, State, and local laws relating to requirements for the possession and storage of firearms, and relating to reporting requirements with respect to firearms; and

(E) any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate;

(8) an authorization by the applicant to release to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant;

(9) the date on which the application was submitted; and

(10) the signature of the applicant.

I’ve highlighted a few areas of concern (as if any of these are acceptable in any way). I grew up around firearms. My kids are growing up around firearms. I knew how to properly handle and firearms when I was very young. My daughter was eight when I began teaching her to shoot and she is a crack shot too! If anyone were to break into my house, my kids know how to access a firearm to defend themselves and/or their siblings and parents. They know how to strip them down and clean them. They know how to load and unload them. They know how to handle it safely without endangering anyone. They understand the capabilities of each firearm and the damage they can inflict. These are all things I was taught as a kid and have passed on to them. The requirement to keep guns out of the possession of those under 18 is an ignorant one. If this bill had been passed in the 1800s, can you imagine where we’d be today?

Paragraph 8 really concerns me. The bill doesn’t specify what “mental health records” are necessary, but instead demands ANY such records. So, if you were in a car accident and are dealing with the associated PTS and seek help, you could very well be barred from owning a gun under this legislation. Troops returning from combat after having witnessed untold death and destruction would likewise have their rights thrown in jeopardy. I’m sure this is their desired endstate.

Like other bills, this one also requires creation of a “Federal Record of Sale System” for any and all transfers of firearms. The only exceptions are for transfers to or from a parent, child, grandparent, or grandchild of the individual. In other words, no exemption for transfers to brothers and sisters or other immediate family members. It mandates federal registration of all firearms purchases, including addresses of sellers and buyers. It requires firearms owners to report loss or theft of firearms to the Attorney General within three days of discovering the loss.

Another scary aspect of this legislation – besides the author of course – is that it allows the Attorney General to create additional regulations to carry out the intent of it. The Attorney General may issue an order prohibiting the sale or transfer of any firearm that the Attorney General finds has been transferred or distributed in violation of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or a regulation issued under this Act. Again, this is Congress delegating its constitutional authority to an unelected bureaucrat.

While this bill is authored by Rep. Bobby Rush [D-IL1], at least we can be somewhat relieved it has no co-sponsors yet. The bill died in Committee, but don’t rule out not seeing this one again.

And all these bills don’t even take into account Senator Diane Frankenfeinstein’s monster “assault weapons” ban. The text hasn’t been uploaded to the official record yet. I have a copy of the bill, but I got it unofficially and don’t want to publish something that may change before it’s published to the records.

On the plus side, there are a few bills that WILL go a long way to help mitigate mass shootings at gun-free zones like schools.

H.R. 133: Citizens Protection Act of 2013

This bill is meant to repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act. Research In the 22 years prior to the signing into law of this bill, there were two mass school shootings. In the 22 years that followed, there were ten, including the Virginia Tech or Sandy Hook shootings. The Gun-Free School Zones Act was a complete and utter failure. This legislation seeks to repeal this law to allow states and communities to adopt policies allowing school officials and parents to defend themselves and their children.

Recently submitted by Rep. Thomas Massie [R-KY4], it currently has no sponsors. If you think your representative should co-sponsor this legislation, tell them!

H.R. 35: Safe Schools Act of 2013

The purpose here is simply restore safety to the schools in America. It also seeks to repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act and recognizes that horrific massacres on school campuses in Pearl, Mississippi, and southwestern Virginia, were averted by armed staff and students.

This bill is authored by Rep. Steve Stockman [R-TX36] and the following co-sponsors:

Rep. Broun, Paul [R-GA10]
Rep. Jeff Duncan [R-SC3]
Rep. Thomas Massie [R-KY4]
Rep. Louie Gohmert [R-TX1]
Rep. Dan Benishek [R-MI1]
Rep. Steven Palazzo [R-MS4]
Rep. Tom Cotton [R-AR4]
Rep. Jim Bridenstine [R-OK1]

Best selling patriotic rock band, Madison Rising woke up this morning to hundreds of complaints from angry fans complaining that their postings of the band’s best selling rendition of the Star Spangled Banner had been deleted from Facebook over the past 24 hours.

What started as complaints from a handful of fans escalated onto a barrage of anger after the band posted a message asking if anyone else had experienced this same problem.

“I’m not sure why this would happen,” Said band manager, Richard Mgrdechian. “Of all things, to delete such a beautiful and reverent version of the Star Spangled Banner is beyond comprehension. I hope it’s just a technical glitch, but something larger seems to be at work.”

The problem as I see it is quite simple. There are no humans at Facebook that vet when people flag something. Say something that an unknown number of people out of 1.11 BILLION users don’t like and you get your account locked or post removed without even being reviewed by an intelligent human. Freedom of speech and Facebook don’t exactly go hand in hand unless you’re a liberal America hater.

But, you can always watch their epic rendition of the Star Spangled Banner here: