Hear about a police lieutenant who declares that he is the master and any citizen who supports the second amendment is ant-American. Hear about a Florida Republican who says support for the 2nd amendment is a debatable minority view. Enemies of liberty want you to think you are alone and you are radical. I am here to tell you that you are not, and I have proof.
AMERICA, FL GUN OWNERS NEED YOU!
Do you Love this Country? Do you believe your right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? Then FL needs YOU! We don’t need another State to fall into line with anti-gun laws. YOU could be NEXT!
WE MUST STAND TOGETHER NOW OR LOSE OUR LIBERTIES ONE BY ONE.
16 States have already passed versions of this legislation! But Republican Dane Eagle believes that when citizens demand protection for the 2nd Amendment, those citizens are “bullying” their so-called leaders. Mr. Eagle, however has no problem being bullied by professional lobbyists, nor does he have a problem with politicians bullying citizens.
Rep. Dane Eagle (R) sponsored the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act in FL (HB 733). This act says no State or local taxpayer funds can be used to enforce unconstitutional gun laws. Mr. Eagle has now WITHDRAWN this effort to protect the 2nd Amendment in FL, calling Grassroots “INFANTILE” and siding with a pro-gun regulation lobbyist!
DANE EAGLE BELIEVES YOU ARE “INFANTILE” and “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” IS DEBATABLE??!!??
Dane Eagle needs to read my article “2nd Amendment for Dummies and Tyrants!” Link here: http://bit.ly/Oi8AsD
WE NEED YOU TO CONTACT MR. EAGLE AND CORRECT HIM ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT!
Phone: (850) 717-5077 Email: Dane.Eagle@myfloridahouse.gov Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dane-Eagle/155443277896065Rep. Eagle said in his letter to grassroots organizers that it is:
“infantile to suggest that [2nd Amendment preservation] is not a debatable position”
He then claims that the desire to secure our RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS is not only “infantile and debatable” but a “MINORITY OPINION” in America!
“and even perhaps a minority opinion, in America today”’
WE THE PEOPLE MUST CORRECT HIM!
Dane Eagle then says he will not support HB733 because the grassroots have been too aggressive with their defense of the 2nd Amendment! He would rather side AGAINST the people and WITH the LOBBYISTS!
Where does he get this opinion? From a gun regulation lobbyist pretending to represent the interests of Gun Owners! Florida NRA members need to know their organization has been infiltrated by a PRO GUN-REGULATION lobbyist who has opposed the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act from the beginning, declaring that it would affect federal “positive pro-gun legislation”. Is THIS the position of the NRA, that the federal government has the ability to INFRINGE upon our right to keep and bear arms as long as it is “positive” gun legislation? I THINK NOT! I’m sure former NRA President, Charlton Heston, would BOLDLY tell you that the Feds have NO RIGHT to regulate guns, whether positive or negative. Many other NRA Leaders have supported and helped pass this legislation throughout the US. Florida’s NRA chapter is clearly not interested in doing the same, while one of our states is at this very moment being forcibly disarmed. Mr. Eagle when WILL be the right time to stand? When the federal agents are knocking on our door, like they soon will be in Connecticut?
Call the National NRA and let them know we DO NOT appreciate an infiltrator working against gun rights!
Phone: (800) 392-8683
In the spirit of Benjamin Franklin, it is time for American Gun Owners to STAND TOGETHER or we shall surely all hang separately!
DANE EAGLE’s EMAIL:
From: Eagle, Dane [mailto:Dane.Eagle@myfloridahouse.gov]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 3:12 PM
To: Grassroots email address removed for privacy
Cc: Caldwell, Matt; Fitzenhagen, Heather; Rodrigues, Ray
Subject: Withdraw of HB733
Members of the *******:
We pen this letter with great disappointment, as the purpose is to inform you that the “2nd Amendment Preservation Act” (currently filed as HB 733) has been withdrawn, and that the policy position will not be pursued in the 2014 Regular Session. The reason for this withdrawal is simple: the tactics and methods used by many grassroots supporters of this bill have unfortunately created an air of suspicion within the Capitol, suspicion that some advocates care less about the 2nd Amendment and more about causing divisions among like-minded people. The old adage, “We can disagree, without being disagreeable,” comes to mind. We find it timely that Sen. Rand Paul just this week spoke to the issue of language and message regarding support of candidates and issues. The fact is, any chance this bill had for passage in 2014 is no longer realistic. We will no longer allow our names be attached to a bill that has been used as a vehicle to attack and create division amongst our allies.
Our fellow Republicans in the Legislature, believe, as you do, that the right of self-defense contained within the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is an inviolable right, on par with the rights to speech, assembly, and worship contained in the 1stAmendment to the U.S. Constitution. These are inalienable rights granted to mankind by our Creator, and a law of man can neither rightfully abridge them, nor should they attempt to do so.
However, it would be infantile to suggest that this is not a debatable position, and even perhaps a minority opinion, in America today. Right or wrong, there are numerous restrictions on these freedoms, at both the state and federal level. Any assumption that a challenge to this dynamic would be no more complex than the passage of a simple commemorative resolution demonstrates a gross under appreciation of the challenge.
Frankly, changing the current dynamic will require the conversion of our friends and neighbors with sweet words of collegiality, not the rude hammer of coercion by state power. Laws meant to protect our rights are meaningless if the majority of the citizenry care little for their protection. This is the challenge with which we believe the grassroots can most effectively assist.
As a further note, throughout the last several months, as we attempted to craft a bill which would meet your stated policy goals, conflict regularly arose between your supporters and Florida’s National Rifle Association and its leader, Ms. Marion Hammer. The fact is, the NRA and Ms. Hammer have been a champion for our 2nd Amendment rights for decades. While they are an independent group and able to provide their own defense, many of the protections we enjoy today in Florida come directly from their efforts. Inasmuch as the Legislature has been the vehicle for those accomplishments, we provide a short list for your consideration below:
~ PASSED – Nation’s first “shall issue” Right-to-Carry law ~ PASSED – Firearms Preemption to Stop Local Gun Control ~ PASSED – Right-to-Carry Reciprocity law ~ PASSED – Protection Against Expiration of CW Licenses for Active Duty Military ~ PASSED – Hunter Protection law ~ PASSED – Protection From Shooting Range Closures for Noise/ Nuisance ~ PASSED – Protection From Shooting Range Closures by Government Environmental Lawsuits ~ PASSED – Gun Manufacturer Lawsuit Protection ~ PASSED – Restoration of Castle Doctrine Protection ~ PASSED – Stand Your Ground Protection ~ PASSED – No-Net-Loss of Hunting Lands ~ PASSED – Hunter Voter Registration ~ PASSED – Right to Carry in National Forests ~ PASSED – Gun Registration Prohibition ~ PASSED – No Confiscation of Firearms During State of Emergency ~ PASSED – Penalties for Local Governments who violate Gun Rights ~ PASSED – Protection Against Doctors Violating Gun Owners Privacy Rights ~ PASSED – Numerous Fee Reductions for CW License Holders, etc.These protections of our rights did not come without considerable effort and their continued upholding will not come without a commitment to our principles; a commitment which we believe the majority of the Florida Legislature shares.
We hope that this message is received in the constructive manner with which it is intended. We look forward to working on this issue in the future.
God Bless You and may God Bless the State of Florida.
Sincerely,
Rep. Dane Eagle Rep. Matt Caldwell Rep. Heather Fitzenhagen Rep. Ray Rodrigues
In this town hall meeting, KrisAnne Hall responds to what seems to be a common misconception about the Constitution being a living and breathing document subject to the prevailing winds and whims of the times and clearly explains the purpose of the Constitution and what it means when it says; “Shall Not be Infringed.”.
KrisAnne Hall speaks to Oath Keepers about gun control, the fact that government workers are our employees and has a few simple words of wisdom about gun control and the 2nd Amendment.
The Florida Sheriffs Association at their convention issued a statement that on the surface sounds as if they are fully behind the 2nd Amendment. However, let me warn you that the devil is always in the detail and unfortunately their statement shows a lack of understanding of what the 2nd Amendment imperative really is. And let me tell you that the 2nd Amendment imperative is not for skeet shooting, it’s not for gun clubs, it’s not for hunting duck, rabbits, or elk. No! Let me share with you exactly what the 2nd Amendment imperative is and what our founders exact thinking was when the 2nd Amendment was made part of the Bill of Rights.
Today is open line Friday and the day starts off with a call to action to get out to the weekend rally in support of Liberty, County Sheriff Nicholas Finch. Sheriff Finch choose to boldly go where few government officials refuse to go when he stood up for the 2nd Amendment. Government corruption is dirtying up the house in Tallahassee and I encourage everyone, not just Florida residents to visit their state house. Sit down with your representative and let them know what’s on your mind. Most likely they’ll kiss up to you, but it will be business as usual as soon as you walk out the door. We have to clean up our own houses, because if we can’t clean our own state houses first, we have no business complaining about the federal government. I’m just saying and I’m just getting started. Click the play button for the whole broadcast.
The UN Arms Trade Treaty should alarm any liberty-loving citizen. Every UN treaty requires the participating country to turn over its sovereignty regarding that particular issue. An agreement with the UN removes the autonomy of the nation and the independence of the people to make their own laws free of UN control and dictate. The UN Arms Trade Treaty is no exception. It is meant to regulate the sale and possession of small arms, both within and without the nation. Patrick Henry gave this clear warning in his day,
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation…inflicted by those who had no power at all.”
We should guard with jealous attention and be very suspicious of this present attempt to remove our public liberty.
The first problem with the treaty is that it uses some incredibly awkward wording, and the meaning of sentences can be very difficult to understand because the structure is so bad. It is as if someone who holds English as a third or fourth language wrote the English version, but I digress. I want to highlight just SOME of the problems with this treaty, and there are many.
The very first provision in the preamble should be enough to make Americans abandon the entire treaty.
The States Parties to this Treaty,
1. Guided by the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations;
This might not cause alarm to the average person who has never read the UN Charter. But those who have will understand that we are already on shaky ground. It is simply not possible for the UN charter and the US Constitution to co-exist without one being abrogated to the other. Consider just the preamble to the UN Charter:
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law,
Therefore, each party to the treaty must write laws regulating the sale and possession of firearms consistent with those standards. So, each law must guarantee that the sale and possession of guns are only allowed where the GOVERNMENT can ensure that such activity will not be a “threat to peace” or cause “breaches of peace” and these laws MUST conform to international law. How does international law define “threat to peace”? What activity will cause “breaches of peace”? Compliance with this treaty now obligates our Congress, when drafting laws, to comply with international law? Seriously? This makes our Congress bound by a global democracy and not a Constitutional Republic based upon the consent of the governed. This move toward global governance is antithetical to the Constitution.
Another principle of the UN Charter requires Congress, when drafting these laws, to focus on international cooperation. What is the purpose to be considered when doing so? According to the Charter, these laws must solve international problems of economic, social, cultural, humanitarian character and promote human rights.
So wrapped up in just the first sentence of the treaty; every law Congress makes to comply with this treaty must regulate the sale and possession of firearms to:
1. Act collectively with and in compliance with international law;
2. Ensure that firearms will not be used as a “threat to peace”;
3. Ensure that firearms will not be used to invoke a “breach of peace”;
4. Solve international problems.
These requirements create a “government knows best” frame of mind regarding who can possess firearms and how they will be used. This is completely antithetical to the foundation of America and the understanding of our right to keep and bear arms. If you doubt this statement, please read my previous writing discussing the true understanding of our second amendment. There is no way that Congress will be able to meet these criteria and maintain the protection of our second amendment rights.
Section 4 of the preamble of the UN Arms Trade Treaty makes the following requirement of those under the treaty:
The States Parties to this Treaty,
Underlining the need to prevent, combat and ERADICATE the illicit trade of conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use, such as terrorism and organized crime.
Congress must write laws to regulate “small arms and light weapons” based upon international standards and must also PREVENT illicit trade and unauthorized use. That word “illicit” is not necessarily synonymous with “illegal.” If they had wanted to say “illegal”, meaning based upon established laws, surely they would have said so. They did not, however, and by stating “illicit” instead of “illegal” they are applying a subjective standard, not codified by law but established by a “common custom, rule, or standard.”
The UN will dictate to Congress and to the citizens of this nation, who will keep arms, what arms they will keep, and for what purpose they will keep them, all based upon subjective standards and international law. Again, there is NO WAY Congress can meet this standard and still uphold their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Ratifying this treaty will be turning over our government to foreign rule and would be an act of treason.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. ~George Washington, Farewell Address 1796.
Proponents may attempt to argue this treaty is only to create laws and regulations governing foreign trade and commerce. That would be a lie and the articles of this treaty directly contradict that assertion. Article 9 requires each government to take appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to control the buying and selling of firearms within that nation. We have just stepped out of the realm of the international and are now imposing laws controlling the people within their own country.
How is each government supposed to control this buying and selling?
The Treaty requires the establishment of a “national control system.” Great…another federal bureaucracy!
Each State Party shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty and designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective, transparent, and predictable national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms.
What will this new federal agency do to comply with this Treaty?
They will be required by the UN to collect “all relevant information, including the nature and potential use of the items to be transferred and the verified end-users in the country or final destination.” They will make sure “all appropriate and relevant information is provided, upon request…to verif[y] the end users.” And this bureaucracy will create “adequate measures that will allow them…to monitor and control” these firearms.
How will this bureaucracy “monitor and control the firearms?
The Treaty requires, in Article 11, each government to maintain records regarding the “quantity,model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred, and details of end-users.” They must keep these records for a minimum of 10 years. These reports must be submitted to the UN’s Implementation Support Unit to be added to the UN Register of Conventional Arms. In order to purchase and possess a firearm citizens will now be required to give to the United Nations their names, addresses, phone numbers, birth date, and any other information the UN feels is necessary.
In summary, the national control agencies will collect all information necessary to identify and track not only the firearms but those who will be the “end-users,” the possessors of those firearms and that information will be submitted to the UN to be kept on their records for 10 years. Make no mistake, this is not referring to foreign trade, this is a direct control and monitoring of the individuals of that country possessing arms.
But wait; there is an amendment process to this Treaty. Pursuant to Article 20, any government can submit an amendment to the Treaty at any time and ratification only requires an “adoption by consensus” or two-thirds of the governments present and voting at the Conference of State Parties. Any such amendment ratified will enter into full force against all governments in the Treaty. So if the government doesn’t like an amendment, too bad.
What happens if a government no longer wants to be part of this Treaty?
Section 18 allows governments to withdraw from the treaty, but includes the provision that a government is “not discharged from the obligations” of the treaty even if they withdraw. So you can withdraw, but the UN will still require you to fulfill the obligations of the treaty. Are you kidding me?
The purpose of this Treaty is to regulate “small arms and light weapons” out of the hands of the individuals. It will remove the need for the government to confiscate weapons. All future sales will be so heavily regulated that purchasing a new firearm will be next to impossible. If you still wish to wade through the heavy regulations, you will consent to having all of your personal identifying information submitted to the United Nations knowing they will keep that information on file for 10 years. You will also consent to submit to foreign law that will dictate how you possess and use that firearm. They won’t need to show up at your door to take your weapons, most citizens will simply find it too much trouble and not even bother.
Our second amendment states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This Treaty is a violation of this amendment and is unconstitutional. If the Senate ratifies this treaty, it will be null and void and the people will not be bound by it. Don’t believe me? Read what our founders say about unconstitutional treaties.
The real question is, if the Senate ratifies this Treaty, or the President attempts to implement it without the authority of the Senate, what will THE PEOPLE do about it? Will we stand for the Constitution and demand that our states nullify this treaty as our founders require? Or will we blindly submit to the tyranny of foreign law imposed upon us? Sam Adams said,
‘if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom. It is a very serious consideration … that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.”
Will we preserve the blessings of liberty for our posterity or will we involve them in our doom?
Analysis of the changes between ATF Form 4473 Revised April 2012
And ATF Form 4473 Revised August 2008
By KrisAnne Hall
Summary available here. Printable version here.
ATF has made several changes to their Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record Part I- Over-the Counter. ATF has cited a memorandum of the Attorney General as the source and requirement for these changes. ATF asserts that these changes are necessary to comply with the purpose in the memorandum to prevent STATES from creating more stringent requirements on aliens than those of citizens. The AG memorandum does not make this assertion, nor does the memorandum support such reasoning. Finally, the AG, in issuing their memorandum, has made it easier for transient immigrants, who are not loyal to the laws of this land, to buy, transport, and ship guns and ammunition than for US Citizens. The ATF, in enforcing the AG’s standards, has claimed that the states have no right to do anything about it.
It is also relevant to point out that the recent Supreme Court ruling in Arizona would support both the AG’s memorandum in granting greater access to nonimmigrant aliens as well as the ATF’s assertion that the states have no say in the matter. (For further understanding of the Arizona ruling please read here)
A. The Specific Changes made to ATF Form 4473 from 2008-2012
1. There are three specific changes made to ATF Form 4473. First, section 10 requires the applicant to verify “Race (Ethnicity).”
The 2008 version gives the following choices:
The new 2012 version breaks section 10 into sections 10-a and 10-b and gives the following options:
NOTE: It is interesting to note that there is no box for “Arab or Middle Eastern” and no box for “Other.” The choices are so specific, how would someone answer that question if they were from Iraq or Israel or Pakistan? This author could not find in the AG memorandum any requirement or even justification for this particular change; it is nonetheless a significant change in the forms.
2. The next significant change in the form involves sections 11-l and 12.
The 2008 version states:
The 2012 version states:
NOTE: The 2008 inquiry covered ALL aliens; the new version does not.
3. The final significant change in versions is the elimination of the language in section 20-c and the alteration of language in section 20-d of the 2008 version:
NOTE: The 2012 version of this form does not require any immigrant aliens to provide this documentation and focuses only on those with a nonimmigrant visa and section 20-d is now section 20-c with the following changes:
B. The Analysis
ATF has made several changes to its practices in allowing nonimmigrant aliens to purchase firearms. ATF asserts the justification for these changes are pursuant to a Memorandum issued on October 28, 2011 and signed by Assistant Attorney General Virginia Seitz.
ATF declares the basis for all the changes are due to the AG office reinterpretation of Congress’ intent in defining the terms “nonimmigrant alien” in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(B) (2006) and its application to the ability of an alien to ship, transport, possess, or receive a firearm or ammunition :
A provision of the federal Gun Control Act prohibits any “alien” who has “been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa” from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving “any firearm or ammunition” that has a connection to interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(B) (2006).
AAG Seitz’s memorandum concludes that the ATF had been inappropriately expanding the definition ‘nonimmigrant alien’ to include all nonimmigrant aliens, when the Attorney General’s office felt these restrictions should apply to those nonimmigrant aliens who were required to get a “paper” visa and did not possess waivers.
The AG office claims congress did not intend for the prohibitions in the Gun Control Act of 1968 “to apply to all aliens with nonimmigrant status, including nonimmigrant aliens admitted to the United States without a visa, pursuant either to the Visa Waiver Program, see 8 U.S.C. § 1187 (2006), or to regulations otherwise exempting them from visa requirements.”
In 2002, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) issued an interim final rule interpreting this prohibition to apply to any alien who has the status of “nonimmigrant alien,” regardless of whether the alien required a visa in order to be admitted to the United States. We explained that the text is clear: the provision applies only to nonimmigrant aliens who must have visas to be admitted, not to all aliens with nonimmigrant status. (emphasis added)
Section 922(g)(5)(B) makes it unlawful for aliens who have been “admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))” to ship, transport, possess, or receive any firearms or ammunition. A nonimmigrant is a person who is not seeking citizenship and does not intend to remain permanently in the United States. The AG’s office claims that people in the United States with student visas and employment visas should be treated differently than those who are simply visitors from countries authorized to enter the US without visas for vacation purposes, as well as aliens admitted under the Visa Waiver program. All those who are in this country as visitors or under the Visa Waiver program are only allowed to be here for 90 days or less.
The AG asserts that “although the text of the statute does not include an express rationale for the distinction drawn between nonimmigrants with visas and those without” they believe Congress never intended for these temporary visitors to be restricted by the Gun Control Act. Although the AG memorandum of October 28 does not list any specific changes that need to be made, the memorandum does make it clear that all “pending investigations and prosecutions predicated on the view that the statute applies to all nonimmigrant aliens, regardless of visa status” must be immediately terminated. The changes to the ATF Form 4473 are made pursuant to subsequent open letters issued by the Department of Justice “To ALL FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES.”
The first Open Letter is dated December 8, 2011 and is signed by Chief, Firearms and Explosives Industry Division head, Chad Yoder. This open letter does not directly reference the above memorandum, but does mention it by way of “Office Of Legal Counsel” opinion.
“Recently, the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, (OLC) has informed ATF that its interpretation of the scope of persons prohibited by section 922(g)(5)(B) is overly broad.”
This letter reiterates the AG opinion that the Gun Control Act of 1968 does not apply to all nonimmigrant aliens.
“Those aliens, and others who are lawfully in the country without a visa, are not within the scope of the GCA prohibition.”
No changes to the form are issued at this time, but Mr. Yoder explains that these changes are pending, putting all licensees on notice that the changes in interpretation are forthcoming.
The next Open Letter is dated April 30, 2012 and is signed by Chief, Firearms and Explosives Industry Division head, Chad Yoder (Attached as “C”). Again this letter references the October 28 AG memorandum as well as the December 8, 2011 open letter as the purpose for the letter. The April 30 letter, however, implements changes in ATF Form 4473, claiming the changes in policy pursuant to the AGs interpretation of the Gun Control Act. This letter asserts that the opinions issued in the AG memorandum claims that “states” applying “more stringent residency standards” was a violation of the AG’s interpretation of the Gun Control Act.
“Second, DOJ concluded that, as a matter of law, applying a more stringent state residency requirement for aliens legally present in the U.S. than for U.S. citizens is incompatible with the language of the Gun Control Act (GCA).”
There is no such direct statement in the October 28 AG memorandum. This memorandum dealt entirely with the ATF’s interpretation of this act and made no comments regarding state requirements. Yoder further claims,
“Therefore, an alien legally in the United States is not required to provide 90-days proof of continuous residency in the State prior to the transfer of the firearm.”
No further explanation is given. Perhaps, because nonimmigrants here upon waivers alone are only permitted to be in this country for less than 90 days at a time, requiring proof of residency to predicate access to firearms and ammunition is seen as a prohibition on this particular class of immigrants. But this requirement was removed for ALL IMMIGRANTS and not simply for those who are here pursuant to waiver. Gun and ammunition dealers and law enforcement agents are no longer allowed to request proof of residency from ANY nonimmigrant for authorization of shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving “any firearm or ammunition”. The justification for this change, as stated by Mr. Yoder, is to prevent STATES from applying more stringent residency requirements on aliens than citizens. The AG memorandum specifically stated that the ATF could not apply more stringent requirements upon one class of immigrants over another. This memorandum never stated that more stringent requirements could not be made of ALL nonimmigrants.
Additionally, Mr. Yoder does not even mention the changes in section 10-a of the 2012 ATF Form 4473 in the April 30 Open Letter. As a reminder, this section adds a separate question regarding ethnicity, to distinguish Hispanic or Latinos from all other races. This is in addition to section 10-b that requires the person to identify race, giving 5 choices. What is the justification for this change? How does a separate distinction between Hispanics and non-Hispanics meet the intent of the Gun Control Act as claimed by the AG? What is the purpose of making this distinction?
C. Conclusion
In Conclusion, on April 30, 2012 ATF made changes to ATF Form 4473, Firearms Records Part I- Over-the-Counter. ATF asserts these changes are justified by a memorandum issued by the Attorney General on October 28, 2011. Chief, Firearms and Explosives Industry Division head, Chad Yoder, claims the reason these changes are necessary is because states who are applying more stringent state residency requirements for aliens legally present in the US to purchase, ship, transport, possess, or receive a firearm or ammunition is incompatible with the Gun Control Act of 1968. The October 28 memorandum does not mention anything about “state requirements” and only addresses ATF’s interpretation of the Gun Control Act relative to separate classes of aliens.
The distinction made by the AG allows a specific class of aliens to purchase guns and ammunition. Aliens without nonimmigrant visas do not intend to obtain citizenship, express no intent to stay in this country for more than 90 days, make no application for visa, and therefore have had no formal background checks. Therefore, the AG has made it easier for transient immigrants, who are not loyal to the laws of this land, to buy guns and ammunition than for US Citizens. The ATF, in enforcing the AG’s standards claims that the states have no right to do anything about this; the states cannot make more stringent requirements upon aliens than on citizens. However, there seems to be no problem making more stringent requirements upon citizens than on transient aliens.
Although there are several legal arguments that could be asserted against the Attorney General’s memorandum asserting their understanding of Congress’s intent in drafting the Gun Control Act of 1968, the purpose of this analysis is to discuss the changes made to the ATF Form 4473 and the reasons asserted for these changes. (NOTE: Will the AG’s understandings ever be challenged? It is unlikely when the correction is issued by the Department of Justice against the Department of Justice, the agency governing itself.) Since the AG has made it a point to tell us what they believe Congress’s intent with immigrant aliens and the Gun Control Act, it would seem that it is inherent upon Congress to clarify these issues.
What many citizens and legislators do not understand is that the federal government has no right to prevent any law-abiding citizen from owning or possessing ANY firearm. The Constitution and its history is unequivocally clear on this! Here is a little 2nd Amendment history lesson so we can defend our Rights from becoming government bestowed privileges.
Everything we need to know was explained by our founders in the years 1787-1788. Lesson one comes from George Mason. George Mason, along with James Madison, is referred to as the “Father of the Bill of Rights.” Seems to me a good person to listen to when it comes to any portion of the Bill of Rights is someone who is referred to as its “Father.” Mason first explains the REASON we are to bear arms, and guess what; it has nothing to do with hunting and skeet shooting…or fighting muggers!
“Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, (Sir William Keith) who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia.” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1788
In the words of the “Father,” we bear arms to keep from becoming enslaved by the federal government. But Mr. Mason doesn’t end his lesson there, he continues by making sure we know WHO the militia is and this is contrary to what most politicians profess.
“Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788
So Mason explains We The People are the militia who bear arms to keep from being enslaved by the federal government AND to protect ourselves from the tyranny of OUR REPRESENTATIVES, whose dereliction leads us to suffer the same fate of foreign nations!
Lesson two comes from the great patriot Noah Webster. Speaking on the threat of an overpowering central government, he further explains, with great clarity, the REASON our founders intended the entire citizenry be armed.
“Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787
There is no interpretation need. These instructions are written in plane English. Why do we bear arms according to Noah Webster?
Lesson number 3 comes from a founder referred to in pseudonym as Letter from a Federal Farmer (most likely Richard Henry Lee, writer of the Resolution Declaring Independence). Mr. Lee explains,
“[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” Letter from the Federal Farmer #18 January 25, 1788.
Mr. Lee explains that it is our DUTY to not simply bear arms but to ALWAYS bear arms. Mr. Lee is probably rolling over in his grave at the idea that we have to ask permission of the government to carry a firearm. How about that directive that we also must teach our children to bear arms?
Our final lessons today come from Patrick Henry. Mr. Henry was probably one of the most passionate champion of the citizen’s duty to bear arms. No one can break it down like Patrick Henry.
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788
“Oh, sir! we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone;…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors can not assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.” Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788
Well, there you have it, an historical and truthful education on your Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The education is easy to find and easy to read. Why are our politicians bent on disseminating miseducation and lies? Perhaps they repeat the lies because they intent on disarming the people, because they know, as our founders did, that an armed citizenry is the last line of defense against absolute tyranny.
Just remember, the Federal government has no legitimate power beyond what its masters delegate to it. The States are the final battleground against centralized tyranny. We will defend our States, until we regain our nation. ( www.SovereignDuty.com )
“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #78
In true teleprompter form, King Barry delivered his royal decree on gun control. It is amazing to me the blind ignorance that so infects Washington DC. The framers of this nation made THEIR position very clear on gun ownership and the DUTY of a free people to keep and bear arms. It is very tempting to go through the King’s pronouncement line by line, but for the sake of brevity, I will restrain myself. I am going to focus only on the Second Amendment, but we must be aware that everything presented in the 23 “executive actions” are completely unconstitutional. The federal government does not have the power to fund research, the States, their law enforcement or even operate the ATF. Those are all powers that remain with the States through the 10th Amendment and there has NEVER been a constitutional amendment to change that.
What seems to elude those who are willing to jump on board the gun control train is the very principle and purpose our framers had in mind when drafting the Second Amendment. Knowing what the drafters said is essential to knowing why the King’s declarations are not only unconstitutional but also anti-liberty.
The fundamental principle behind the Second Amendment is actually pretty simple: it is the duty of the PEOPLE to preserve Liberty and to do so they MUST keep and bear arms. King Barry said he supports the Second Amendment for hunters and sportsmen and personal protection. Problem is, Barry, the framers said lots of things about our duty to keep and bear arms and NONE OF THEM had to do with hunting or sport or protections from the mugger.
George Mason:“When the resolution of ENSLAVING America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised to disarm the people that it was the best and most effectual way to ENSLAVE them; but that they SHOULD NOT DO IT OPENLY, but WEAKEN them and let them SINK GRADUALLY…”
Barack Obama:“Require universal background checks for all firearm sales. Reinstate and strengthen the ban on assault weapons. Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds. Ban possession of armor-piercing ammunition by anyone other than the military and law enforcement. Eliminate restrictions that force the ATF to authorize importation of certain firearms because of their age.” Translation: Let’s make them sink gradually.
Noah Webster:“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the WHOLE BODY of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops…A military force at the command of Congress,can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power; and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination to resistthe execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
Barack Obama:“I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. I respect our strong tradition of gun ownership and the rights of hunters and sportsmen. There are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners in America who cherish their right to bear arms for hunting or sport or protection or collection.” Translation: Bearing arms has nothing to do with me…just the deer in the field or the robber entering your home.
Richard Henry Lee(Federal Farmer #18): Whereas to PRESERVE LIBERTY, it is essential that the WHOLE BODY of the people ALWAYS possess arms…The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder TRUE REPUBLICANS are for carefully guarding against it.
Barack Obama:“Ban possession of armor-piercing ammunition by anyone other than the military and law enforcement. Reinstate and strengthen the ban on assault weapons.” Translation: Only the government can keep and bear arms unless I DECLARE otherwise.
In summary, the writers of the Second Amendment intended all the people to always bear arms to:
1. Keep from becoming slaves to a central government;
2. To keep the central government from enforcing unjust, unconstitutional, and oppressive laws;
3. To preserve Liberty and protect our Constitutional republic from men who operate to remove Liberty.
Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment is for:
1. Hunting, sport, protection, and collection;
2. Law enforcement officers;
3. The military in war (not when they come home);
4. Federal government agents unless otherwise declared by the federal government.
You CANNOT preserve Liberty by compromising the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment reads“the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” That literally means the government is completely forbidden to violate or transgress the peoples’ right to bear arms. Yet the King wants us to believe that it is a matter of “common sense” to allow the central government to decide who and on what terms the people can bear arms. Do you see how that is contrary to the very core of the Second Amendment? The King says he is going to“direct the U.S. attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun and make recommendations to ensure dangerous people aren’t slipping through the cracks.”I thought we were trying to make sure only criminals didn’t own guns. Now the government wants a new classification, “dangerous people”. I’m sure the King and his court will be ready and willing to pronounce the definition of “dangerous”. Who are the“dangerous” people today? Who will they be tomorrow? But then where does the compromise end? Because when you are completely forbidden to do something and then you get permission to do it just a little bit, you are no longer COMPLETELY forbidden, you are CONDITIONALLY forbidden. Conditions, as well as definitions, in the eyes of the government, are always mutable.
If you have heard or read the King’s diktat, he has warned you that the argument of Liberty would be presented; how very Alinsky of him. His denunciations of the founders’intent and the principles that make this nation great are merely tactic and have no credibility. He speaks from lies and emotional propaganda…the founders taught from historical experience and timeless principles. But I am just the messenger, so you must make your own decisions. As for me and my family, we stand with G. Mason, N. Webster, R.H. Lee and the men who sacrificed for Liberty. You may, however, choose to stand with those who only stand on avarice, ambition, and constitutional destruction. I leave you one last testimony from each side, a closing argument if you please:
Barack Obama:“If parents and teachers, police officers, and pastors, if hunters and sportsman, if responsible gun owners, if Americans of every background stand up and say, enough. We’ve suffered too much pain, and care too much about our children to allow this to continue, then change will –change will come.”
Daniel Webster:“Is the Constitution worth preserving? Guard it as you would the seat of your life; guard it not only against the open blows of violence, but also against that spirit of change.”