April 20, 2015

New York Times: “You Lie!”

*Editor’s Note* – It appears that the NRA is following the letter of Tennessee laws as they pertain to possession and use of a firearm by those attending the convention. What the convention organizers decide to do for their display weapons, is their business, although I’m struggling to come up with valid reasons to remove firing pins from guns because they are not for sale. I am open to comments and thoughts as to the reasoning.

So, yes, the New York Times is lying through their teeth on this issue. For clarification, however, let me explain that due to the anti-gun lobby, the right to keep and bear arms in Tennessee, is, in my opinion, seriously being infringed upon. According to Hand Gun Law dot US:

Open Carry is only legal for those with a valid permit/license to carry a concealed firearm.

Because of draconian laws, always supported by progressives like the New York Times, the ONLY people that may be allowed to attend the NRA convention, with their gun, must have a concealed carry permit THAT IS VALID IN TENNESSEE. (Tennessee does have permit reciprocity with other states.)

Shove that up your muzzle!

From the National Review:

“Seventy-thousand people are expected to attend the National Rifle Association’s convention opening on Friday in Tennessee, and not one of them will be allowed to come armed with guns that can actually shoot. After all the N.R.A. propaganda about how “good guys with guns” are needed to be on guard across American life, from elementary schools to workplaces, the weekend’s gathering of disarmed conventioneers seems the ultimate in hypocrisy. There will be plenty of weapons in evidence at the hundreds of display booths, but for convention security the firing pins must be removed. So far, there has been none of the familiar complaint about infringing supposedly sacrosanct Second Amendment rights — the gun lobby’s main argument in opposing tighter federal background checks on gun buyers after the 2012 gun massacre of schoolchildren in Connecticut.”<<<Read More>>>

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestLinkedInEmailShare

Bad Information Used In Attempt To Convince Voters On Concealed Carry

A bill is being proposed in the Maine Legislature that would do away with the concealed carry permitting process. One person, whose opinion was published in the Portland Press Herald, gives a list of reasons why this bill shouldn’t happen. His reasons are seriously flawed. Voters should understand that. Here’s a look at some of this person’s claims:

1. “The current system recognizes that concealed guns are dangerous and can be easily used for criminal purposes.” This simply is not true. The current system has been put in place because of ignorance of facts, along with totalitarians who just can’t resist stealing the right of self-defense from others. This statement assumes that we are to believe that when guns are concealed on a person, the person is more apt to commit a criminal offense. What attention is given to any laws by someone wishing to carry out a criminal offense?

2. “Polling consistently shows that more than 80 percent of Mainers support laws that improve gun safety..” Whether that statistic is true or not, doesn’t matter. It has nothing to do with the proposed legislation. It is a matter of one’s opinion, rather than fact, as to whether Maine residents consider concealed carry a matter of gun safety. Mainers may support gun safety, but it is quite doubtful that anything approaching 80% would oppose this proposed bill.

3. “…carrying a gun openly tends to attract the attention of bank guards, convenience store cashiers, police officers on patrol and the rest of us who are trying to keep our distance from people who aren’t emotionally stable.” Seriously? Isn’t this nothing more than the revelation of a person who lives in emotional fear over the day to day? Who walks about in fear, “to keep our distance from people who aren’t emotionally stable?” I think they designed padded rooms specifically for that kind of behavior.

4. “More guns do not make us safer.” In fact they do. Repeatedly it has been shown that an armed citizenry is safer than an unarmed one. Consider violent crime rates in places like Chicago and Washington, D.C. where guns are banned from everyone except the elite chosen few.

5. “They [guns] regularly kill and injure their owners and their owners’ children, spouses and partners.” Guns don’t do anything. They just lay where they are placed. From this person’s perspective, it would seem better to demand a ban on people. People kill people.

6. “We require a license to drive a car, in order to ensure that drivers are responsible. The current concealed-weapon system has the same rationale.” The author here forgets one very important difference between driving a car and having a right to keep and bear arms. Driving is a privilege in which a person must earn it. Keeping and bearing arms is a right guaranteed under the Second Amendment and self-defense is a right given us from God.

7. “…it protects all of us from guns in the wrong hands – or pockets.” No, it does not. To state that somehow requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon keeps guns out of the hands of criminals, who consequently can hurt a lot of people, is misleading and irresponsible. It must be stated again that criminals have no interest in laws, especially public safety laws, created in error to convince people it will stop crimes. It just isn’t the truth.

The author went out of his way to show that other states have laws similar to the current requirements for concealed carry in Maine, but failed to mention states like Alaska and nearby Vermont. Those two states do not require a permit to carry a handgun concealed. Do these states have a higher rate of crime?

Executive Order: Obama Declares National Emergency

From the White House:

Executive Order — “Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities”

EXECUTIVE ORDER

– – – – – – –

BLOCKING THE PROPERTY OF CERTAIN PERSONS ENGAGING IN

SIGNIFICANT MALICIOUS CYBER-ENABLED ACTIVITIES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, find that the increasing prevalence and severity of malicious cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with this threat.

Accordingly, I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:

(i) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States and that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) harming, or otherwise significantly compromising the provision of services by, a computer or network of computers that support one or more entities in a critical infrastructure sector;

(B) significantly compromising the provision of services by one or more entities in a critical infrastructure sector;

(C) causing a significant disruption to the availability of a computer or network of computers; or

(D) causing a significant misappropriation of funds or economic resources, trade secrets, personal identifiers, or financial information for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain; or

(ii) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State:

(A) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, the receipt or use for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain, or by a commercial entity, outside the United States of trade secrets misappropriated through cyber-enabled means, knowing they have been misappropriated, where the misappropriation of such trade secrets is reasonably likely to result in, or has materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States;

(B) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, any activity described in subsections (a)(i) or (a)(ii)(A) of this section or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order;

(C) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(D) to have attempted to engage in any of the activities described in subsections (a)(i) and (a)(ii)(A)-(C) of this section.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.

Sec. 2. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

Sec. 3. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include but are not limited to:

(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and

(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 4. I hereby find that the unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in section 1(a) of this order would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of such persons. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions).

Sec. 5. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 6. For the purposes of this order:

(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;

(b) the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;

(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States;

(d) the term “critical infrastructure sector” means any of the designated critical infrastructure sectors identified in Presidential Policy Directive 21; and

(e) the term “misappropriation” includes any taking or obtaining by improper means, without permission or consent, or under false pretenses.

Sec. 7. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order.

Sec. 8. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.

Sec. 9. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit the recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).

Sec. 10. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 1, 2015.

Hunting Bill Unfair

It always amazes me that when bills are passed or proposed that somebody doesn’t like, they claim that it is unfair. To justify their rant about the unfairness, they present their own ideology with the expectation that everyone else must conform to the way they choose to live. I fail to see how whining and carrying on all in an attempt to force others to think and live the way they do, is in any way living in a free country where a person should have the right to self determination.

Read an opinion piece on the Maine Legislatures “unfairness” in presenting a bear hunting bill aimed at youth.

The Barbarity of Protecting Killer Wolves Over Human Interests

Below is an article by James Beers in reference to a letter written by a rancher and published in a local Oregon newspaper.

Déjà vu, All Over Again

It is a great sadness to receive e-mails and copies of small town newspaper articles like the following, almost every day. The feelings of helplessness and anger when Big City newspapers either ignore these incidents or even worse, deny and ridicule those being harmed must be what it was like after WWII to reflect back on all the lies and disinformation from news accounts and politicians about the German wonderland Hitler was forming and how misunderstood Stalin and his henchmen were as they were forming a “worker’s paradise” that the American press published during the 1930’s.

Who speaks for and defends the ranchers, farmers, businessmen and families of rural America as they are pillaged like this by politicians and bureaucrats working in league with coalitions of wealthy interest groups that prance about and dress like secular missionaries imposing their hateful ideology of lies and nature worship?

The article below is from the Wallowa County Chieftain newspaper in Enterprise, Oregon (in the NE corner of Oregon). They won’t read it in Portland or Eugene where the state politicians and their bureaucrats are “breakfasting” as I write. You won’t see it in the San Francisco paper or the Chicago paper or even the vaunted Washington, DC paper read by our impotent Congressmen, our self-serving federal bureaucrats, and all the despot-wannabees that would make Mao proud.

* I could send it to my Minnesota big city paper but they would simply snicker as they dismissed it wondering why anyone was so stupid as to send them something like this.

* I could send it to my “Department of Natural Resources” but they would just tell everyone to ignore it because Oregonians just don’t know how to “live with wolves” like we do here in Minnesota. Our Governor Dayton might see this as a chance to “work with” fellow progressive for votes here at home; he might send out a Minnesota DNR delegation that could “advise” the Oregon “Wildlife” agency and in the meantime they could swap information about federal job opportunities and after-retirement opportunities with the “Unlimiteds’, “Forevers”, and “Defenders”.

* I could send it to the University of Minnesota and if they said anything about the problem at all it would be on the order of it probably being the result of insufficient leash laws for dogs and that the calving problems are some sort of new infectious malady for which Oregonians should fork over millions to the University to “conduct research” and “develop recommendations”.

* I could mention it to acquaintances but after listening they would shrug and say it is interesting but what can they do as they look at me with that look of, “what a funny guy”.

* I could send it to the US Fish and Wildlife Service but they would send me form letter #46 that begins. “Thank you for your recent letter…” and ends after a bafflement of BS, “Thank you for writing”.

* I could send it to my Congressman (a good guy) but some young staffer would smile as he came up with a polite letter telling me that while Congressman Kline understands the gravity of the situation, it is not a matter that occurs in his District but he will forward my letter to the US Fish and Wildlife Service that enforces the Endangered Species Act, oh and thank you for writing.

*I could send a copy to my two US Senators (Franken and Klobuchar) who are elected by; supported (financially, publicity-wise, and vote-wise) by; and beholden to a coalition of urban, progressive environmentalists that want the government to put more wolves and grizzly bears, buy more and more land, and declare more and more “wildernesses” “Out There”. My letter to them would evoke no more than, “I didn’t know there were any people like this left in Minnesota?”

I can only send this article to you and tell you it is only one of many that I receive. The only solution is to abolish any and all authority for the federal government to impose the will of these radicals on one rural community after another. Simply put, the Endangered Species Act must be abolished and its detritus throughout Rural America removed. Then begin rolling back federal land ownership and federal land non-management and non-use from Wilderness Declarations and Roadless Areas to restoration of wildlife, forest and range management for people.

You will be pleasantly surprised at how quickly and naturally Local government authority, Local government revenue, and Local control of local matters will increase and how, neither as quickly nor as naturally but inevitably, your state wildlife agencies once again manage the natural resources of your state for the benefit of your state and all those that live in it.

Two things must be done first, but that is something I hope to speak about next month if arrangements come through. I hope to circulate that talk and share it with you after I give it.

Jim Beers

19 March 2015

Wolf attack a cow man’s nightmare

Wolves attacked and stampeded 250 head of very pregnant cows (calving start date March 1) on the Birkmaier private land on Crow Creek pass Feb. 12, 2015. The cows were wintering on the open bunch grass range receiving one-half feed of alfalfa hay. This 1,700-acre piece of land is about 10 miles northeast of Joseph. These cows were to be moved to the Birkmaier home ranch at the mouth of Crow Creek the last of February (the ranch is about 20 miles north).

With no warning from agency people, who normally warn producers of wolves in the area, the wolves attacked in the night. The herd split into three groups. One group of about 70 cows went east, running in total panic, obliterating several barb wire fences. These cows ran about two miles to the Zumwalt road, then south and west about five miles down the OK Gulch road to the Wallowa Valley, then north to the Birkmaier ranch land, about three miles, then reversed and ran about three miles south where they were stopped. These cattle were wet from the condensation of cold air on their overheated bodies. Their tongues were out gasping for air.

Another bunch went north through several fences to the Krebs ranch, about four miles, then back and were going in a large circle still running when they were stopped. A third bunch stayed in the pasture but were in a high state of panic. The cattle could not be fed for two days. They ran away from hay and the pickup trying to feed them. None were killed, no broken legs or stifled joints; some cuts from barbed wire, not serious. We thought we were lucky. The rest of the story, we feared, would be told at calving time and maybe before. By the way, the attacking wolves, from the Umatilla Pack, were at Dug Bar on the Snake River the next day (32 air miles away and over a mile climbing and descending).

Now about fladry and why it wasn’t used. Fladry was not an option under these conditions on a large area with cattle grazing out in the winter time. Fladry is an electric wire with strips of colored plastic attached. Wolf cheerleaders, both local and everywhere, claim this cure-all is the answer to end all wolf depredations. Our experience: It may have a place on small acreages; we find it hard to keep it electrified. Wet snow will take it to the ground, wind blows tumbleweeds and mustard plants into it and if you use existing fences to put it on, wind blows it into the wires of existing fence and shorts it out. To use it on larger acreages requires a separate fence and many electric fence controllers and it’s just impractical.

In the early days of the wolf debate, fladry was offered as a tool by the agencies and enviro groups to suck stock producers in to thinking they could use this to protect their animals. If it was practical it probably wouldn’t be stacked up in the courthouse. Talking to other ranches in other states confirms our belief that most ranchers know it doesn’t work, and so does the wolf.

As I write this on the 11th day of March, 50 cows have calved. Our worst fears are coming true: one aborted a few days after the attack; three backwards hind feet first; one upside down and backwards (the hind leg of this calf penetrated both the virginal and rectal walls); one more upside down and backwards; one tail first (breech); two with legs turned back; one with head turned back. Several vaginal prolapses probably caused by improperly positioned calves. Is this indirect loss or what?

My son Tom and his wife Kelly have had to deal with this horrible task night and day, 31 miles from vet clinics and assistance. What kind of people support turning the terrorist of the animal kingdom loose on these defenseless animals and inflicting this kind of pain and loss? When I think of my family out in the barn trying their best to save these poor animals — it takes hours with good luck to straighten and get them out — I get damn mad. Who do I blame? After devoting about 10 years of my life to fighting this invasion of wolves from neighboring states through the political system, attending numerous ODFW hearings and workshops all over the state and participating in the largest “no wolf” hearing in the state of Oregon at Enterprise, and losing it all when we were slam-dunked by the ODFW commission in Troutdale (who, by the way, didn’t have guts enough to attend the Enterprise hearing) yea, I’m bitter.

We lost eight calves this summer, we were compensated for one. If we aren’t compensated for indirect loss from wolves, our ranch and all others are in serious jeopardy.

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.
Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.
Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting. You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to: jimbeers7@comcast.net

In Protest Against False Arrest for Possessing Weapon

This is an interesting presentation. I’m assuming the raw footage is real. The people there should be allowed to protest but their message is based upon wrong information. If we were free men, we would not be having the need to protest. If we were free men our right to self protection would not be limited. The misinformation is that the constitution was for the individual. It is a contract between the Federal Government and the States. America was never “won” from King George. The Paris Treaty of 1783 and the Jay Treaty of 1794 assured that. And what was left of any constitution was completely changed with the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment. Our rights come from God not man. We should all stand up for God-given rights; that no man can give and take away rights. Because of this, none of us are free men.

A Practitioner Re-indigenizing Myself

Obviously I decolonized my own mind! long ago and have been a practitioner re-indigenizing myself by growing the majority of my own food, raising my own fruit, meat, and using my immediate environment for wild leaves, herbs, roots, fish and meats. Wild meat preservation requires that I manage wild predators. I already tried what you preach and it is BS. So keep in mind readers that environ-mental-ism-ists are condemning hunter gathers who are trying to decolonize their minds from the European federalism which is a legal term for corporate contract which they promote and condemn us for re-indigenizing ourselves by practicing self determination food gathering rather than being coddled by their federal contractual corporate nanny king..? I laugh at the “federal” contractual corporate lands fraud and I realize that, like all things man made, this legal fraud will pass into the dust bin of bad ideas with the knit-wits that thought it up and those that do not comprehend it’s true meanings and purposes as set forth by the real owners of those corporate contracts.

What does “federal” really mean?

From the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary
FEDERAL– a. from L. faedus, a league, allied perhaps to Eng. Wed, Sax . Weddian,* * *.
1. Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations.

So the real meaning of “federal” is a contract or agreement and has nothing to do with a particular type government, although it was a contract that formed government.

So, where is your contractual agreement you signed giving you entitlement rights to my immediate environment and how I preserve it? Here’s a big clue, IT DOES NOT EXIST…

2. Consisting in a compact between parties, particularly and chiefly between states or nations;

YOU ARE NOT MENTIONED HERE AS YOU HAVE NO CONTRACT WITH A STATE OR A NATION. As stated by the judge in the Padleford case;

“But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain.”

Right here is all the proof you need that you are not a party to any compact (contract/Agreement) with the federal government or state government for that matter under any constitution.

#2 of Webster’s definition; founded on alliance by contract or mutual agreement; * * .

Your mutual agreement is with a private organization using the word “federal” in a fraud, because of people’s ignorance. Remember words are used against you every time it is in the criminal’s best interest. Now when you look at Black’s Law dictionary, they are carefully couched in constitutional terms and nations and compacts between the states and never use “Federal” as defined by Webster’s. Even Ballentine’s uses it, as does Blacks.

Now let’s move to present day (1969) Webster’s 7th Collegiate Dictionary. This now states what The Law dictionaries state and have thrown out the etymology of the word federal so you would have no idea it means a contract between parties, leading you to believe everything “federal” pertains to government.

Humm, ok, so what about federal express? Does that mean government express?

So I happen to have a 1911 Webster’s unabridged dictionary and the definition of “federal” is exactly word for word, the same as the 1828 Dictionary. So what happened in 1913 that changed the definition of “federal” to mean only pertaining to government? Think. Words are changed by men to mean what they want it to mean. The Random House Dictionary 1967 uses Webster’s 1828 definition, but also includes what the Law dictionaries define federal as. Here is proof as to how a word changes over the years by men that want control by starting to shove aside what “federal” really means. So the real word “FEDERAL” meant contract between men (parties) or agreement between them.

Waiting for you to show me a legitimate land title agreement between you and those men that set this fraud into motion’ – waiting… waiting… waiting…

It does not exist; YOU public lands owner own nothing. Every time you call those federal lands you mean someone else’s lands not your lands.

If you want an over population of wolves in your immediate environment you deserve what you get from that as well, a whole lot of nothing when it comes to wild elk meat..

This gets better the deeper we research it, you are Federal Human Resources property. How can property own property? How can non signatories of any federal contractual agreement with the international community own federal property? They cannot, they do not, they never did and they never will..

I’ve had this discussion with two judges, and nine lawyers. They have yet to prove me wrong. One of the Judges commended myself for figuring it out and that I was correct..

Have a nice life of lies, because you’ve been and still are owned property.

Can’t Touch That

State Proselytism Via Concealed Carry Permitting

Ammoland today has an article about how the Washington Post is attempting to wrongfully scare the hell out of people over the fact that some states are considering legislation that would bring back “Constitutional Carry” of weapons, vs. Concealed Carry and Open Carry. Constitutional Carry allows an American citizen to carry open or concealed without having to jump through hoops and get a license from the government.

Ammoland brings out an interesting point:

In saying these things, WaPo misses the fact that the ultimate purpose of many concealed carry permit classes around the country isn’t to make the citizen a better shot or more adept at drawing and shooting a gun to begin with.

Rather, the purpose is to lecture them on state laws regarding lethal use of force, thereby absolving the state of liability in a licensing situation.

But Constitutional Carry is another way to absolve the state of liability —it is perhaps the best way— for it makes responsibility and liability a personal matter once again.

The America Few Want to Recognize

“Mr Bosworth was handcuffed and taken away. He was never read his rights; his gun was taken, illegally; he was refused an attorney, although asking for one at least six times; and he was interrogated illegally for several hours. The incident culminated when the Spokane County Sheriff intervened and Mr Bosworth was released after being cited for “failure to comply.””<<<Read More>>>