June 4, 2023

Maryland Police Shoot and Kill Man While “Confiscating” His Guns

November 16, 2018 by Leave a Comment

Gary J. Willis, 61, opened the door to his home with a gun in his hand when two police officers came knocking at 5:17 a.m. on Nov. 5. Anne Arundel County police say Willis put the gun on a table next to the door, but “became irate” when the officers explained that they had come to confiscate his firearms.

Willis grabbed his gun and a struggle ensued, during which the firearm discharged. No one was injured, but the officer not engaged in the struggle shot Willis, and he died at the scene.

Under Maryland’s new Extreme Risk Protection Order law (aka, “red flag law”), family, police, and mental health professionals can seek an order from a judge to temporarily confiscate firearms from a person believed to be a danger to themselves or others.

Maryland’s law states that anything related to an order is confidential unless the court rules otherwise.

…believes one of Willis’ sisters requested that police temporarily remove his guns…

…Willis’ death is evidence that the new red flag law is needed and working.<<<Read More>>>

Share
Filed Under: Guns/Gun Rights, National/World Tagged With: , , , ,

ACTION ALERT: GUN CONFISCATION BILL PUBLIC HEARING

March 30, 2018 by Leave a Comment

Sen. Dion’s so-called “Community Protection Order” bill, LD 1884, will have a public hearing before the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, April 3, at 1:00 PM in Room 438.

This bill gives law enforcement, disgruntled former spouses or domestic partners, and even anyone who claims to ever have been a sexual partner, the power to ask a judge to order that all of your firearms be *immediately* confiscated by police without prior notice; the first you will know of the order will be when the police knock on your door to demand your guns.

This bill has many problems, and is a close copy of bills that have been pressed by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg in multiple states. Anti-gun forces sense an opportunity to pass this bill in the heat of the astroturf outrage they have fomented over the last few weeks. We cannot allow this dangerous bill to advance.

We need you to show up in Augusta on April 3rd to be seen and make your voice heard before the Judiciary Committee. We need as many gun owners as possible to flood the State House and speak with one voice against this cynical, opportunistic and anti-due-process bill whose only real purpose is to tighten the noose around the throats of gun owners.

This is the only anti-gun bill which has made it this far in this session. We absolutely need your help to end it. Please find a way to be at the State House for this hearing. It may cost you a vacation day, or even a day’s pay, but it will cost us all far more if this bill becomes law. We cannot allow that.

The text of the bill is at the link below. Read it and weep. And remember, this is only what they think they can pass *today*. You can rest assured that if this becomes law, it will be amended to be even worse at the first opportunity.

See you in Augusta.
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/b … 071901.asp

—
Todd Tolhurst
President
Gun Owners of Maine, Inc.

Share
Filed Under: Guns/Gun Rights, Maine Hunting News Tagged With: , , ,

We Now Enter a New Phase of Gun Confiscation

February 22, 2018 by Leave a Comment

*Editor’s Note* – I received this email from Grass Roots North Carolina

Gun Confiscation Courts to be Proposed

You read that right. Rep. Marcia Morey (D-Durham), a former judge, whose April appointment to the NC House filled a vacant seat, is looking to turn North Carolina into California—but not regarding sunshine and fad diets. In short, Morey will be proposing the establishment of “firearm restraining orders” (FROs) in our state. An FRO would be issued as a result of an “exparte” (emergency) hearing, where a judge can authorize the seizing of a private citizen’s guns where no crime has been proven (no guilty verdict delivered), and in fact, even where no arrest has taken place. Most likely, the proceedings will be allowed to take place even in the absence of the accused. This means the accused citizen cannot face his accusers, nor defend himself through counsel or otherwise. This is a serious violation of fundamental Constitutional due process rights.

A First Amendment Analogy
One could liken an FRO hearing, and subsequent confiscation, to accusing a reporter of so-called “hate speech,” and then, once the accusation is made, an emergency hearing is held without the presence of the accused reporter. The hearing could result in a ten-day gag order being placed on the reporter, barring the reporter from speaking (or reporting) until a primary hearing. So, the reporter’s First Amendment rights are suspended—absent any due process! In the case of Second Amendment rights, even if the accused’s firearms are returned after ten days, there is nothing to prevent the police from having registered them with the BATFE. Moreover, the accused will still be out thousands of dollars spent on the ensuing legal defense—that is, only if the accused can afford it in the first place.

No Pretense, Just Straight-up Confiscation
FROs are not a foot in the confiscatory door. There is no pretense here. FROs blatantly and aggressively kick that door down, and once FROs are in place, the valid reasons for establishing an FRO against an individual will surely loosen. At first, perhaps close family members and a few others very close to a person may be able to point a finger and “report” him. That’s bad enough, but be sure, the already Orwellian rules surrounding FROs will surely expand. It’s likely that, eventually, virtually anyone in a person’s sphere will be able to accuse a person and begin the unconstitutional process of having the accused’s legally owned firearms forcibly confiscated. Does this sound like a free country to you, a free state?

Will Republicans Protect the Citizenry?
As of now, we don’t know how the Republican majority in Raleigh will react when asked to establish a gun confiscation mechanism. We do know that there is always danger that politicians will stick a finger in the air and just “go with the flow,” as the anti-gun crowd aggressively pushes to not “let a crisis go to waste.” There is real danger here. We need to inform our representatives that we will not allow them to rescind our Constitutional due process rights. Free, law-abiding citizens are to remain free, and we will not tolerate being punished for the crimes of another.

Share
Filed Under: Guns/Gun Rights, National/World, Rights Tagged With: , ,

New California Law Imposes Court Process for Confiscating Guns

January 26, 2018 by Leave a Comment

Whereas most states are content to wait until a prohibited person is caught with a firearm, California’s approach is much more proactive. The California Department of Justice cross-references known firearm owners with individuals who have been convicted of felonies, deemed mentally unstable, or given domestic violence restraining orders.

All such individuals are placed on the APPS list.  That allows a special gun confiscation unit to visit those people and ensure that they relinquish their firearms.

“When the information is inaccurate, you potentially put people at risk because you have the attorney general’s office sending armed SWAT teams to people’s homes to confiscate firearms,”<<<Read More>>>

Share
Filed Under: Guns/Gun Rights, National/World Tagged With: , , , , ,

SAM Claims High Road to Protect Second Amendment

June 19, 2017 by Leave a Comment

They might claim that high road, but do they actually do what they say they are doing. According to SAM’s Facebook Page, “Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine-Leading through Action!”

On their list of achievements is the passage of LD 9 – “to Ban State of Government Agencies from Creating Gun Owner Registry.”

“An Act to Prohibit the Creation of a Firearm Owner Registry”, sponsored by Rep. Patrick Corey is now law. This quote from the last SAM News accurately sums up this important SAM bill, “The creation of a gun owner registry is the Holy Grail for gun control advocates, because all extreme gun control measures like semi-automatic bans, high capacity magazine bans, and other firearm confiscation schemes, require a database of firearm owners to enforce. Without the government knowing who owns what types of guns and where they are, there is no way to reduce the number of guns in private ownership.” (emphasis added)

Below is the text of LD 9 (also from SAM Facebook page)

Sec. 1. 25 MRSA §2014 is enacted to read:
§2014. Government firearm or firearm owner registry prohibited Notwithstanding and other provision of law to the contrary, a government agency of this State or a political subdivision of this State may not keep or cause to be kept a comprehensive registry of privately owned firearms and the owners of those firearms within its jurisdiction. (emphasis added)

SUMMARY

This amendment, which is the majority report of the committee, replaces the bill and provides that a government agency of the State or a political subdivision of the State may not keep or cause to be kept a comprehensive registry of privately owned firearms and the owners of those firearms within its jurisdiction.” (emphasis added)

We are programmed to automatically accept any effort by those claiming to be in support of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, passage of any law that claims to protect gun owners or ease the restrictions on gun ownership, we blindly accept as a good thing. It might be better…or the equivalent of being hung with a new rope, than continued chopping to bits our Second Amendment rights, but even if you keep cutting off pieces of a plank, a little here and a little there, eventually there’s no more plank and you free fall.

LD 9 is being hailed as a victory for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine and gun owners because they say, as I highlighted above, “The creation of a gun owner registry is the Holy Grail for gun control advocates, because all extreme gun control measures like semi-automatic bans, high capacity magazine bans, and other firearm confiscation schemes, require a database of firearm owners to enforce. Without the government knowing who owns what types of guns and where they are, there is no way to reduce the number of guns in private ownership.”

This Bill, LD 9, is being flaunted as a bill that will prohibit the “comprehensive registry” of all firearms, and that without such a registry, governments and non governmental agencies cannot confiscate guns because they won’t know where to find them.

The first question I might ask is this: What will be the state of things in this country WHEN the U.S. Government goes about confiscating our firearms? Will following the rule of law any longer exist?

I thought so.

A federal firearms dealer is required to “register” every gun he sells and keep a record. As I understand LD 9, now a licensed firearms dealer will have to make a second copy of that registration, mark it “State Copy” and make it available to any government, law enforcement or prosecuting attorney upon demand. That’s some protection of a gun owner from that registry created at the point of sale. (Note: It was brought to my attention, and correctly so, that current law requires the “State Copy” to be kept on file. LD 9 eliminates the “State Copy” and thus the only “registration” of the purchase of your gun is the one created by the federally licensed gun dealer. Also understand that this registration is still a registration and can and will be accessed when the governments so desire.)

LD 9 prohibits the creation of a “comprehensive registry” (whatever lawyer wants to define that one for us). Comprehensive, in the context used (I’m guessing), means complete. Please define “complete.” Who gets to decide? We are not told that and this is the kind of crap sandwich we are fed by lawyers. They craft laws for themselves not for you and I.

So, if it is now unlawful for the Government to “keep or cause to be kept” a “comprehensive” gun registry, does that mean if they leave off the registration, say your sexual preference, does that now make the registry “uncomprehensive” and thus can be used by governments and law enforcement when it comes time to confiscate your REGISTERED guns that you REGISTERED when you purchased your guns from a licensed dealer.

Stop kidding yourselves! The Second Amendment is the only item in the Bill of Rights that we, not only give away, but do so gladly and all the while believing we are doing the “reasonable” thing.

Share
Filed Under: Guns/Gun Rights, Legislative News, Maine Hunting News, Rights Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

The TRUTH of Question 3 & Universal Background Checks

September 6, 2016 by Leave a Comment

“While the anti-gunners say this law is needed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the Federal government’s own data shows that few criminals obtain guns through private sales; far more acquire them through background-checked dealer sales, by sending a person with a clean record to buy the gun. The real reason Bloomberg wants this law is that it is the key step toward mandatory gun registration. In fact, there’s no way this law can be enforced without gun registration.”<<<Read More>>>

*Editor’s Note* – I concur that the reason Bloomberg (he’s a nanny himself to the rulers over him) wants to pass this law is “mandatory gun registration”…to begin with. The real goal here is gun confiscation. Registration is needed first in order to carry out confiscation, i.e. the tyrant bastards have to know where to go get the guns. If you purchase ammunition with a credit/debit card, you have “registered” that sale and thus told people like Bloomberg, you have a gun. Think about it…or are you tolerant of that and willing to give up that portion of your Second Amendment right? You are playing into THEIR RIGGED SYSTEM.

But, please bear in mind that in the process toward gun confiscation, the real goal in foisting this nonsense onto Maine people, is to get a better sense of what they will tolerate. Each time discussion comes up about Question 3, the gun snatchers learn how much more of the Second Amendment they are willing to give up, if for no other reason than thinking it will get rid of maggots like Bloomberg.

Don’t be fooled! Demand your FULL and COMPLETE right to bear arms….nothing less.

Share
Filed Under: Guns/Gun Rights, Legislative News, Maine Hunting News Tagged With: , , , , ,

Obama and his “ILK” – Please Define “Obama’s ILK”

October 5, 2015 by 1 Comment

*Editor’s Note* – If I understand the author correctly, it is “Obama and his ilk” that want to make more laws and confiscate guns. While the author here hits on many valid points, he seems to fail to mention a few vital points that might give clearer meaning to all this.

First, is the failure to define or determine where the ideas of gun grabbing come from. Is it just “Obama and his ilk?” Surely gun confiscation by the U.S. Marxist government has been going on for many, many years. Obama didn’t write all those laws ripping to shreds the Second Amendment. Who pulls Obama’s puppet strings and the many presidents before him that have promoted “reasonable” gun confiscation laws? Who pulls the puppet strings of the 536 members of Congress that push for and vote for these “reasonable” gun confiscation laws. Who is responsible for propagandizing the America people that causes them to believe sensible and “reasonable” gun laws are necessary? And are they? Who decided that? Sure it couldn’t have been just “Obama and his ilk.”

Second, if it is true that “Obama and his ilk” are the “gun grabbers” then maybe the author should define for us readers “his ilk.” Who are the “ilk?” Are any of the 108-million “law-abiding gun owners” part of Obama’s ilk? Is anyone who agrees to or believes that “reasonable” gun confiscation laws are necessary, part of the “ilk?” Yes, please. Define “ilk,” for surely it is impossible to move forward or backward until someone steps up and tells us what defines the “ilk” and what action or inaction is needed that intrudes into the realm of anyone promoting gun confiscation that prequalifies them as “ilk?”

Third, not once does the author mention anything about a person’s inalienable right to self protection. Is that belief absent American values now, replaced by the many whom the author describes as those calling for more and more laws?

I think I read someplace that the United States now has something in the order of 90,000-plus pages of laws – all thought “reasonable” by someone I’m sure. Certainly there was money to be made doing it. Where once, God-fearing men understood and respected “inalienable” rights. Now with no more fear of God, which results in the displacement of respect, it has been replaced by 90,000 pages of law. How is that working out? I know I’m kidding myself to think in this world I’m a free man anymore.

And lastly, perhaps the author gives us a real hint into his own finger-pointing belief system – a belief perhaps he doesn’t even recognize or want to. After all, I am taught that my beliefs are right and yours wrong? Don’t tread on me. Tread on my neighbor instead.

I highlighted the author’s comment below in the article teaser.

Is this a factual statement? Evil exists and will until such time that God has had enough. To claim that gun confiscation WOULD prevent mass shootings, is perhaps as dishonest as claiming more laws will limit violent crime. Isn’t this to assume that gun confiscation is more powerful than the hand of God? Evil exists and if the gun is confiscated, something will replace that tool. Complete gun confiscation is just another law.

A closer examination of the society we have created tells the real story and yet it is avoided. Why? I contend it is because people love their decadent, violent and perverted lifestyles. Much the same reason Congress never seriously attacks crime in the Halls of Congress. Congress is a reflection of our society. Opening a real investigation will cause others to examine those calling for the investigation. Lip service is cheap, results and accomplishments are absent and will remain that way until we as individuals turn our affections back to God and away from man. Until then, NOTHING will change and will only get worse.

…shootings are carried out by less than half of one-tenth of 1 percent of people. Yet Obama and the gun grabbers are targeting all of the 108 million or so law-abiding gun owners for the crimes of less than one-tenth of 1 percent. But because those who would commit a gun crime are criminals and, by definition, criminals don’t obey laws, no amount of new laws would prevent mass shootings, short of complete confiscation.

Source: What Obama didn’t say in his gun-grabbing rant – Personal Liberty®

Share
Filed Under: Commentary/Opinion, Guns/Gun Rights, National/World, Rights Tagged With: , , , , ,

New Yorkers Push Back Against SAFE Act, Burn Gun Reg. Forms

March 20, 2014 by Leave a Comment

Authoritarians in the Northeast exploited the media hype surrounding Sandy Hook to crack down hard on the right to bear arms. But patriots are fighting back: first in Connecticut, where citizens by the tens of thousands have refused to register their guns; and now in the very heart of liberal tyranny, Andrew Cuomo’s New York itself:<<<Read More>>>

Share
Filed Under: Guns/Gun Rights, National/World Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

WARNING: Gun Registration Leads to Confiscation

February 7, 2014 by 2 Comments

VIDEO:

Share
Filed Under: Guns/Gun Rights, National/World Tagged With: , , , , ,

United Nations: Civilian Weapons Confiscation

August 19, 2013 by Leave a Comment

The below letter was written this past July, 2013. The complete report, “Continuing operation of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms and its further development“, can be found by following this link.

To learn more about the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), follow this link.

unodaletter

Share
Filed Under: Guns/Gun Rights Tagged With: , , , ,