Click for larger version.

From JPFO.

Don't miss this one, at Freedom's Phoenix:

Richard Mack was raised in Safford, Arizona. He graduated from BYU and stayed in Provo as a policeman for about 11 years. He left a promising career to move back to Arizona and run for Graham County sheriff. He was elected in 1988 and again in 1992. In 1993 Bill Clinton signed the Brady Bill (named for James Brady) into law and the wheels of Sheriff Mack's lawsuit opposing the Brady Bill began to turn.

The Brady Bill was a federal law which required the local Sheriff to conduct background checks on all of Sheriff Mack’s constituents who wished to purchase a handgun. The sheriff was responsible for all costs associated with the checks, keeping files on each purchase and notifying the gun shops and customers of his findings. Sheriff Mack told me that the most offensive portion of this legislation was that the bill contained a provision that threatened to arrest "anyone who knowingly failed to comply." Well, sheriff Mack intended to do just that; he would not comply and instead filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Tucson to have the Brady Bill ruled unconstitutional.

[...]

It is now 10 years later and Mack has sent a letter to Wisconsin Gunowners that were upset about increased background checks of the federal mandate that required access to mental records (unfunded mandates) first step to submitting to mental evaluation to purchase a firearm. “State legislatures are not subject to federal direction” NRA supported the Mack V. Brady litigation to the tune of almost half a million dollars and now is supporting federal legislation (HR 2640) that rips at the heart of this court victory.

Is the NRA just trying to fit in to political correctness or is there another agenda they are supporting? Sarah Brady put out a statement saying that this bill was a victory for gun control and was shocked that the NRA was supporting this.

Read the whole thing.  Give it a link and spread it far and wide.

Via The Real Gun Guys.

Related:  The Brady Bill That Never Was.

I've been gone since Friday afternoon, I just got back late tonight to find this.

Hollis Wayne Fincher has been sentenced:

A leader of the Militia of Washington County has been sentenced to 6 1/2 years in federal prison for possessing banned weapons, including machine guns and a sawed-off shotgun.

"All I can say is, I love my God and I love my country," Hollis Wayne Fincher said before U.S. District Judge Jimm L. Hendren pronounced the sentence Friday.

Fincher, 61, was ordered to serve two years of supervised probation after his release from prison and was fined $1,000.

Fincher was arrested Nov. 8 at his home in the Black Oak community south of Fayetteville in a raid by Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents. Federal authorities said an investigation began in March 2006 after a newspaper published a story about Fincher and the militia that was accompanied by a picture of him holding a weapon.

At his trial in January, Fincher did not dispute that he had two .308-caliber machine guns, homemade versions of the Browning model 1919. Instead, he argued that the law under which he was charged is unconstitutional because it violates the 2nd Amendment's guarantee of citizens' rights to bear arms.

During Friday's sentencing hearing, Hendren commented on that defense, saying Fincher had the right to claim that the laws regarding firearms were not proper, but that did not change the fact that he must be held responsible for violating those laws.

Because the Constitution is irrelevant.

Did he get sentenced for committing acts of violence?  No.  Was he sentenced for planning to commit acts of violence?  No.

He was sentenced for possessing a weapon that the "authorities" have arbitrarily declared the common rabble must not be allowed to possess.  His actual crime was that he did not pay his permission tax.

Via The War On Guns.

Gun Owners of America Alert-- June 14, 2007

After all, if there were such a thing as a single issue Member of Congress, it would have to be McCarthy. Rep. McCarthy ran for office to ban guns; Hollywood made a movie about her efforts to ban guns; and she is currently the lead sponsor of a bill that makes the old Clinton gun ban pale by comparison.

Even many Democrats wouldn't go near a McCarthy gun bill. They have learned that supporting gun control is a losing issue. Enter Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), the so-called Dean of the House, having served since the Eisenhower administration. Dingell is also a former NRA Board member, and was in that capacity tapped to bring the NRA leadership to the table.

The end result of the negotiations was that this small clique among the NRA leadership gave this bill the support it needed to pass.

But why was it necessary to pass the bill in such an underhanded fashion? If this is such a victory for the Second Amendment, why all the secrecy? Why was a deal forged with the anti-gun Democrat House leadership, keeping most pro-gun representatives in the dark? Why was the bill rammed through on the Suspension Calendar with no recorded vote with which to identify those who are against us?

I don't care how many reassurances I hear from the NRA (pardon me while I sarcastically genuflect for a moment), anything that gets backed up by McCarthy and the Brady Campaign is an automatic NO WAY for me.

And on the topic of these unrecorded votes:  in my opinion they should not exist, because they sidestep the principle of our allegedly representative government.

UPDATE:  Yuri Orlov comments.  Note that the email from the Brady bunch said, "Victory for Gun Control in House. NRA Sees the Light."  That light must be pretty dim, considering where they apparently have their heads.

At KMVT (Twin Falls, Idaho):

As a democracy we respect and honor our constitutional rights and therefore protect them when someone abuses them. Red's Trading Post sees the ATF abusing these rights and wants to show the world their side of the story.

Owner Ryan Horsley says, “I've began speaking out. Other people have refused to speak out in hopes that if they stay quiet, they hope that the ATF will find favor with them or just let them go and not revoke their license. But as we've seen in so many instances -- that's not the case."

For several years now -- the gun shop and the ATF have had their share of battles.

From being given a temporary stay to additional violations – Horsley claimed that beyond all that -- Red's Trading Post’s record is very clean.

He says, "In the 2005 audit they went through 10,000 forms and all they could manage to find were four-percent errors in our record keeping. I remind people that these are not laws nor ordinances. These are policies set up by the ATF and those are policies that continue to change."

The KMVT report also states: "We tried to contact the ATF -- but they couldn't be reached for comment."  I'll bet Mr. Horsely gets some "comments" from them pretty soon.

Via JPFO, which has a web site about the movie at http://www.thegangmovie.com/.

The Texas Citizens Defense League has a new Yahoo forum/discussion group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/txopencarry.

TCDL is an organization whose purpose is to promote decriminalization of open carry in the state of Texas.

This morning I blocked another site from the G00gl3 ads in the sidebar.  Although I won't provide an actual hyperlink, their site is protectpolice dot org.

They are allegedly an organization of law enforcement officers whose main purpose is to oppose the Tiahrt Amendment.

But of course we must not take them at face value.  This time it's very easy to follow the money, because at the very bottom of their home page is this (screenshot):


Case closed, as far as I'm concerned.

UPDATE:  Tiahrt Responds to MAIG Campaign of Lies and Distortion at house.gov.

Another Christian perspective on self defense and the Second Amendment.  Why They Hate the Second Amendment or What the Second Amendment Declares About Us at Reproach of Men:

Thus, even though men are evil, they also fear death. Moreover, they fear where they will go when they die. For this simple reason alone, the Second Amendment secures the rest of the rights that the LORD God gave us. It is only when men do not see any prospect of dying that they become bold in their wickedness, and their willingness to harm their fellow man. This is also the reason the death penalty is effective in deterring crime as well.

The problem today is that we in America are a society in which the vast majority of individuals believe that they are inherently good, and that only a few “bad apples” cause the problems we have. This kind of thinking is not scriptural, rather it comes straight out of humanist doctrine and teaching. In fact, the idea that man can become good by his own efforts is a central part of the philosophy of Communism and the striving to create the “new communist man.”

The outworking of this kind of thinking is the belief that we can somehow create a utopian society if only we can get rid of the implements of violence. Thus, the blame is laid upon “the gun” when guns are used in the commission of a crime, instead of upon the person who wilfully chose to commit the crime. (After all, that would be to tacitly admit that we are all inherently given to evil.) It is also the driving force behind the idea that individuals in government are somehow better than the “common man” and that they are more enlightened and would never oppress their fellow citizens. After all, aren’t they elevated above the rest of us?

Via The War On Guns.

Another anti-freedom goon crawls out from under a rock and leaves a trail of slime glistening in the sunlight.  At CNSNews.com:

"The Second Amendment is one of the clearest statements of right in the Constitution," Benjamin Wittes, a guest scholar at the center-left Brookings Institution, acknowledged in a discussion Monday. "We've had decades of sort of intellectual gymnastics to try to make those words not mean what they say."

Wittes, who said he has "no particular enthusiasm for the idea of a gun culture," said that rather than try to limit gun ownership through regulation that potentially violates the Second Amendment, opponents of gun ownership should set their sights on repealing the amendment altogether.

I'm glad that these people are dropping all the mealy-mouthed lies and just saying what they feel. It gets the fence-sitters off the fence.

Via The Liberty Zone.

NRA-ILA:

The incremental approach, where the individual's constitutional guarantee is weighed against some alleged governmental or societal need, inevitably leads to the loss of rights, sometimes to their total destruction.

Seattle Times:

Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said Saturday that the organization will strongly support the legislation as written. "We've been on record for decades for keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally adjudicated. It's not only good policy, it's good politics," he said. But Cox warned that if the legislation becomes a "gun-control wish list" as it moves through Congress, the NRA will withdraw its support and work against the bill.

What's the matter, Chris, this isn't "incremental" enough for you?

My question always is:  who gets to decide if you are mentally defective?  A raging hoplophobic psychiatrist who believes that the desire to own a gun is a sign of mental instability?  (They're only good for killing, therefore if you want one you obviously plan to kill someone).  How about an atheist who thinks you shouldn't have a gun because if you believe in God you're obviously too stupid to own such a thing.  What about someone in "authority" who claims to believe in God, but decides "godless heathens" or homosexuals are mentally defective and shouldn't own guns?

The NRA is in the business of perpetuating a certain level of freedom control.  If they allow too many freedoms, their justification for existence would end.

But don't take my word for it.

"Good politics."  That phrase makes my stomach churn.

Via The Liberty Zone.

UPDATE:  More good points at Joe Huffman's blog.

UPDATE 2:  More info at Gun Law News.

JPFO has put up a Red's Trading Post page at their site, collecting all the pertinent information and history in one place.

Via The War On Guns.

Inside the paranoid head of a dealer at Red's Trading Post:

Puzzled I the looked around to see why she came out of her way to ask me instead of one of my employees who was readily available. I then asked what kind of gun she was looking for. She quickly stated "Beretta" as she paced back and forth between the revolvers and semi-autos. She then said "...or what do you carry?" indicating the firearm on my hip. "It is a Smith & Wesson M&P 40 caliber." I stated. "I would probably take one of those." she quickly stated, as she then looked at the gentleman near the end of the store.

He then came up to speak with her, they began to audibly whisper, in which she stated "I don't think I would pass a background check." Then they both quickly looked up as if to see if I was paying attention. I then moved down the counter out of earshot, seeming disinterested in the sale because at this point I have a really bad feeling in my gut. They then moved down the counter in my direction, where she said "I don't think I have my drivers license." He then stated "I will go out to the car and check to see if it is in there."

Read the whole story.  Ryan Horsely avoids a sale that has all the earmarks of a setup.

Ryan Horsely has a new blog called Red's Trading Post.  Horsely is the manager of a gun store in Idaho and is being harassed by the jack-booted thugs of the BATF.  Keep an eye on his blog for all the latest updates.

Via The War On Guns.

If you are unfamiliar with the story of Red's Trading Post, just follow this link for plenty of info, once again thanks to The War On Guns.

And just in case any reader of this blog isn't already familiar with my own viewpoint on the BATF, just check out this list of BATF blog posts.