Gun Control

Read more here:

Representative Matt Krause Files “Come and Take it” Firearm Protection Bill

<img>http://texansformattkrause.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/facebook-gun-1-300x300.jpg" alt="" class="parsed_image" /

AUSTIN, TEXAS – Yesterday, State Representative Matt Krause (R-Fort Worth) filed H.B. 928, which deals with the enforcement of federal firearm regulations by Texas state and local law enforcement agents. H.B. 928 is different from any other bill protecting Texas gun owners that has been proposed in the State Legislature thus far this session, as it creates a legal framework for state-directed cooperation, or noncooperation, putting Texas in control of the issue.

H.B. 928 prevents our state resources from being used for the purpose of enforcing federal regulations on firearms. Simply put, if passed: No state/local law enforcement agency/officer may be deputized for the express purpose of enforcing a federal firearm regulation, and no state/local law enforcement agency/officer may aid a federal agency/officer in the enforcement of a federal firearm regulation that does not also exist in Texas law (i.e. bans on cosmetic features, magazine limitations, outright prohibitions, etc.). Texas is a large state, with millions of law-abiding gun owners. The federal government cannot possibly enforce intrusive regulations without the aid of the state. H.B. 928 will deny them that aid.

“As a constitutional attorney, I have spent a great deal of time considering the best options for the state legislature to pursue in order to protect Texas gun owners,” said Rep. Matt Krause. “If passed, H.B. 928 would become state law which directs state resources on state conduct, and as such is beyond the scope of a federal court challenge. It both recognizes federal authority to enforce federal regulations, while also asserting Texas’ sovereignty and power to cooperate, or not cooperate, with the federal government where it can within the rule of law.”

http://beautifulnightmare-killumbus.blogspot.com/2...

Obama’s Policy Positions and Voting Record as State Senator, U.S. Senator, and Presidential Candidate:

During his eight-year career in the Illinois state senate, Barack Obama avoided making controversial votes approximately 130 times — which, according to other Illinois state senators, is much higher than average. Rather than vote “yea” or “nay” on the legislation in question, Obama on those occasions simply voted “present.” In the Illinois state senate, this was the equivalent of a “nay” vote when tallying up support or opposition to a given bill. But, as David Freddoso points out:

“<F>or rhetorical purposes, a ‘present’ vote is different in that critics and journalists must discuss it differently. For example, Barack Obama did not vote against a bill to prevent pornographic book and video stores and strip clubs from setting up within 1,000 feet of schools and churches — he just voted ‘present.’ Obama voted ‘present’ on an almost unanimously passed bill to prosecute students as adults if they fire guns on schol grounds. He voted ‘present’ on the partial-birth abortion ban and other contentious issues …”<1>

Gun Control:
During his time teaching at the University of Chicago, Obama told then-colleague John Lott directly: “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”
As a candidate for the Illinois State Senate in 1996, Obama promised to support a ban on “the manufacture, sale & possession of handguns.”

While running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama spoke in favor of federal legislation to block citizens nationwide from receiving concealed-carry permits. “National legislation will prevent other states’ flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents,” he said

Criminal Justice:
Obama as a lawmaker opposed the death penalty and authored legislation requiring police to keep records of the race of everyone questioned, detained or arrested.<7>

Obama promised that as President, he would work to ban racial profiling and eliminate racial disparities in criminal sentencing. “The criminal justice system is not color blind,” he said, “It does not work for all people equally, and that is why it’s critical to have a president who sends a signal that we are going to have a system of justice that is not just us, but is everybody.”

Immigration:

Obama’s voting record clearly reflects his desire to expand entitlements for illegal aliens.

Obama opposes immigration raids designed to identify illegal aliens in workplaces or housing units. He says the U.S. should “allow undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.” “When I was a state senator in Illinois,” Obama has said, “I voted to require that illegal aliens get trained, get a license, get insurance to protect public safety. That was my intention. The problem we have here is not driver’s licenses. Undocumented workers do not come here to drive. They’re here to work.” In short, he is in favor ofpermitting illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses.

Obama voted in favor of allowing former illegal aliens who had previously worked at jobs under phony or stolen Social Security numbers, to someday reap the benefits of whatever Social Security contributions they may have made while they were so employed. Much MORE

http://youtu.be/8GiW_uJ4zFw
California Gun Control Law Press Conference - Gun Confiscation, Semi-

A national model for mental health care? Prop. 63

The new law would outlaw all semiautomatic weapons, criminalize anyone who has more than 500 rounds of ammo, and require a permit to buy ammunition in the future. California, which already has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, is also looking at a proposal which would call for the immediate confiscation of 166,000 registered modern sporting rifles. This is why people are against Registration!

Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, unveiled the gun control package in a news conference Thursday at the state Capitol.

The package includes:
Banning the possession — not just manufacture and sale — of magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

Making possession of hollow point bullets and similar “assault bullets” a felony.
Requiring anyone wishing to buy ammunition to first get a permit by passing a background check.

Requiring the registration and reporting of all ammo purchases. Limits the number of rounds anyone can have at one time to 500 rounds.

Requiring all gun owners will have to be licensed like drivers, and will be forced to carry gun liability insurance.

Banning any gun that has a detachable magazine, and requires a 100% prohibition of all fixed magazines greater than 10 rounds.

Making all previous grandfathered magazines become illegal, and it will become a felony if you keep one.

Prohibiting anyone barred from owning a weapon from living in a home where weapons are kept

Expanding the list of crimes that would bar a person from gun possession.
Letting the state Justice Department use money from the state’s Dealer’s Record of Sale system to eliminate the backlog of people identified as no longer allowed to own guns but not yet investigated and contacted by law enforcement. MORE

How Will They Confiscate Your Guns?
by John A. Sutter
in California

For decades I have heard gun owners claim that the government would never be able to confiscate our firearms because the government would lose too many men. The implication being, of course, that gun owners would actively resist confiscation, even to the point of shooting back. But I believe this thinking is outdated and doesn’t align very well with reality. But before you tell me how big your honor guard in Hell will be when that day comes, let’s think about how the government could really do it.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, the government bans all civilian possession of firearms at the end of this month. Congress passes a total ban and the President cuts his own re-election throat by signing it. Gun owners get some grace period to turn them in, even beyond the deadline, without being charged with a crime. If we use Australia and Britain as examples there will still be a significant number of firearms that are not turned in. Some estimates put the Australian turn-in at less than 25% and the British faired only about 28%. But Australians and the British have long been used to obeying almost every gun control law. Not so the Americans. When laws are passed that we don’t like, we bite. We scratch. We vote. So here we sit after the guns have been collected and the amnesties have run out. Now what? Send out the personnel carriers, swat and shock troops to seize the guns from those militia “terrorists” who refused to turn them in? Don’t be silly.
The government has lots of records about you. If you purchased a firearm since 1968, chances are that they have some record of it somewhere. Most likely, it will take quite some time for them to compile all the serial numbers of “surrendered” guns (surrendered essentially at gunpoint) and cross off the ones you turned in. It’ll take more time for them to attempt to “clean up” their data. Say, about two years, maybe three. Add to that the hordes of people keypunching in hundreds of thousands of sales and registration records from hundreds of gun stores forced out of business. At some point the government decides they have something approaching a “good” database of unaccounted-for guns.

Gun Manufacturer Claims Bank of America Withheld Money Over Online Sales

01/11/13
In late December, Joe Sirochman, president of American Spirit Arms, took to the Internet, claiming that Bank of America illegally withheld his company’s funds because of the nature of its business. On his company’s Facebook feed, Sirochman wrote that the bank put holds on payments for guns it sold through his e-commerce site. When he called to investigate why the deposits were being delayed, he alleges, he was eventually told by by a bank representative: “We believe you should not be selling guns and parts on the Internet.”

Citing client confidentiality concerns, Bank of America refused to discuss Sirochman’s specific case on the record. However, a bank spokeswoman noted that — like most financial institutions — Bank of America often flags atypical transactions, including major surges in deposits or withdrawals. MORE

Of course the video that was posted of someone "Freida" calling BOA is marked private now, but I did find this video and I'm leaving a few comments left on it, seems odd to me fact or fiction with all this other BOA stuff Published on Jan 15, 2013
8:55 is where the service rep picks up.

I watched a video labeled "2nd Amendment ALERT!!! I just called Bank of America... you have to hear this!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4f2h5EiWPY) by the user "fstemick" and decided to fact check its validity for myself. I obtained the number from the Bank of america website in the contact page on their site. The number I dialed was 1-800-432-1000. The OP claimed in her comments that was also the number she dialed which cannot be verified in her video. I'm not trying to smite her claim if it is true but I did not get the same result as you can see for yourself. Also I thought it was very odd that she had a website at the top of the screen the whole time. I must say I'd appreciate knowing this if it were true, however that doesn't seem to be the case. Any naysayers should feel free to call them for yourselves and If anyone else gets any other response on video feel free to attach it as a video response.

8:55 is where the service rep picks up.
Uploader Comments (WorldAmongstRuin)


JohnRambo45acp 6 hours ago
Why did he have to double check? I've seen several videos now trying to debunk Frita Stemics video and all the associates either have to double check or get their supervisor. If her video is bullshit like some people think, shouldn't the BOA associates automaticly know the answer to the question?
Reply ·

WorldAmongstRuin 5 hours ago
I checked because I wanted to believe her and it wasn't true. Its not like I wanted her to be wrong. Hell, I absolutely despise bank of america, its just not right to spread disinformation like that. Also it makes people who are searching for the truth look dis-credible when they believe this stuff and tell it as fact when it can so easily be proven false. All it takes is for you to pick up your own phone and call in and ask.
Reply · 2 in reply to JohnRambo45acp

fstemick 2 hours ago
thanks guys! this is a firestorm. My video was not fake, n or false and I only expected my usual 50 or so views. But, I have since posted up an update video because after viewers said they were gettin other info, I called again and ofcourse, the "policy" was different on the next call. I was lied to, but I wish I had not tried to warn everyone because its caused me to look like a liar, when I have the proof recorded.
Reply · in reply to JohnRambo45acp

WorldAmongstRuin 1 hour ago
Why did your first video have a web address at the top and the second one didn't? Its things like that, that make us all skeptical. Also you left it up all day giving all the conspiracy and independent news blogs time to start posting it. I'm not saying you did anything wrong if you are telling the truth but from an outsiders view it looks suspicious. The worst part is that because its not true, we all look stupid because you didn't correct the error in a timely manner. Did you like duping us?

Bank of America Leads Charge Against Guns
January 8, 2013

The Democrats’ campaign against the Second Amendment is obvious and expected after the Sandy Hook shootings.But the gun grabbers are also getting some help from Bank of America.

According to Joe Sirochman, owner of American Spirit Arms, the bank out of the blue on Dec. 18 decided to delay processing deposits, threatening his company’s operations.

American Spirit, like other gun sellers, has seen a huge increase in online sales in recent months, up 500 percent, according to a Dec. 29 Facebook posting by Sirochman.

The company has been a BofA customer for more than 10 years and had no problems until last month, when the bank held up the company’s online deposits.
The Council on Foreign Relations “think tank” is the octopus that has its tentacles in the United Nations, the Obama Administration and Democratic political campaigns going back at least to Michael Dukakis’ presidential bid. Corporate members include major companies like Exxon, Coca Cola, Google, Walmart and Soros Fund Management. It’s one of the primary movers behind the United Nations’ Agenda 21, one component of which is — complete lack of surprise — global gun control.
As the fight over Americans’ right to defend themselves warms up this month, expect the Left to attack not just through government but through its puppet businesses as well. MORE


Bank of America tells gun manufacturer it no longer wants their business?
POSTED AT 10:26 PM ON APRIL 20, 2012 BY ALLAHPUNDIT
I’m thinking there has to be more to this story, not because I doubt that there are lefty corporate execs who find guns and gun owners loathsome but because from a business standpoint this is the highest of high insanity. My strong suspicion from years of following news on the right is that gun enthusiasts are the single most passionate interest group in conservative America. The barest whiff of some form of new regulation becomes an instant sensation online. If I ran a business they’d be the very last lobby I’d want to cross, just because they’re ready, willing, and able to organize a mighty effective boycott. Surely BOA, a company that’s headquartered in a southern city, knows the shinolastorm they’d be inviting if they pulled something like this.
And yet, here we are.

McMillan Fiberglass Stocks, McMillan Firearms Manufacturing, McMillan Group International have been collectively banking with Bank of America for 12 years. Today Mr. Ray Fox, Senior Vice President, Market Manager, Business Banking, Global Commercial Banking came to my office. He scheduled the meeting as an “account analysis” meeting in order to evaluate the two lines of credit we have with them. He spent 5 minutes talking about how McMillan has changed in the last 5 years and have become more of a firearms manufacturer than a supplier of accessories.

At this point I interrupted him and asked “Can I possible save you some time so that you don’t waste your breath? What you are going to tell me is that because we are in the firearms manufacturing business you no longer what my business.”

“That is correct” he says…

“So you are telling me this is a politically motivated decision, is that right?”
Mr Fox confirmed that it was. At which point I told him that the meeting was over and there was nothing let for him to say.

Any reason to think that BOA really might make a politically motivated decision to cut ties with gun businesses? Well, maybe. Read Bob Owens’s post at PJM for lots of interesting background on McMillan and BOA: MORE