Archive for July, 2012
Excerpt from the ‘Huffington Post’; (with factual rebuttals from me)…..
WASHINGTON — One week after the Aurora, Colo., mass murder brought gun-control back to the forefront of political discourse, the Obama administration found itself faced with its first test on the issue — and blinked.
An arms control treaty to regulate the $60 billion global business of illicit small arms trading that had worked its way through United Nations negotiating channels for several years came up at the final day of a U.N. global conference in New York on Friday. The U.S. joined Russia in objecting to a final version, with some diplomats and human rights advocates blaming the U.S. for the defeat. Mark’s NOTE: In part, this ‘treaty’ would have made civilian ownership of firearms worldwide illegal, and allow despots to hand out punishment from a ‘world court’. Obama and Clinton, and many in our ‘government’ are OK with that, hmm……
As the Colorado slaughter put guns back on the agenda this week, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) and 50 fellow senators sent a letter to President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday, saying that they would vote against ratifying the treaty if it “restricts the rights of law-abiding American gun owners.” Mark’s NOTE: Moran did not word his opposition strongly enough in my opinion, Moran should have pointed out that this treaty would usurp America’s sovereignty also, allowing despots from around the world to dictate how we should live.
Moran, in a press release, quoted a National Rifle Association leader, who said members would “never surrender our right to keep and bear arms to the United Nations.” Treaty opponent John Bolton, ex-President George W. Bush’s ambassador to the U.N., wrote that gun-control advocates “hope to use restrictions on international gun sales to control gun sales at home.” The Associated Press fact-checked claims by the NRA and Bolton on Friday and concluded their assertions were true.
Huff. Post: “Both men ignore the legal principle that says no treaty can override the Constitution or U.S. laws”. Mark’s NOTE: Not true, show us that ‘legal principle’… Cannot override the Constitution….Unless ratified by a supermajority vote,(51) in the U.S. Senate), this is a tiny little fact conveniently left out/overlooked by a very left leaning Huffington Post….. if the Huff. Post had done a smidgen of investigative reporting, I am sure they would have found this Article ll, as I did in the Constitution, and I have no journalistic ‘expertise’/education…. go figure.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become binding treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority (51) of the United States Senate.
Mark’s NOTE; The Media would rather keep people in the dark and feed us manure than to just simply tell the truth. The truth runs contrary to the elite media and many ‘progressive’ politicians ‘agenda’ for America.
I guess the President and Hillary decided that maybe this was a bad time, (election year) to stir up people who cling to their religion, guns and, (gasp!) freedom?
Submitted by Mark Shean, 7-31-2012 www.mafirearmsafety.com
First and foremost my prayers and thoughts to the victims and all families involved in this terrible crime. M.Shean
As Paul Harvey would have said; “And now the rest of the story”, in the form of my rebuttals.
Story taken from Newsmax, 7-23-2012 ;
Within hours of a madman opening fire in a crowded movie theater on Aurora, Colo., gun-control advocates began to use the theater shooting spree, which left 12 dead and 71 wounded, to push their agenda.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an ardent gun-control advocate, led the way, citing the massacre on a radio broadcast Friday morning, insisting that statements of sympathy and concern from President Barack Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s campaigns were not enough. Marks rebuttal; Bloomberg is safely surrounded by armed security at all times, (on our dime), yet he wants every law abiding citizen disarmed, that is an elitist mindset to say the very least…
“Soothing words are nice,” said Bloomberg. “But maybe it’s time the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they’re going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country. And everybody always says, ‘Isn’t it tragic?’” Bloomberg urged the nation’s governors to speak out about the shooting as well. “I mean, there are so many murders with guns every day. It’s just got to stop,” he said. “And instead of these two people, President Obama and Gov. Romney, talking in broad things about they want to make the world a better place. OK. Tell us how. And this is a problem.”
Bloomberg added: “No matter where you stand on the Second Amendment, no matter where you stand on guns, we have a right to hear from both of them, concretely, not just in generalities, specifically, ‘What are they going to do about guns?’” Marks rebuttal; It is very telling that Bloomberg will not address the crime in the context of how criminals should be addressed when committing murder with firearms, instead he is only focused on ‘guns’ ‘What are they going to do about guns?’” His agenda is to ban all firearm ownership. Bloomberg is an avid supporter of the U.N. ‘Arms Trade Treaty’ (ATT) which would ban civilian ownership worldwide, a treaty that Hillary Clinton is gleefully poised to sign on 7-27-2012, and that Obama said he would sign if it passes a supermajority vote,(51) in our Senate, making it the law of our land! This is nothing less than an end run around our Constitution/sovereignty by U.N. despots! EVIL GUNS ?
The country seemed to be in for yet another round in the debate of whether gun-ownership creates violence or prevents it. Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said he could not understand why there was apparently no-one in the theater with a weapon who could take gunman James Holmes out before he could create more mayhem. “It does make me wonder, with all those people in the theater, was there nobody that was carrying a gun that could have stopped this guy more quickly?” Gohmert asked. Marks rebuttal; It appears that Rep. Gohmert is not aware of the ‘No Guns’ policy that is in place at that theater, which means all law abiding citizens left their guns at home which allowed James Holmes to murder them like sheep knowing full well no one would be armed. There are three elements surrounding a crime scene, the victim(s), the criminal(s) and the police, and we all know who gets there last…and possibly a forth element, politicians who want Gun Control laws to disarm us, if we allow the imbecile’s to do so.
By Saturday much of the liberal media had weighed in with calls for more control. In an editorial, The Washington Post wrote, “There is no rational basis for allowing ordinary Americans to purchase assault rifles. They’re not necessary for hunting, and they’re not needed for self-defense.”
It added, “Yes, the Second Amendment protects a citizen’s right to own a gun, but it does not preclude reasonable regulation for public safety. Yes, mass killings occur in societies with stronger gun laws, but not with such regularity — and not against the backdrop of daily gun violence, both criminal and accidental, that distinguishes the United States.” Marks rebuttal; The REAL reason we have a Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, something NONE of the media and political elite want you to understand, so they do not bring it up, so I will…. Quote, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” unquote –Thomas Jefferson– As far as ‘accidental’, far more people drown every year, if The Washington Post is concerned about ‘accidents’, ban all water, Now you know the truth behind the crafting of the Second Amendment, brought to you from a great man of the past, please pass it on…
Gail Collins in The New York Times likened gun-control advocates to suffragettes who had a long slog before winning their case, while columnist Dan Froomkin complained on the Huffington Post that politicians are responding “with pieties rather than policy proposals.” Marks rebuttal; It would be political suicide to try and disarm a law abiding American public based on the actions of criminals, ‘so-called’ Gun Control laws are not about guns or crime, it is solely about CONTROL of We The People as a whole. Quote, “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 inevitably ruined.” unquote, –Patrick Henry– Take heed from this very astute warning America…
Democratic Rep. Ed Perlmutter who represents the Aurora area where the shooting occurred, said of Holmes: “I don’t know why he had such easy access to guns.” Perlmutter said it was “premature” to consider political issues, however his Democratic colleague in the House, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York was not so bashful. “We as a nation should … not continue to ignore avenues to prevent tragedies like this from happening in the future,” said McCarthy, whose husband was shot to death on the Long Island Railroad in 1993. Marks rebuttal; See above quote from Patrick Henry, take serious note of it. Had Rep. McCarthy’s husband been armed that day on the train he may well be alive today….
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence posted a petition on its web site asking for signatures from those who felt the Aurora tragedy was a reason to help prod lawmakers towards more gun control legislation. The campaign, founded by former Reagan press secretary James Brady after he was wounded in the assassination attempt on his boss, said the “horrendous shooting” is “yet another tragic reminder that we have a national problem of easy availability of guns in this country.” Mark’s rebuttal; Brady and her ilk are determined to disarm all Americans, and are proud to support the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty,(ATT) need I say more?
The Brady petition asked that convicted felons and domestic abusers, terrorists and the dangerously mentally ill should be banned from buying, owning or carrying a gun anywhere in the country. Mark’s rebuttal; FACT: All these stipulations are already covered by law, this is a case of ‘Smoke and Mirrors’ from Brady.
Dennis Henigan, vice-president of the Brady campaign told CBS News it is time for President Barack Obama to act on gun control. “The president has not shown sufficient leadership on the gun issue,” he said. Referring to other shootings such as those at Columbine School, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood and Tucson, he said, “We hope that the cumulative impact of these continuing tragedies will ultimately lead our politicians to begin to respond to the need for public safety, the need to stop this violence, instead of simply doing the bidding of the gun lobby.” “This being an election year, I believe that the American people will say, as they say over and over again, ‘enough is enough,'” added Henigan. Mark’s rebuttal; Again, please read Patrick Henry’s quote above, these are the kind of people that Mr. Henry had the incredible foresight to warn freedom loving Americans about well over 200 years ago.
Media figures too joined in the fray. CNN talk show host Piers Morgan tweeted extensively on the issue, saying, among other things, that “America has got to do something about its gun laws. Now is the time.” He later added, “More Americans will buy guns after this, to defend themselves and so the dangerous spiral descents. When/how does it stop.” Within seconds, he added, “Lunatics like this will always try and get guns. It should be 100,000 times harder than it is for them to do so.” Mark’s rebuttal; I agree with Piers about his assertion “America has got to do something about its gun laws’ he is correct, they need to be revisited, most dismantled and replaced with emphasis placed on CRIME CONTROL instead!
In a later tweet, the British talk show host said, “Colorado shooter, Holmes, bought all four of his guns LEGALLY at Gander Mtn & Bas Pro Shop. Still the ‘wrong time’ to debate gun control?” Mark’s rebuttal; Who cares what the British think? We already kicked them out of America because of tyranny, now they actively practice tyranny against their own people with strict gun control amidst sky rocketing crime! How’s that bloody gun control working out over there for you England? They want us to be as miserable as they are…
Larry King, the man Morgan replaced on CNN also tweeted support for more gun control. “We remain one of the few countries in the world where anyone in the world can get a gun. In this case a machine gun. This is absurd,” wrote King. Mark’s rebuttal; What Larry says is nonsense, and illogical. For one thing Larry, machine guns have been banned to the general public since 1938, but, lets not confuse the issues with the facts. In Larry’s mind, because of America, -quote; “Where anyone in the world can get a gun“, unquote, really Larry? The only thing ‘absurd’ Larry was your confused statement.
Arianna Huffington of the liberal Huffington Post tweeted, “People might say it’s too early to have the gun discussion Mayor Bloomberg wants. Actually it’s too late.” Author Salman Rushdie created a firestorm of criticism on his Twitter page after he tweeted, “The ‘right to bear arms’ is the real Bane of America.” Bane is the name of the villain in “The Dark Knight Rises.” He followed that message with, “Anyone else tired of presidential candidates saying they value American life but never a sane word about gun control?” Mark’s rebuttal; Had more Jewish people in 1938 Europe forcefully resisted the ‘Gun Control’ registration scheme at that time, I believe firmly there would have been far fewer led to a helpless slaughter at the hands of ‘Government’. Far better to have a fighting chance, armed and free than to be slaughtered like sheep by criminals or rouge government agents in the trumped-up name of ‘public safety’! This was clearly understood by our Founders, a lesson obviously lost on Bloomberg and the rest of these elites with a dangerous agenda for America and a blind eye to history.
On the other side of the Twitter debate, singer Chris Daughtry tweeted, “Stricter gun laws will not stop SICK people from getting access to guns…Laws & rules are not in the forefront of the mind of a criminal.” Mark’s Note; True
The NRA was staying quiet until the all the details surrounding the shooting become clear. Spokesman Andrew Arulanandams told Newsmax: “Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims’ families and indeed the whole Aurora community. We will not make any further statements until all the facts are known.” Mark’s NOTE; A good question that the NRA and ALL Americans should ask themselves in the wake of this horrific crime, (What would the media/political outcry have been had a legally armed citizen taken this undiagnosed, yet still demented wacko out, thus stopping further bloodshed?) How would the story have been covered?
Support for gun control has fallen in recent years. Gallup says 78 percent wanted stricter gun laws in 1990, falling to 62 percent by 1995. By 2007 it was 51 percent and last year just 44 percent. Mark’s Note; This is because people are starting to see through media slant and political lies of those with a bad agenda for American freedom.
Summary: In the wake of this crime there has been renewed yet misplaced ‘debate’ about gun control within the elite media, (talking heads) and political circles on TV, it should center around crime control. The problem I have recognized watching these scripted shows now and over the years is the fact that the people involved do not want HONEST debate, many things that should be asked/answered are conveniently left out. Someone like you or myself, (one of the unwashed masses) would never be allowed to shed ‘light’ on the subject of firearms in America on national television.
Politicians in Washington DC are surrounded by an army of uniformed and plain clothed policemen along with special secret service details, they are quite secure in their little bubble, (on our dime). Yet they would dare even to consider taking away our unalienable right to self defense? Just who the hell do they think they are? We do not work for them….
I will leave off with words of wisdom from the past, you will rue the day should you be dismissive of these words: quote;- They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. unquote –Ben Franklin–
Rebuttal’s Humbly Submitted 7-23-2012 by Mark Shean, www.mafirearmsafety.com Molon Labe!!
JFK at one time had gathered the top minds of the country together, at dinner he began by saying;“I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House – with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone”.
John F. KennedyThomas Jefferson quotes:
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
“Aware of the tendency of power to degenerate into abuse, the
worthies of our country have secured its independence by the
establishment of a Constitution and form of government for our
nation, calculated to prevent as well as to correct abuse.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Washington Tammany Society, 1809.
“[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several
branches of government by certain laws, which, when they
transgress, their acts shall become nullity’s; to render
unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion,
on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their
acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender
those rights.” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782. Q.XIII
“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this
ground: That “all powers not delegated to the United States, by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States or to the people.” [10th Amendment]
To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn
around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless
field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” –Thomas
Jefferson: National Bank Opinion, 1791
“Unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted
with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to
their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power
in the individuals and their families selected for the trust.
Whether our Constitution has hit on the exact degree of control
necessary, is yet under experiment.” –Thomas Jefferson to M.
van der Kemp, 1812.
Words of T. Jefferson, humbly submitted 7-22-2012, by Mark Shean
When a gun owner dies, the “heir or legatee” is not immediately in illegal possession if they do not have a license. Chapter 140, § 129 gives a 180 day exemption. By the end of 180 days, the person in charge of the estate should have either done one of three things:
- Transfer the firearms to a dealer.
- Transfer the firearms to a person who has the appropriate FID/LTC.
- Or, applied for an extension of the time period to the chief of police
- If the deceased had a MA license: It appears that an E-FA-10 could be filled out during this 180 day period, with the deceased person’s information as the seller, and the new owner as the buyer. The executor/executrix should sign [her name] for the estate of [deceased’s name].
- If it has been longer than 180 days, or the deceased did not have a current LTC, then the sales must go through a licensed dealer.
- If the inheritor is out of state, then have the executor/executrix ship the guns to a licensed dealer in that state OR have the inheritor pick them up directly.
- Inherited guns still need to be transferred with the Ma. E-FA-10 form! Inheriting Across State Lines: If a MA resident with an LTC/FID inherits guns from a deceased person out of state, they may go directly and pick up those guns (provided it is lawful for them to possess those guns in that state as a non-resident). Although the federal government prohibits private transfers across state lines, it does make an exception for “direct bequest or interstate succession.” This is especially handy when we are talking about a person inheriting handguns that may not be “MA compliant”. Inherited guns still need to be transferred on an E-FA-10 form.
The electronic ‘E’-FA-10 will be used in place of the paper firearms transaction forms as of 8-13-2014, (E-FA-10) used by Ma. residents to report firearms transactions to the Firearms Records Bureau (FRB) as required by G.L.c.140, §§ 128A and 128B. E-FA-10 is an Internet-based application that allows residents of the Commonwealth to safely and securely submit firearms transfer records electronically from any Internet-enabled computer.
In order to utilize the E-FA-10 system, you will need your firearms license number and personal identification number (PIN). The ONLY way you will be able to complete your firearm transaction, ( E-FA-10) will be with your State provided Personal Identification Number (PIN). If you did not receive a PIN or can’t find it, call the Firearms Records Bureau at 617-660-4722 Monday through Friday between 9am and 6pm.
Generate Firearms License Validation Use this link to prove your license is valid before you buy any firearm from a gun show, individual, or gun shop. Know your PIN #.
Again, for any other questions if you don’t see your answer on this page, “Firearms Record Bureau”. FRB, 200 Arlington Street, Suite 2200, Chelsea, Ma 02150 617-660-4722
No person to person interstate transactions are allowed using these forms, for other than, “direct bequest or interstate succession.” You could consult a Gun Dealer.
In Ma. The E-FA-10 form is not a gun registration form, it is a transfer of ownership form, from the gun store to you, or from you to another person. By law it can NOT be used to determine what you own unless a firearm is part of a criminal investigation. Here is the statute that defines this;
NOTICE: FIREARMS RECORDS are EXEMPTED from the PUBLIC RECORDS statute. G.L c.4,§7 (clause twenty-six)(j). FRB may not disseminate firearms records “to any person, firm, corporation, entity or agency except criminal justice agencies as defined in chapter six and except to the extent such information relates solely to the person making the request and is necessary to the official interests of the entity making the request.” G.L. c. 66, § 10(d).
See (GS#43 & GS#45) also.
Link below are guns approved in Ma., copy and paste.
Anything NOT mentioned obviously is NOT approved…..but that does not necessarily mean they can not be legally owned.
Mark Shean, About Me
FYI, Revised 8-13-2014