Newsletter
Would you like to join my mailing list? Just enter your email below to sign up!

Concealed Carry

Archive for the ‘Blog’ Category

A Liberal Supreme Court Ruling will make liberals EXPLODE! Good news for gun owners.
==============================================
On 6-26-2015, as you know, five liberal justices on the SCOTUS redefined what marriage is in America and also found the time to violate the concept of federalism. They decided that an individual’s behavioral choice was grounds to create a new “right” in the U.S. Constitution. Now of course there are those of you who are now somewhat despondent, but just know that in every storm there is a rainbow — Since now the SCOTUS has determined it can bequeath a right to marriage across all 50 states, there is an interesting point to be made.

As reported by BearingArms.com, “If you’re following any of the various media outlets this morning, you’re probably aware that the U.S. Supreme Court has just extended gay marriage to all 50 states. The Supreme Court ruled Friday, 6-26-2015 that same-sex couples have a ‘right’ to marry nationwide, in a historic decision that invalidates gay marriage bans in more than a dozen states. Gay and lesbian couples already can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court’s ruling on Friday means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage. The outcome is the culmination of two decades of Supreme Court litigation over marriage, and gay rights generally.”

The Court used Section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to justify its argument, which reads: Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now here is the kicker, as the writer articulately brings to light: “By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice. For gun owners, the vast majority of states are “shall issue” on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states. My North Carolina concealed carry permit, for example, was recognized yesterday as being valid in 36 states, which just so happened to be the number of states in which gay marriage was legal yesterday. But 14 states did not recognize my concealed carry permit yesterday. Today, they MUST, due to this Supreme Court ruling!

Using the same “due process clause” argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit MUST now be recognized as valid in all 50 states AND the District of Columbia!
Yes folks, there is a standing right called the Second Amendment, which grants the right to keep and bear arms, and that specifically granted right shall not be infringed. So, the SCOTUS does not need to have a court case and prolonged legal, judicial activism — that right exists.

So, since I have moved from Florida to Texas, my concealed weapons permit is not only transferrable here, but all across the country now, in all fifty states — or fifty-seven if you are President Obama….. Thanks to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender,(LGBT) community for making it very clear, my constitutionally declared right MUST be recognized in every state! Not only is it my right to keep and bear my arms (weapons) but that “personal choice is central to my individual dignity and autonomy” — the protection of the unalienable rights granted to me by the Creator, the first of which is life. THIS is GREAT, I just cannot wait to hear the liberal progressive socialist anti-gun argument against this premise — which is now established!

NOTE: The Supreme Court started to stray from their sworn duty to follow the Constitution in the 1960s and instead morphed into two factions, Liberal and Conservative, which is NOT how our Founders set it up. The Liberals in this case, in their zeal to pander to a vocal minority group, over looked the side effect this would have across the board dealing with all other licenses…..GOOD! Now it is the law of the land!

Now I suppose someone will say that the words/quotes of Franklin, Mason, Jefferson, and Washington are invalid because of some lame excuse like, well you know, they owned slaves….. But the point is simple and easy to comprehend. If the SCOTUS could create a ‘right’ that was truly non-existent in the Constitution using the 14th Amendment, then it seems reasonable and logical to use the same Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and equal protection to extend the concealed carry right to ALL 50 states.

So here is the call to action: since we are coming up on our 239th Independence Day celebration, let’s all call the White House and inform them that we CCL owners are going to be traveling for the Independence Day holiday and we plan on carrying our weapons wherever the heck we please. And if anyone decides to stop an American citizen and challenge his or her Second Amendment right, then let’s discuss the violation of federalism by the SCOTUS mandating same-sex marriage. As a matter of fact, we expect the ATF to start issuing NATIONAL CCL cards to all of us who are current holders of valid CCLs — heck, we know the DHS is planning on printing ID cards for illegal immigrants!

Therefore, celebrate your 4th of July knowing that the SCOTUS just solidified our right to keep and bear arms — and that no state has the “right” to infringe upon our Second Amendment right. If the violation of federalism works ok for LGBTs — then it works well for gun owners!

Note: This is a VERY interesting analysis! Since states issue all kinds of licenses and permits, e.g., a license to practice law or medicine, or whatever, will this now mean every state must now recognize every license from all other states, without the person having to sit for a licensing exam in those other states? After all, the ability to earn a living in one’s chosen field is a “personal choice central to their individual dignity and autonomy” as the liberal Supreme Court faction has just decided, and made the law of the land, correct? The answer is YES!

“Notes” inserted by Mark Shean, Article in part written by Alan B. West and Bearing Arms.com.
Sincerely, Mark Shean
6-28-2015  www.mafirearmsafety.com

 

 

Things happen sometimes that are not under our control, we are all susceptable to being blindsided from time to time. If someone pulls a 209A restraining order against you for instance while they are having an alcohol induced fit ect., and suddenly the police are there taking your firearms/ammo away, here is something for you to consider.

At the time of confiscation, by law, the police are supposed to do two things.

1. As of 8-13-2014 under bill H.4376, If your firearms are confiscated by the licensing authority, (the police) shall at that time inform the person(s) in writing of their ability to transfer their firearms to an independently licensed individual.

2. The officer shall, at the time of confiscation, provide to the person whose firearm(s)/ammo has been confiscated, a written inventory and receipt for any/all of the firearms/ammo confiscated, and the officer and his employer shall exercise due care in the handling, holding and storage of these items. Nothing listed on the inventory should mysteriously be ‘missing’ later on when/if the court terminates all of the disqualifing conditions…..

So now that you know this, if there is someone that you can trust, and will help you, this is a templet letter he/she can use to present to the police in order to legally take custody of your fireams in the intrim:

(date)

I John Q. Doe II, LTC # 12345678A, of 123 Main St. (name of town) zip code, phone #.               With the permission of (persons name), who is currently under a 209A restraining order. I will take transfer of said person’s firearm(s) and ammunition as listed on the enclosed/attached copy of official inventory list, as is a legal proceedure under H.4376 passed on 8-13-2015. I will keep them stored as to maintain compliance with applicable state firearm storage laws and away from (persons name) until such time that the court terminates all of the disqualifing conditions and reinstates (persons name) LTC.

Sincerely, John Q. Doe II,  +(signature)

Printed name of person whose weapons were confiscated and his/her signature below yours.

I would add this whole section along with the letter.

Directly from the 188th session 2013-2014, H.4376, Sec. 42, Section 129D of said Chapter 140; An Act Relative to Reduction of Gun Violence.

SECTION 42. Section 129D of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by striking out the first paragraph and inserting in place thereof the following paragraph:-
Upon revocation, suspension or denial of an application for a firearm identification card pursuant to section 129B or for any firearms license if the firearm identification card is not then in force or for any machine gun license, the person whose application was so revoked, suspended or denied shall without delay deliver or surrender to the licensing authority where the person resides all firearms, rifles, shotguns and machine guns and ammunition which the person then possesses unless an appeal of the revocation or suspension is pending.

The person or the person’s legal representative shall have the right, at any time up to 1 year after the delivery or surrender, to transfer the firearms, rifles, shotguns and machine guns and ammunition to any licensed dealer or any other person legally permitted to purchase or take possession of the firearms, rifles, shotguns and machine guns and ammunition and, upon notification in writing by the purchaser or transferee and the former owner, the licensing authority shall within 10 days deliver the firearms, rifles, shotguns and machine guns and ammunition to the transferee  or purchaser and the licensing authority shall observe due care in the receipt and holding of any such firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun and ammunition; provided, however, that the purchaser or transferee shall affirm in writing that the purchaser or transferee shall not in violation of section 129C transfer the firearms, rifles, shotguns or machine guns or ammunition to the former owner.

The licensing authority shall at the time of delivery or surrender inform the person in writing of the authority’s ability, within 1 year after delivery or surrender, to transfer the firearms, rifles, shotguns and machine guns and ammunition to any licensed dealer OR OTHER PERSON LEGALLY PERMITTED, (as in licensed) TO PURCHASE OR TAKE POSSESSION.

 

In my opinion, reasoning to the contrary does not reflect what H.4376, passed on 8-13-2014, clearly states in the above section. As this outline does not describe a transfer of ownership or use of an FA-10 form, it is merely a written transfer to another licensed individual taking custody, not ownership of the firearms until any disqualifying conditions have been dropped. It is true that a licensed individual can sell up to four firearms in a year, and more through an FFL but it is also true that this cannot be done legally by someone with a suspended license, so it does not pertain for this transfer.

 

NOTE: If the police don’t know, or pretend not to know this about this law, and refuse to research it or turn over the firearms/ammo, your second step should be to send the police chief the request by certified mail return receipt. If then he plays the same game your next step would be to go to court and petition a judge, who is supposed to know the laws, he should tell the police to release the firearms to you per law, see Gun Sense #13, Petition for Judicial Review. I hope no one has to go to this extreme, but……

ADDITIONAL NOTE: Section 44. Said section 129D of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by inserting after the third paragraph the following paragraph:-If the licensing authority cannot reasonably ascertain a lawful owner within 180 days of acquisition by the authority, the authority may, in its discretion, trade or dispose of surplus, donated, abandoned or junk firearms, rifles, shotguns or machineguns or ammunition to properly licensed distributors or firearms dealers. The proceeds of the sale or transfer shall be remitted or credited to the municipality in which the authority presides to purchase weapons, equipment or supplies or for violence reduction or suicide prevention; provided, however, that no firearm, rifle, shotgun or machinegun or ammunition classified as having been used to carry out a criminal act pursuant to section 131Q shall be considered surplus, donated, abandoned or junk for the purpose of this section. 

Note: Section 44 is a  great incentive for the police to cling to the firearms and to block transfer under any pretense to someone you would want to hold them for you pending any court decision. Legal/illegal theft of valuable property is what this section could be used for. So stalling for 180 days is in their best interest. Contact the Commonwealth Second Amendment Lawyers if this happens, the link is at my website. 

Also, there is no stipulations in H.4376 as to a 209A vs. any other reason in why the police would not turn the guns over to a licensed individual. The fact that you have stated that the person will not be allowed near the guns in your letter takes any liability away from the police and puts the onus on YOU.

Ma. Gun Transaction Portal;  https://mircs.chs.state.ma.us/fa10/action/home?app_context=home&app_action=presentTrans

I hope this is helpful, of course it may not be applicable to cover all reasons for confiscation.

Submitted by Mark Shean, 4-22-2015

www.mafirearmsafety.com

 

 

 

 

 

Whose Guns need to be controlled?

There’s no doubt America needs to curb gun use and possession, the question is whose guns? There are 34,500 members on the NYPD, and in 2012 they fatally shot 16 people. That gives Bloomberg’s former army a rate of 46 shooting deaths per 100,000, killing people at a clip that dwarfs any civilian level in the country…..

To put it into perspective, Chicago, an American city known for gun violence, hit its peak murder rate of 34 per 100,000 in 1992. American law enforcement is increasingly militarized, why? Radley Balko reports in his book ‘Rise of the Warrior Cop’: “Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military style equipment, from bayonets and M-16 rifles, to armored personnel carriers, American police forces have often adopted a mindset previously reserved for the battlefield”. So while gun violence has markedly declined, why the police military buildup? What do they think they are preparing to do?

While Bloomberg is squaring up to spread irrational fears about armed Mormon cattle ranchers and NRA members gone wild, we should be more worried about guns in the hands of the police. One ‘unidentified’, (to protect the guilty) Connecticut police officer recently stated that he can hardly wait until he gets the order to kick in doors to confiscate firearms……I guess he just needs the go ahead from oath breaking politicians to gleefully become a state sanctioned thief….

For Bloomberg to further his agenda he is counting/playing on the majority of the public’s ignorance about guns to push his disarmament agenda/scheme for CONTROL, a time honored tactic of any tyrant worth his weight in lies…..

The biggest most irresponsible gun owner in the country isn’t some redneck or a deranged teen plotting a massacre from his basement; it is the STATE in my opinion. There is a lot of history to back that opinion up. Governments have been responsible for wholesale genocide throughout history…..but first the People had to be disarmed….!

Laws of any sort can not prevent bad human behaviors. The term ‘Crime Prevention’ means nothing to any educated person in the gun control debate.

Can violence be ‘prevented’ by any law? If laws did ‘prevent’ bad things from happening there would be no violent crimes, or crime at all. Is that the case? Anywhere in the world, NO. Example, prisons are the most controlled places on earth, and there is plenty of crime/violence/murder going on inside those locked little societies. How then can laws/wishful thinking prevent violence in an open free society? It can’t.

We need laws of course, I am not saying that we don’t. They are in place to prosecute the people that are caught after they commit the crimes that are against these laws, that’s all, if they get caught at all. The police are the clean up crew, after the gruesome crime/fact.  Mainly they are revenue collectors with quota’s to fill for the state coffers from people they know are working for a living, speeding tickets and such.  Tougher to get money from criminals….they can’t.

Can any law keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Of course not. The ‘gun ban’ crowd knows this, they claim their cause is to stop crimes with guns, they hope the majority of the public can not see through that lie. Their aim is disarmament of law abiding citizens, plain and simple. Why? CONTROL, hard to CONTROL the masses if they are ‘allowed’ to have firearms…….

So remember this, any candidate(s) that are spouting ‘gun control’ are liars bent on control of YOU. Any gun owner who would vote for any candidate(s) that are spouting ‘gun control’ would be the equivalent of a turkey voting in favor of Thanksgiving!

Submitted 4-10-2015

Mark Shean

If I were the Devil;

I would gain control of the most powerful nation in the world;

I would deceive their minds into thinking that they had come from man’s effort, instead of God’s blessings and Grace;

I would promote an attitude of loving things and using people, instead of the other way around;

I would dupe entire states into relying on gambling for much of their state revenue;

I would convince people that character is not an issue when it comes to leadership roles;

I would make it legal and acceptable to murder unborn babies;

I would make it socially acceptable to take one’s own life, and invent the machines to make it convenient;

I would cheapen human life as much as possible so that the life of animals are valued more than human beings;

I would take God and certainly the mention of Jesus Christ Our Lord out of schools and the public square. But I would keep the study of Indian spirits, Hindu god’s and other false idol worshiping religions in the school, to be studied and admired by students and teachers. And I would make it to even the mention of Jesus’ name in school would be grounds for a lawsuit;

I would come up with drugs that sedate the mind, legal or not, and target the young, and I would get sports ‘heros’ to advertise them;

I would get control of the media, so that everyday I could pollute the mind of every family member for my agendas;

I would attack the family, the backbone of any nation;

I would make divorce acceptable and easy, even fashionable. If the family crumbles, so does the nation;

I would compel people to express their most depraved fantasies on canvas and movie screens, and would call it art;

I would convince the world that people are born homosexuals, and that their lifestyles should be accepted and marveled;

I would convince the people that right and wrong are determined by a few who call themselves authorities and refer to their agenda as politically correct;

I would persuade people that church is irrelevant and out of date, and that the Bible is made up and for the naïve;

I would convince the WORLD that there are many god’s and that what they believe is fine as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else;

I would convince the WORLD that no one knows the real Truth about God. This would convince the people to believe “their own created and mixed philosophy of beliefs” and never search their heart and soul for the True source of Truth from the Lord God.

I would convince the WORLD that there are many ways, (loopholes) into Heaven. The Bible says in John 14:6, when Jesus says, “I am the Way the Truth and the Life: No man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.” and Acts 4:12, Jesus is our Only Salvation. {Our only way to Heaven is by our faith that Jesus Christ is the Lord}  I would CONVINCE people that this is narrow minded, and while being upset at this Truth, I will make them despise Christians, mock and whisper about them. Ill have them point out every time a Christian does something wrong, and they will be disgusted that they had the nerve to tell them about Jesus and His Word, when they are doing wrong just the same.

I would convince many in the WORLD that I, (the Devil) don’t even Exist. And that Heaven and Hell don’t exist and that they were just made up to scare the WORLD into doing good.

I would convince the WORLD in their own minds that if they were to die today, they along with 99% of everyone else, would go to Heaven….ha ha ha ha. Well unless you’ve done something REAL bad, of course, …ha ha ha! God said we are all born into sin and all need to come to Jesus, repent and turn away from our sins. Romans 3:23 (ALL have sinned and come short of the Glory of God) / 2nd Corinth- ians 5:14 (we all deserve to go to Hell, but (I) died for all our sins and rose from death. That we may have life eternal through Him that saved us, but are dead in our sins w/out Jesus)

Luke 13:5 (unless ye repent, you will perish). But I will make them think in their minds, that they themselves are not sinners and they will get offended at the very mention or thought of this idea.

I would dull the minds of Christians, and make them believe that reading God’s Word daily is not important, and that faithfulness, prayer and obedience to doing God’s Word are optional;

I do all this deception as a test with God’s permission, God could wipe me out of the picture forever with one word, but instead keeps me around to test your Faith, I love my job and if I don’t say so myself, I am very good at stealing souls from Heaven. So I think all I would do, I have done, and will continue to do.

If I were The Devil….

 

Submitted 4-6-2015

Mark Shean

www.mafirearmsafety.com

 

 

 

 

As the members of the Kansas House of Representative’s stood and bowed in prayer at the opening of a recent session, many were shocked and offended by what they heard, a heartfelt prayer of corporate confession, forgiveness and guidance.

One representative walked out in a huff, another sat down in protest. The Wichita Eagle reported: “And the House came alive with the flutter of agitation that comes from offense and its often loud response.”

One representative sniveled: “I have never heard in ten years, as divisive, sanctimonious, self serving, overbearing prayer as I have heard this morning!”

Rev. Joe Wright who offered the prayer said, “Prayer is prayer. I’m praying to God when I’m praying. I’m not up to put on a show. I’m there to pray. I don’t do it any differently in public than in private…”

Now the full text of Rev. Wrights prayer:

Heavenly Father,

We come before you today to ask your forgiveness and seek your direction and guidance. We know your Word says, “Woe to those who call good evil,” but that’s exactly what we’ve done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values.

We confess that we have ridiculed the absolute truth of your Word and called it moral pluralism.

We have worshipped other gods and called it multiculturalism.

We have endorsed perversion and called it alternate lifestyle.

We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.

We have neglected the needy and called it self preservation.

We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.

We have murdered our unborn and called it choice.

We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.

We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building esteem.

We have abused political power and called it political savvy.  (loud gasp from audience)

We have coveted our neighbors’ possessions and called it ambition.

We have polluted the airwaves with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.

We have ridiculed the time honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

Search us, O God and know our hearts today; try us and see if there be some wicked way in us; cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Guide and bless these men and women who have been sent here by the People of Kansas, and who have been ordained by you to govern this great state. Grant them your wisdom to rule, and may decisions direct us to the center of your will.

I ask it in the name of your living son, the Living Savior, Jesus Christ, amen.

 

NOTE: There must have been an overflow of guilty consciousness’ in the assembly that day for such a negative display by people who have obviously taken ‘self serving’ to extremes. But in all honesty I suppose that any legislature in any state and in Washington DC especially would have reacted in exactly the same way in this time of greed and ‘revisionist’ history writers……

Submitted by Mark Shean

4-6-2015

www.mafirearmsafety.com

As transcribed from a radio broadcast:

For the life of me, I can’t understand what could have gone wrong in Littleton Colo. If only the parents had kept their children away from the guns, we wouldn’t have had such a tragedy. Yeah, it must have been the guns….

1. It couldn’t have been because half of our children are being raised in broken homes.

2. It couldn’t have been because our children get to spend an average of 30 seconds in meaningful conversation with their parents each day. After all, we give our children ‘quality’ time.

3. It couldn’t have been because we treat our children as pets and our pets as children.

4. It couldn’t have been because we place our children in day care centers where they learn their socialization skills among their peers, under the law of the jungle while employees who have no vested interest in our children look on only to make sure no blood is spilled.

5. It couldn’t have been because we allow our children to watch, on average, seven hours of television a day filled with the glorification of sex and violence that isn’t fit for adult consumption.

6. It couldn’t have been because we allow our children to enter into virtual worlds in which, to win games one must kill as many opponents as possible in the most sadistic way possible.

7. It couldn’t have been because we have sterilized and reduced our families down to sizes so small that our children are so spoiled with material things that they come to equate the receiving of the material  with love.

8. It couldn’t have been because our children, who historically have been seen as a blessing from God, are now being viewed as a mistake created when contraception fails or inconveniences that parents try to raise in their spare time.

9. It couldn’t have been because our nation is the world leader in developing a ‘culture of death’ in which more than 20 million babies have been murdered ‘legally’ by abortion.

10. It couldn’t have been because we give two year prison sentences to teenagers who kill their newborns.

11. It couldn’t have been because our school systems teach the children as hard fact, that they are nothing more than glorified apes who have evolved out of some primordial soup of mud, and hand out condoms and pamphlet’s about ‘alternate life styles’ to our children as if they were candy, pushing promiscuity.

12.  It couldn’t have been because we teach our children that there are no laws of morality that transcend us, that everything is relative and that bad actions even in the highest places have no consequences. What the heck, the president gets away with it!

Nah, it must have been the guns…..

Re-Submitted by Mark Shean

www.mafirearmsafety.com

4-6-2015

Do you vote? Do you give a damn about America? If you vote you do. Please take note of the way We can take BACK America! Lets get this change before the 2016 elections!

If you are sick of choosing the lesser of two evils every for years, please go to the website below to see what is being done about ending the stranglehold Democrat and Republican elites have over America . A presidential debate rule is written by a group of Democrats and Republicans to ensure no third party will ever have any chance to be involved in a presidential debate within the last six weeks of an election. And YOU thought We the People held the reins of government! Change the rule and end the monopoly of power by those only interested in CONTROL!

http://www.changetherule.org/

Submitted by Mark Shean, concerned voter.

3-18-2015

Remember, many politicians here in the USA can not ‘accept’ or ‘tolerate’ lawful ownership of firearms by the law abiding in America, it is as if they are trying to make everyone helpless, like in France, etc. to make it easy for those bent on killing all so-called ‘infidels’.

We are told not to judge All Muslims based on the actions of a few Muslim lunatic’s, but we are Encouraged to judge ALL gun owners based on the actions of a few lunatic’s the media and politicians claim,…………Can you say AGENDA? I know that you can…..

You have to pause and wonder, JUST WHO’S SIDE ARE THESE JACK ASS’ES ON??!! AND JUST WHO DO THEY REALLY REPRESENT??? Back off your attacks of our Second Amendment! Crime happens while the police are somewhere else………..Again, back off your attacks on our Second Amendment!

Some may not want to own a firearm, that is their right, but they have no right to say that others can not own them just because they don’t want to, firearms are the Only consumer product specifically protected in our Constitution under the Second Amendment. As an American citizen, everyone should support the right of all American citizens to exercise any of their Constitutional or God given rights, not cherry pick only the ones that they like. Are the oath breaking  political traitors paying attention?

Those bent on destroying our Second Amendment rights through fees, licenses or permits should also have to apply for a license and pay a fee before they can open their mouth to exercise their First Amendment rights, how would that be taken by these pinheads? Why should we need to pay to exercise a right?!

“But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow. …
For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals.
Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.” Jeff Snyder

 

Mark Shean

Remember the guy who got on a plane with a bomb built into his shoe and tried to light it?

Did you know his trial is over?

Did you know he was sentenced?

Did you see/hear any of the judge’s comments on TV or Radio?

Didn’t think so.!!!

Everyone should hear what the judge had to say.

Ruling by Judge William Young, US District Court.

Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything to say His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record, Reid also admitted his ‘allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah,’ defiantly stating, ‘I think I will not apologize for my actions,’ and told the court ‘I am at war with your country.’

Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below:

Judge Young: ‘Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the
Court imposes upon you.

On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the
custody of the United States Attorney General. On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutively. (That’s 80 years.)

On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years again, to
be served consecutively to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes upon you for each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 that’s an aggregate fine of $2 million. The Court accepts the government’s recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.

The Court imposes upon you an $800 special assessment. The Court
imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further.

This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence. Now, let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans.

We have been through the fire before. There is too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with the utmost respect. Here in this court, we deal with individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals. As human beings, we reach out for justice.

You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether the officers of government do it or your attorney does it, or if you think you are a soldier, you are not—–, you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not meet with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You’re no warrior. I’ve known warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal that is guilty of multiple attempted murders. In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and the TV crews were, and he said:

‘You’re no big deal. ‘

You are no big deal.

What your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led you here to this courtroom today?

I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing? And, I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you, but as I search this entire record, it comes as close to understanding as I know.

It seems to me you hate the one thing that to us is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose. Here, in this society, the very wind carries freedom. It carries it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom, so that everyone can see, truly see, that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely. It is for freedom’s sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf, have filed appeals, will go on in their representation of you before other judges.

We Americans are all about freedom. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bear any burden; pay any price, to preserve our freedoms. Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here.

The day after tomorrow, it will be forgotten, but this, however, will long endure.

Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America , the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done. The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.

See that flag, Mr. Reid? That’s the flag of the United States of America . That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag stands for freedom. And it always will.

Mr. Custody Officer. Stand him down.

So, how much of this Judge’s comments did we hear on our TV sets? We need more judges like Judge Young. Please pass this around. Everyone should and needs to hear what this fine judge had to say. Powerful words that strike home, words the media did not want anyone to hear………….just who’s side is the media on?!

www.mafirearmsafety.com

1-7-2015

 

J. Neil Schulman is an award winning author who decided to dig deep for the true meaning of the words in the Second Amendment, to do so he found the foremost expert on the meaning of words.  Mr. Roy Copperud, he’s on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster’s Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud’s fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher’s Humanities Award.

Sounds like an expert to me.

Dear Sir:

“I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

“The text of the Second Amendment is, ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’

“The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State’, is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’

“I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary.”

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

“I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.”

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):


[Copperud:] “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right’, verb ‘shall’). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

“In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”

[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”

[Schulman:] “(2) Is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right ‘shall not be infringed’?”

[Copperud:] “(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”

[Schulman:] “(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ null and void?”

[Copperud:] “(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”

[Schulman:] “(4) Does the clause ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,’ grant a right to the government to place conditions on the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms,’ or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?”

[Copperud:] “(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.”

[Schulman:] “(5) Which of the following does the phrase ‘well-regulated militia’ mean: ‘well-equipped’, ‘well-organized,’ ‘well-drilled,’ ‘well-educated,’ or ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority’?”

[Copperud:] “(5) The phrase means ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority;’ this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.”

[Schulman:] “(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.”

[Copperud:] “To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.’

[Schulman:] “As a ‘scientific control’ on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

“A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.’

“My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

“(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment’s sentence?; and

“(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict ‘the right of the people to keep and read Books’ only to ‘a well-educated electorate’ — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?”

[Copperud:] “(1) Your ‘scientific control’ sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

“(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.”

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: “With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion.”

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard’s desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.


About the Author

J. Neil Schulman is the award-winning author of novels endorsed by Anthony Burgess

Submitted by Mark Shean, 12-22-2014

www.mafirearmsafety.com