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

Concealed Carry

Archive for the ‘Blog’ Category

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


VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

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, Congress and presidents get  away with it!

Nah, it must have been the guns…..

Re-Submitted by Mark Shean


VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

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!

Submitted by Mark Shean, concerned voter.


VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

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

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

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?!



VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

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

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

I recently tried to have some custom playing cards made from a company that does that service,(Zazzle). On the back of the card I wanted the picture of a 12ga. pump KSG shotgun. It apparently was abhorrent to their delicate sensibilities and they refused to process the order, calling the image ‘unsuitable’. I am sure if I had wanted a picture of a busty blond all but naked in a bikini that would have been fine with them since sex sells…. Looking into the co. I found that Zazzle is based in Redwood City California, we all know Ca. to be a political Constitutionally dysfunctional state especially in regards to our Second Amendment.

Below is the communication Zazzle sent to me;
Mr. Shean:
We would love to produce all designs submitted, however Zazzle prides itself on upholding all intellectual property rights as well as our own content guidelines and copyright policies.

In this instance, your order contained an image that was not suitable to be printed on the Bicycle Playing Cards. Bicycle has very strict guidelines on what can and can not be printed on their cards.

Your order has been cancelled in full. We apologize for any inconvenience or disappointment that you may have experienced due to this cancellation and thank you for understanding..

Not Approved
Content Notes: Design contains content that is not suitable for printing on officially licensed merchandise. For more information please visit:

Content Management Team
Zazzle Inc.
Case Number: CAS-528076-G7S4X2

Marks Note, This ‘unsuitable’ image was a 12ga. pump KSG shotgun! Firearms are the ONLY Constitutionally protected consumer product, obviously the Founding Fathers did not consider firearms ‘unsuitable’, they considered them indispensable! ZAZZLE Card Co. takes acceptation to our Second Amendment rights it would seem, this is a company that should be boycotted by Americans who do not want to be chastised for their right to own firearms.

I looked up the Bicycle Playing Card guidelines, here they are:

No text or images that infringe on any intellectual property rights including, but not limited to copyrights, trademarks and rights of privacy/publicity.
•     No text or images that contain pornography, sexual activity or sexual connotations.
•     No text or images of convicted felons and/or notorious criminals. This includes any recent or newsworthy individuals.
•     No text or images that promote Satan and/or contain satanic or demonic content.
•     No content that poorly reflects the Bicycle brand.

I see nothing about ‘Firearms’, so Zazzle just does not like them and was trying to hide behind Bicycle as their excuse. The picture was my property, as is the firearm, no infringement’s.

I have since gone to another company and submitted the exact same order with no problem, they did not even blink, your business should go to this company should you want playing cards made;

Mark Shean


VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

The link to this demonstration is on youtube.

Also an installation video for the FTSS for the KSG on YouTube

Also, 15 rounds in 9 seconds with KSG on YouTube

But read first;

I wanted to demonstrate the relatively new 15 shot Kel-Tec #KSG 12ga. shotgun as a home defense firearm. The distance I choose is 15 feet because I am simulating a scenario inside the home, possibly in a bedroom. The day I made this video it was cold and windy, about 30 degrees with a wind chill of about 20, my fingers were freezing. There is wind noise on the video, I tried to get most of it filtered out, if you put your volume up you will be able to understand me fairly well. This video was unscripted, I just turned on the camera and started talking.  The only thing that I would like to have said over was the info about slugs, I had meant to say that a 12ga. slug delivers 2000 pounds of kinetic energy at 100 yards, instead I believe I said it delivers 2000 pounds per square inch at 100 yards, again this was unscripted and I did not have the luxury of additional ‘takes’ like in the movies. It is my very first video.

I set up three B-27 silhouette targets so that I could swing from one to the other as I shoot, alternately 5 shots each, I did not want to use one static target. By using three I can demonstrate the accuracy while quickly firing. When I begin shooting the #KSG I fired the first 8 rounds in 3-4 seconds, then you will see me pause and look for the selector switch before I continue to fire the remaining 7 rounds, the total elapsed time is 12 seconds from start to finish including that mid way pause, (should be 3-4 seconds quicker)…. The selector switch is quite small and difficult to locate without looking for it unless you have larger hands, mine are medium size. The selector switch is located to the rear of the trigger guard, and most of us will not be able to reach it with our thumb unless we disengage/leave the trigger, and move our hand to the rear to select the next tube before re-engaging the trigger, I do not like that. My next follow-up video will incorporate a ‘fix’ to the selector switch problem, and there will be a ‘smoother’ result, on a less windy warmer day..with less talk….

Mark Shean

 NEW, First video for upcoming Feed Tube Selector Switch for the #KSG, (FTSS). The website is  We are now up and running as of the 16th, January 2016. This switch is a dramatic improvement over the factory and current variants and is not merely a protuberance.

If you like the attached video on youtube please share it and rate it Thanks!!      <——Here is the new video, just made in June 2015 with the new prototype switch we have developed.

Production has started, Pat. Pending 62/159,719

Solution De Innovation LLC



VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

GUN CONTROL…… You know, actually there is a constitutional procedure to remove or change any part of the Constitution, All it takes is 2/3rds of all 50 state legislature’s to ratify the change and it becomes law.

Instead of trying to usurp the Constitution why don’t the ‘progressive’ liberals simply remove the Second Amendment constitutionally? Do you know the answer to that? I know the answer to that, the progressives/liberals/communists/democrats/socialist’s , whatever name it is that they want to hide behind this month know that real American patriots will never allow it, and the lie that `gun control` will stop crime is just that, a lie.

It is about CONTROL period, every dictator throughout history worth his weight in lies knows the best way to control the masses is to first disarm them. Any American that does not want to own a firearm has that freedom of choice, but as an American he or she should support and defend his fellow Americans God given right to self defense and Constitutional right to do it by way of firearms if they so choose. It is an American birthright.

Now stop splitting hairs scheming about abolishing America’s gun rights, taking my firearms will not stop ONE criminal from committing a criminal act, and if so-called ‘democrats’ decide to be in an honest debate they would concede that, only that does not mesh with their little agenda. We are on to your statism game.

“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 ruined. PATRICK HENRY-

Mark Shean and Son

About Me

Molon Labe!

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)


The Ma. E-FA10 form is a transfer of ownership form, it is not gun registration. When you buy a firearm at the gun store, or from an individual, you need to fill out the E-FA10 form online now, by law, to transfer ownership of that firearm. If you did not do that in Ma. you would be committing a felony. See ‘Notice’ 20 lines down as to why this is not registration. See (GS#36) and (GS#45)

If you want to register your firearm(s) on a voluntary basis only in Ma. you can, but why would you? Hold off on that….

When registration is the goal of any government body it is always proceeded with unconstitutional, very dire threats to the entire population of the impending penalties/prison time, if you don’t comply by such-n-such a date you will become an overnight felon, we will come after you, we will kick in your doors!….. those types of threats. Such as oath breakers in Connecticut and New York have just tried to impose on the citizens of those two states as of the deadline 1-1-2014, using the lie of ‘gun control’ to stop mental cases or Islamic terrorists from killing people as a reason. Only a very small fraction have complied, (best kept media secret) the rest have publicly said to the oath breakers in office to go to hell, come take them! The police have said they will not enforce the dictate because it would needlessly put them in harms way. Now, there are very nervous politicians in those two states, as they should be……

If you move into Ma. from out of state with your firearms, you have 180 days to get a LTC to legally keep them, in the meantime they would be properly stored under Ma. law, Gun Sense #22, Firearm Storage and ‘Direct Control’ in Ma.  you could not use them until you received your Ma. license. Once you obtain your LTC you are under NO obligation to turn in a list of your firearms. If you want to sell any of them in the future, at that point you would be required to file the E-FA10 Transfer of Ownership form.

NOTICE: Ma. Firearms records are EXEMPTED from the public records statute.  G.L c.4,§7 (clause twenty-six)(j).  The Firearm Record Bureau (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). Note: Such as Law Enforcement in tracking ownership of a gun that was used in a crime.

State of Ma. Firearm Transaction list link, choose option/info you need;

Firearm registration is Unconstitutional;

It falls under Section 103(i) in the Brady Law:
(i) PROHIBITION RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF REGISTRATION SYSTEMS WITH RESPECT TO FIREARMS- No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may–
(1) require that any record or portion thereof generated by the system established under this section be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof; or
(2) use the system established under this section to establish any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions, except with respect to persons prohibited, (convicted criminals) by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18, United States Code or State law, from receiving a firearm.

NOTE:….”the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Infringe means to encroach. You cannot even encroach on that right. Any thing which restricts in any manner the right to keep and bear arms for the law abiding is Unconstitutional.

This decides what type of country we live in: a Constitutional Republic where individuals have unalienable rights, or an unlimited democracy where individuals have only privileges the fickle/ignorant media led  majority grants them. We live in a Republic, as instituted by our Founders.

It’s real easy, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”, is powerful language, it is up there with “Congress shall make no law…” in the First Amendment.

If the feds are databasing gun owners they are infringing their right to keep and bear arms by requiring an unreasonable action on the part of the gun owner. A database has the great potential to be abused, history easily shows us, therefore it is in itself an infringment of the right for a lawful citizen to own a firearm.

Under the 4th Amendment; Unreasonable searches and seizures are those that are without cause, actually without probable cause.Probable cause means that the police have to have a good reason to believe that someone has broken the law. The police can not do anything until they convince a judge that they have probable cause, and then they can get a warrant which gives them permission to search. Without a warrant they would need YOUR permission to search your car, home, etc. Don’t give it.

 Under the 14th Amendment; 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, (such as guns), without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

In Ma. a 209-A restraining order can/does violate your 14th Amendment protection based on nothing but hearsayallowing someone to manipulate the court as a tool of harassment. This is done prior to you’re due process of law!

Mark Shean & Son

Submitted 10-21-2014

About Me

Reviews    Gun Sense #44, KSG 12ga. Shotgun Demonstration


VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)