We all predicted this would happen.

In a move typical for that fear-mongering organization with an ever-swelling acronym, the BATFE has written gun dealers in the states of Montana and Tennessee to let them know the BATFE will be disregarding the states’ sovereign gun laws.

The “Montana Made” law, just like Tennessee’s Firearms Freedom Act, is very simple.

Much of the claimed federal authority to regulate firearm sales and transfers stems from a liberal interpretation of every American tyrant’s favorite subterfuge, the “interstate commerce” clause.  In essence, this is what gives the BATFE its nasty teeth.

With this in mind, Montana correctly understood that any weapon made in Montana by Montana residents and sold in Montana to Montana residents is Montana’s business and Montana’s business alone.

Montana thus sought to take charge of its firearms industry with the application of a simple truism:

Any gun made in Montana by Montana residents and sold in Montana to Montana residents is intrastate commerce, not “interstate commerce,” and thus does not full under the purview of the federal government.

Potentially, the state would be able to say goodbye to NICS checks; Brady background checks; NFA taxes, bans and NFA databases — and most importantly, federal “assault weapons” bans, which Montana and Tennessee rightly anticipated.

In effect, the “Montana Made” law would have permitted Montana gun companies to manufacture any kind of weapon banned by federal law — including so-called “assault weapons” – and sell them to fellow Montana residents.

Moreover, in this scenario, no one — neither the manufacturer nor the dealer nor the buyer — would have to kowtow to the BATFE by paying them a $200 tax and surrendering one’s privacy to their notoriously inaccurate and oft-abused National Firearms Registry.

It was a new day for freedom — and other states besides Tennessee were thinking of following suit: Alaska, Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas.

Well, the BATFE — never one to have its power downplayed (or acronym belittled)– has written letters to both Montana and Tennessee gun dealers letting them know that they proceed at their own risk.

We can only guess what new horrors those words portend — probably more dead housewives and children as disgruntled ATF thugs shoot-to-kill anyone suspected of perhaps owning a firearm not properly taxed and regulated by Washington, D.C., power brokers.

What else would be new.

A few of our members expressed interest in contacting the BATFE to vent some righteous anger – the same thing we did when the Department of Defense said they were going to ban all once-fired military brass for resale.

Remember how the DoD reneged on that commitment after just a few days due to the widespread backlash from gun owners and law enforcement?

Well, this is a bit different.  Writing the ATF and providing them with your information is akin to giving thieves your home address and the hours you won’t be home.

We’re going to take a different, less dangerous approach.

We’ve been talking to state officials from both Montana and Tennessee today to try to figure out the best way we can help these state laws succeed.

Please stay tuned to updates on this supremely important issue in our future emails.

For now, click here to read Luke’s commentary on his blog and leave a comment as this development unfolds.

But before I leave you, would you consider a donation to the National Association for Gun Rights as we continue to fight for the right to keep and bear arms?  Please click here to contribute.

In Liberty,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights

P.S. The National Association for Gun Rights can always use your help as we are completely dependent on our members’ generosity.  Please click here to donate.

Source: National Association for Gun Rights

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

When the Military Serves as Police

Tennessee Follows Texas In Banning Private Gun Shows

UN maneuvers to create “Global Gun Control”

Prolific Mexican politician and intellectual Jorge Castañeda believes that a greater North American community — a “North American Union” — with economies tied together under a European Union-style system, complete with open borders and a unified currency, is the wave of the future.

In a new interview with Web site BigThink.com, Castañeda, Mexico’s foreign minister from 2000-2003 and a global distinguished professor of politics at New York University, said that with nearly 11 percent of Mexicans living in the United States, he has stopped seeing his nation as a Latin American country.

“Well, my sense is that we’re moving closer and closer to forms of economic integration with the United States and Canada and conceivably Central America and Caribbean could become part of that in the coming years,” he said. “I don’t see Mexico as a Latin American country. Too much of trade, investment, tourism, immigration, remittances, absolutely everything is concentrated exclusively with the United States. So, Mexico has to be part of a North American community, a North American union, which at some point probably should include some type of monetary union along European lines with a free flow of labor, with energy being on the table, etc.”

Often demonized as some type of “conspiracy theory” in mainstream American press, the so-called North American Union proposals have actually existed for some time. In May of 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations released a document entitled “Building a North American Community” in which it calls for an EU-like integration of Canada, the United States and Mexico.

While the document does not specifically call for the ceding of sovereignty between the three nations — as some vocal opponents of the idea have suggested — it does recommend the formation of a North American Advisory Council and a multinational inter-parliamentary group to facilitate mutual cooperation. Though the group originally set out to achieve this goal by 2010, few in mainstream America are even aware of it today.

The CFR’s full proposal is available online. [PDF link]

“Economic and social citizenship in North America implies the ability of citizens to exert pressure for the implementation of an inclusive economic policy at home and to be engaged in the international economy,” wrote CFR member Carlos Heredia. “To the extent that citizens of the three partner countries see that North American integration brings concrete benefits, a new constituency will be galvanized to support these efforts in the years to come.”

“How far away are we from that?” Castañeda asked, rhetorically. “Quite far, but so did it seem back in Europe in the 1950’s and very little time later they came around and understood that that was their future lay. My sense is that the Mexican society is voting with its feet. We have a higher share of Mexicans living in the United States than we have ever had in our history. One out of every nine Mexicans, Mexican citizens, people born in Mexico, live in the United States today.”

In recent weeks, Castañeda also appeared on CNN’s Amanpour for a debate about the drug war. He explained that in his view, marijuana should be legalized in order to take away the drug cartels’ primary revenue source. However, “we can’t do it in Mexico if the U.S. doesn’t do it at the same time,” he said.

Speaking to BigThink, he carried a similar message.

“Having recklessly plunged the country into [the drug war] now, I think what Calderón and the United States should do is to sort of sit back for a second, think this through, see what they really want to achieve, what is achievable and what should be done that’s new,” he said. “For example, there are more and more states in the US that are moving towards decriminalization at least of marijuana. Mexico is still a very important producer of marijuana. Some people say that up to 60 percent of the profits of Mexico’s cartels come from marijuana. Well, if the United States or California’s de facto legalizing it through medical marijuana, what sense does it make for Mexicans to die to stop marijuana from entering the US when once it enters it can be sold legally at over 1,000 dispensaries in Los Angeles, more than the number of public schools there are in Los Angeles. That’s certainly one thing that we can do.”

This interview was published to the Web by BigThink.com on Feb. 16, 2010. The complete interview is available here.

Source: Raw Story

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

PUSH FOR GLOBALISM CONTINUES

Bill Gates Wants National ID Card For The US & Loosened Immigration Laws

Former president of Mexico calls for a North American Union at underreported summit

The Senate may vote on a second temporary extension of several controversial counterterrorism authorities as part of the jobs bill unveiled Thursday.

The draft bill carries language that would extend until Dec. 31 three expiring provisions of the antiterrorism law known as the Patriot Act.

The three provisions were set to expire at the end of 2009. But neither House nor Senate Democratic leaders evinced any appetite for tackling a substantive rewrite of the law last year. In December, Congress cleared a short-term reauthorization until Feb. 28, as part of the fiscal 2010 Defense appropriations bill.

One of the expiring provisions allows the government to seek orders from a special federal court for “any tangible thing” that it says is related to a terrorism investigation. Another allows the government to seek court orders for roving wiretaps on terrorism suspects who shift their modes of communication.

The third provision allows the government to apply to the special court for surveillance orders involving suspected “lone wolf” terrorists who do not necessarily have ties to a larger organization. That authority was first enacted as part of a 2004 intelligence overhaul law. In September, the Justice Department told lawmakers that the provision had never been used.

The administration wants lawmakers to pass a long-term reauthorization of all the expiring provisions, with as few changes as possible. House and Senate Republicans also favor that approach.

What little legislative battling there has been so far has been both a partisan fight and an intramural one among House and Senate Democrats.

The lack of congressional focus on the issue last year frustrated civil libertarians who wanted lawmakers to undertake a broader review of counterterrorism laws enacted during George W. Bush ’s presidency.

If lawmakers reauthorize the expiring provisions until Dec. 31, they would avoid having to address the issue until after the November midterm elections.

Source: Information Liberation

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

CALL FOR IMMEDIATE ARREST OF 5 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES FOR TREASON

Why Did We Lose Our Rights if the Government Isn’t Even Keeping Us Safe?

One Day We’ll All be Terrorists

Rod Tuason apparently suffers from a personality disorder common to professional bullies — a tendency to think that bullying behavior is hilarious. This could explain why Tuason, a detective with the East Palo Alto Police Department, used his Facebook page to suggest that police should shoot “open carry” advocates who carry firearms in public.

East Palo Alto Mayor David E. Woods told a local TV station that while he disapproved of Tuason’s comments, he is “concerned — although it’s legal — about people walking around with firearms.”

What Woods means, of course, is that he’s concerned about law-abiding private citizens exercising the innate individual right to armed self-defense, rather than the fact that the community he represents plays host to scores of armed people employed as enforcers by the political caste.

Some might say that Tuason, who appears to be an aspiring stand-up comedian, should keep his day job. In fact, he should quit that job and find honest work.

Source: Lew Rockwell

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

When the Military Serves as Police

Tennessee Follows Texas In Banning Private Gun Shows

UN maneuvers to create “Global Gun Control”

Passengers who refuse to go through an airport body scanner will be refused permission to fly, the Government has said.

Scanners introduced at Heathrow and Manchester.

The strict rules were confirmed as scanners were introduced at Heathrow and Manchester airport as security was stepped up following the attempt to bring down a transatlantic flight on Christmas Day.

All passengers, even children, face potential selection, the Department for Transport said.

The scanners, which are designed to detect explosives, at Heathrow’s Terminal 4 and Manchester are part of a programme which will eventually be rolled out to all major airports.

At the same time Heathrow has been training staff how to look out for unusual behaviour as passengers pass through the airport to decide who should face additional screening.

Such behaviour could include being nervous or agitated when passing through the terminal.

In addition intelligence information will also be used to identify which passengers should be subject to further checks, which could include scanning or further questioning.

Terminal 4 has been chosen for the first of Heathrow’s scanners because it is used by a number of transatlantic airlines.

The scanner will be placed in a purpose-built cubicle where passengers who are selected for screening will be taken after passing through the metal-detecting arch.

It will take about 15 seconds to scan an individual. This will be done the passenger reaches the departure lounge.

Heathrow declined to say how many passengers will be expected to go through a body scanner a day.

Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary, said only a small proportion of passengers will be selected for scanning.

He added that a code of practice meant that nobody can be selected on the basis of race, age or gender. The assurances are designed to avoid claims that Asians could be more likely to be picked out than others.

Other safeguards announced by the Government include giving passengers the right to demand that the individual inspecting the scanner image on a screen is the same sex.

In addition the security officer inspecting the image will not see the passenger and all images will be destroyed after the individual has walked away from the scanner.

Source: Telegraph

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Gary Fielder, Constitutional lawyer, refuses to be body scanned!

Why Whole-Body Imaging Won’t Work

Now Mobile Devices Will Scan Your Naked Body On The Streets

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Tennessee Follows Texas In Banning Private Gun Shows

Why Did We Lose Our Rights if the Government Isn’t Even Keeping Us Safe?

One Day We’ll All be Terrorists

Licensing mandates dealers to turn over plethora of information to authorities under new legislation

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Tennessee has followed Texas in demanding that dealers obtain licenses and turn over a plethora of information to authorities before being able to host a gun show in another devastating attack on the second amendment.

The legislation, HB 2422, which has not yet passed, would make it a Class A misdemeanor for any person to organize, plan, promote, or operate a gun show without government approval.

The bill makes it a crime for anyone who wishes to operate a gun show unless they follow the following procedures;

(1) Notifies the TBI and the chief law enforcement officer in the county in which the gun show is to be held of the dates, times, and location of the gun show;
(2) Verifies the identity of each gun show dealer participating in the gun show by examining a valid photo identification document of the dealer, before commencement of the gun show;
(3) Requires each gun show dealer to sign a ledger with information identifying the dealer, including the dealer’s name and address, before commencement of the gun show; and
(4) Maintains a copy of the records described above in (2) and (3) at the gun show promoter’s permanent place of business for one year from the date of the gun show.

The legislation also contains a blanket ban on all unlicensed gun sales within 1,000 feet of an unapproved gun show.

The bill would take effect on January 1, 2011 if signed into law.

As we highlighted yesterday, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is actively issuing directions banning private sales of guns without licenses at gun shows in Texas, despite there being no law to justify such demands.

A caller to the Alex Jones show brought attention to BATF notices handed out at the entrance of the Texas Gun And Knife Show, on North Lamar, in Austin this past weekend.

The flyers (pictured below) state that anyone selling a firearm “will be asked to comply with” conditions including operating through a licensed FFL dealer.

The notice also states that “Selling firearms in the parking lot will not be permitted.”

“The lady at the front desk used her ‘mommy voice’ to get everyone’s attention.” Scott from Austin told The Alex Jones show, noting that the owners of the private building where the gun show was held were contacted by the APD and the BATF and directed to hand out the notices.

Scott also told listeners that a petition in protest of the directions was being handed around at the show.

Source: Prison Planet

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Why Whole-Body Imaging Won’t Work

UN maneuvers to create “Global Gun Control”

The Republic is Dead; We Are Ready to Fight, Now What?

In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama’s regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban “conspiracy theorizing.”

Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.

Sunstein also recommended the government send agents to infiltrate “extremists who supply conspiracy theories” to disrupt the efforts of the “extremists” to propagate their theories.

In a 2008 Harvard law paper, “Conspiracy Theories,” Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard law professor, ask, “What can government do about conspiracy theories?”

“We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.”

In the 30-page paper – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein argues the best government response to “conspiracy theories” is “cognitive infiltration of extremist groups.”

Continued Sunstein: “We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.”

Sunstein said government agents “might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”

Sunstein defined a conspiracy theory as “an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.”

Some “conspiracy theories” recommended for ban by Sunstein include:

• “The theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.”
• “The view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.”
• “The 1996 crash of TWA flight 800 was caused by a U.S. military missile.”
• “The Trilateral Commission is responsible for important movements of the international economy.”
• “That Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by federal agents.”
• “The moon landing was staged and never actually occurred.”

Sunstein allowed that “some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true.”

He continued: “The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s,the CIA did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of ‘mind control.’”

Sunstein’s paper advocating against the belief that global warming is a deliberate fraud was written before November’s climate scandal in which e-mails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. indicate top climate researchers conspired to rig data and keep researchers with dissenting views from publishing in leading scientific journals.

Sunstein: Ban ‘right wing’ rumors

Sunstein’s paper is not the first time he has advocated banning the free flow of information.

WND reported that in a recently released book, “On Rumors,” Sunstein argued websites should be obliged to remove “false rumors” while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such “rumors.”

In the 2009 book, Sunstein cited as a primary example of “absurd” and “hateful” remarks, reports by “right-wing websites” alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist William Ayers.

He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for “attacking” Obama regarding the president’s “alleged associations.”

Ayers became a name in the 2008 presidential campaign when it was disclosed he worked closely with Obama for years. Obama also was said to have launched his political career at a 1995 fundraiser in Ayers’ apartment.

‘New Deal Fairness Doctrine’

WND also previously reported Sunstein drew up a “First Amendment New Deal” – a new “Fairness Doctrine” that would include the establishment of a panel of “nonpartisan experts” to ensure “diversity of view” on the airwaves.

Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation the U.S. had to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.

Sunstein’s radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book “The Partial Constitution,” received no news media attention and scant scrutiny until the WND report.

In the book, Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the “Fairness Doctrine,” the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed “equitable and balanced.”

Sunstein introduces what he terms his “First Amendment New Deal” to regulate broadcasting in the U.S.

His proposal, which focuses largely on television, includes a government requirement that “purely commercial stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming.”

Sunstein wrote it is “worthwhile to consider more dramatic approaches as well.”

He proposes “compulsory public-affairs programming, right of reply, content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view.”

The Obama czar argues his regulation proposals for broadcasting are actually presented within the spirit of the Constitution.

“It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the ‘freedom of speech,’” he writes.

Writes Sunstein: “The idea that government should be neutral among all forms of speech seems right in the abstract, but as frequently applied it is no more plausible than the idea that it should be neutral between the associational interests of blacks and those of whites under conditions of segregation.”

Sunstein contends the landmark case that brought about the Fairness Doctrine, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, “stresses not the autonomy of broadcasters (made possible only by current ownership rights), but instead the need to promote democratic self-government by ensuring that people are presented with a broad range of views about public issues.”

He continues: “In a market system, this goal may be compromised. It is hardly clear that ‘the freedom of speech’ is promoted by a regime in which people are permitted to speak only if other people are willing to pay enough to allow them to be heard.”

In his book, Sunstein slams the U.S. courts’ unwillingness to “require something like a Fairness Doctrine” to be a result of “the judiciary’s lack of democratic pedigree, lack of fact-finding powers and limited remedial authority.”

He clarifies he is not arguing the government should be free to regulate broadcasting however it chooses.

“Regulation designed to eliminate a particular viewpoint would of course be out of bounds. All viewpoint discrimination would be banned,” Sunstein writes.

But, he says, “at the very least, regulative ‘fairness doctrines’ would raise no real doubts” constitutionally.

Source: Information Liberation

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Ventura’s Conspiracy Theory: 9/11 Episode exposes ‘found’ black boxes

UPI Editor Equates 9/11 Truth Activists With Fort Hood Killer

9/11 Truth Hit Piece: You Are Not Much Different Then The NAZIS

After a recent attempted terrorist attack set off a debate about full-body X-rays at airports, a new McClatchy-Ipsos poll finds that Americans lean more toward giving up some of their liberty in exchange for more safety.

The survey found 51 percent of Americans agreeing that “it is necessary to give up some civil liberties in order to make the country safe from terrorism.”

At the same time, 36 percent agreed that “some of the government’s proposals will go too far in restricting the public’s civil liberties.”

The rest were undecided or said their opinions would depend on circumstances.

As has happened often since the 2001 terrorist attacks, the renewed debate over security is hinging on the balance between personal liberty and safety. The suspect’s success in boarding a Detroit-bound plane allegedly carrying explosives is setting off calls for full body scans, which some find an invasion of privacy, and for new restrictions on passengers once they’re in flight.

To stop terrorists, Americans look first to better governmental coordination and use of intelligence, the poll found, with 81 percent calling that effective and only 11 percent calling it ineffective.

Body scans or full body searches at airports ranked second, named by 74 percent as an effective way to stop terrorism. Nineteen percent called those measures ineffective.

Further restrictions on carry-on baggage ranked third, called effective by 57 percent, ineffective by 34 percent.

New in-flight restrictions such as banning the use of laptops and electronic equipment or restricting people to their seats ranked last, called effective by 50 percent and ineffective by 42 percent.

A solid majority of Americans still feel safe flying, but the number has dropped.

The survey found 75 percent saying they feel safe, down from 86 percent in 2007, and 24 percent saying they don’t feel safe in the air, up from 13 percent in 2007.

Even with the Christmas Day bombing attempt and all the news coverage of it and its aftermath, terrorism remains very low on the national priority list. Just 4 percent called it the country’s most important problem.

The economy and jobs remained the top issue on people’s minds by far, named as the top problem by 48 percent of Americans polled.

Other domestic issues were cited by 31 percent, topped by 9 percent who said that health care was the biggest problem.

Fourteen percent cited some aspect of war or foreign policy, including the 4 percent who named terrorism.

The poll found that 52 percent approved of the way President Barack Obama is doing his job, and 45 percent disapproved.

METHODOLOGY:

These are some of the findings of a poll conducted from last Thursday through Monday. For the survey, Ipsos interviewed a nationally representative, randomly selected sample of 1,336 people 18 and older across the United States. With a sample of this size, the results are considered accurate within 2.68 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, of what they would’ve been had the entire adult population in the U.S. been polled. All sample surveys and polls may be subject to other sources of error, including coverage and measurement error. These data were weighted to ensure that the sample’s composition reflects that of the U.S. population according to census figures. Respondents had the option to be interviewed in English or Spanish.

Source: McClatchy

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

More Surveillance Can Make Us Less Safe

The Foiled terrorist plot is a perfect opportunity for a Fascist Police State

Why Did We Lose Our Rights if the Government Isn’t Even Keeping Us Safe?

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

US Military using immigrant labor in trade for citizenship

Video: The Hashish Army- Afghanistan. Is this what we are fighting for?????

New President, Same Old Scam