WHY I BELIEVE IN NON-COMPLIANCE DAY (April 15th, 2015)

History has proven time and again gun-control laws do not reduce violent crime and registration leads to confiscation.

Dear not Deer

Click to Enlarge

Non-Compliance Day (NCD) is a day of protest via a boycott of commerce. It protests the fallacious reclassification and forced registration of firearms upon law abiding citizens as well as the implementation of laws which only empower the criminal element in society and puts law abiding families in greater danger.
NCD calls for Americans to stay home with their families on April 15th and not participate in commerce. Civil disobedience has never been easier.

Official NCD Press Release: Click Here
NCD Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/search/str/national%20non-compliance%20day/keywords_top
NCD YouTube Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URYocLhkdEQ

I read a short thread on the AR15 forum where they were discussing Non-Compliance Day (NCD). Most posters said they would be participating, but a couple were wondering what sense it made or what good it would do.

These are my thoughts on NCD and why we should support it.

The Problem; Overreaching Government:
It is only by division of the people that the politician’s ever increasing control over the people is even possible. Nothing worries a politician and garners the attention of a politician more than a cohesive group of Americans that can organize as a single unit. If the politicians are not worried, they are not changing.

NCD creates a way for us to unite without having to travel to a central location. It opens the door for more people to join together than did the rallies in Albany and the repercussions will actually be felt by the politicians and felt across the state making it a more powerful tool than the rallies.  NCD makes civil disobedience as easy as it has ever been.

Best case scenario: If enough people understand their power and participate in NCD we could hurt the state financially and interrupt the daily flow of operations enough so that they would be forced to listen when we speak and they would change their ways.

Worst case scenario:  It is going to prove that you and I, that, WE, still care and that WE will not quit.
It will prove that we are not going to go about our daily business like good little sheep and accept tyranny.
It will prove that we refuse to allow our generation to be the first generation of Americans to leave their children in tyranny.
It will prove that we are uniting, we will make personal sacrifices, and we are going to fight until we defeat the enemies within.

4 Things to Consider:                                                                       

Criminal Control, Not Gun-Control

Click to Enlarge

  1. Success – We challenge and defeat the unSAFE Act.
  2. Failure – We challenge the unSAFE Act and lose.
  3. Empty Complaining – Talk about the tyranny taking place and do NOTHING to TRY and end it.
  4. Comply* – We be good servants and register our lawfully owned and operated firearms.

1.Obviously success is always our first choice for outcomes. How do we succeed? By uniting; by growing our numbers; by waking our friends, family, and neighbors; by becoming a pain in the rear end of everybody we know. We build these numbers until they are big enough that the politicians understand we are a threat to their jobs.

2.  Failure, without hesitation, should be our next desired outcome after success. Why failure? Simply put, because failure shows we are trying. If we’re neither, succeeding nor failing, then we’re not trying. Just to be clear, I am not saying to accept failure, I am saying recognize it as a fact that we have not given up or given in. So long as we fail until we succeed, we have nothing to be ashamed of.

3. Complaining is fine, because it’s a great way to vent, share information, and discuss ideas, BUT,,, complaining without ever taking any action, and worse, then disparaging others from taking action is no more acceptable than compliance, and for the same reasons.

4. The fact that compliance becomes confiscation and strips us of liberty is the least of the reasons not to comply. The main reason compliance is not an option is double sided. It stems from the fact that it is our duty to preserve and pass unto our children the liberties our veterans preserved and passed unto us.

  • On one side, compliance is pissing on the sacrifices and graves of our veterans who did their duty to pass liberty unto us.
  • On the other side, compliance is pissing on our children’s future because instead of doing our duty to pass liberty unto our children we are passing tyranny unto them.

*In special circumstances, like FFL’s et al., people have much different and greater risks, benefits, and losses than the average Joe and would be to all our benefit if they comply and stay in business.

If we all agree compliance and empty complaining is not an option then failure and success become the only two options we have and neither can be accomplished without trying something. Therefore, I will be standing with my brothers and sisters on NCD this April 15th and I will succeed or fail with them.

It’s worth repeating, that it’s only by division of the people that the politician’s ever increasing control over the people is even possible. Nothing worries a politician and garners the attention of a politician more than a cohesive group of Americans that can organize as a single unit. If the politicians are not worried, they are not changing.

The sooner we believe in ourselves, realize our combined power and unite instead of slinging mud at ideas and trying to convince others to NOT TRY, the sooner we will succeed. And if this particular idea doesn’t succeed then we will try another and another and another.

Who are we? What are we leaving our children?

Tyranny for Our Kids

Click to Enlarge

Just imagine who we would be today if our founders and forefathers had heard the British were coming and said:
“Forget it, we can’t beat them anyway.” – “It’s a waste of time.” – “There’s no sense in trying.” – “Let the next generation worry about liberty.” – “Let’s get out of here”

Now take a minute and draw a picture in your head of our forefathers going toe to toe with the British forces and then draw a second picture of them with their backs to the British running into their homes to hide
or
a picture of them already in their homes hiding and peaking out the window with trepidation waiting for the British to pass through town so they can go back outside.

Now ask yourself: As a whole, which of those pictures do the people of this country more closely resemble today?

PS. If anyone knows how to draw I would love to get an illustration depicting these two scenarios. No, I don’t have money to pay for it. It can be emailed to: tacttent@yahoo.com

Death Toll Will Rise While Law Abiding Americans Are Scapegoated.

CLICK TO ENLARGE

                CLICK TO ENLARGE

March 15th 2014
Ed. March 15th, 2015

A message to the peoples representatives,

In America we do not punish any one citizen or group of citizens for the crimes committed by others. Yet, that is precisely what is going on across America today with the seemingly endless rules, regulations, and laws being implemented against law abiding Americans who wish to exercise and enjoy their “RIGHT” to keep and bear arms.

If you do not like the 2nd Amendment and you feel it is at fault for the crimes of mass/multiple murders committed by Americans then amend the Constitution of the United States and be done with it. Article V of the U.S. Constitution will explain this procedure to you. Until then you do not circumvent it or, shall we say, INFRINGE upon it with rules, regulations, and/or laws that punish Americans who have COMMITTED NO CRIMES and who own firearms which have ASSAULTED NO PERSONS.

Please do not pretend punishment only exists when doled out by a judge and therefore, law abiding citizens will not be punished. Three, but not all, examples of punishment are as follows.

1. Punishment is leaving Americans without the proper amount of ammunition to protect their families or themselves.
*NOTE: If you cannot limit the number of home invaders or muggers that attack Americans at any one time then you should never contemplate limiting the amount of ammunition decent Americans need/have to protect their families and themselves.

2. Punishment is the creation of financial roadblocks. E.g.- Levying fees/taxes that inhibit Americans from securing either firearms or ammunition due to their financial status. *If you insist on violating Americans constitutional rights by creating these financial roadblocks then you should pay for them for those who cannot afford them. Surely a constitutional right should be subsidized before corporate goods, like cell phones, are subsidized.

3. Punishment is telling Americans that their firearms – they legally own and have never used in a crime- are suddenly illegal because a human being, having no connection to them, using a firearm, having no connection to theirs, committed a crime. *Put your energy into ending the crimes by going after the actual criminals and the actual firearms used in the crimes.

Bottom line is you do not have the right to punish law abiding Americans with your rules, regulations, and laws simply because you are too cowardly, flat out unwilling, or honorably incapable of fixing the real problems by going after the ACTUAL criminal and the root causes.

I will leave you with these two tips. Tip 1- Next time you’re about to vote on some form of legislation ask yourself this: “Did this particular group of people we are punishing with our new rule, regulation, or law actually do anything wrong?” When the answer is “No” Then you know you are punishing law abiding citizens for the actions of others if you vote yes.

Tip 2 – The problem is NOT the 2nd Amendment,  it is the social engineering gone awry. The true problems lie within the endless social programs that are teaching our children they do not need to be responsible for themselves. They are told they are equal to their peers -whether they strive as hard or not-. They are led to believe they deserve whatever their fellow citizens have -whether they earn it or not-. They are taught that there are no winners or losers-when in fact there are. Then one day when the truth sets in and there is something they want, but nobody is there to hand it to them, as they’ve now been conditioned to expect, they explode like spoiled little brats.

Add doctor prescribed drugs (psychotropic medications) to the mix and boom, you’ve ENGINEERED a ticking time bomb.

Selective Serotonin-Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI’s) and Serotonin Noradrenaline-Reuptake Inhibitors (SNRI’s) are two, but not the only, well documented medications known for increasing and even CREATING tendencies toward violence. The well respected and world renowned Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) documents the relationship between thirty-one school shootings, sixteen murder/suicide cases, and prescribed drugs. Twenty-two international warnings have been issued about the deadly side effects of these drugs including nine right here in the U.S.A., yet our representatives refuse to address these ACTUAL causes and implement preventative solutions in lieu of make believe feel good legislation.

If you ladies and gentlemen representing the people of the United States really want to PREVENT unnecessary murders and suicides it is time to stop expending energies and resources trying to blackball law abiding Americans and start addressing this very real and ACTUAL cause of violence.

Yes, there are other variables involved, but until you are willing to admit the fact that law abiding Americans are by far the least of the problem and you are ready to start looking for solutions that solve as opposed to solutions that feel good then what is the sense in continuing.

Thomas Maerling

Sources:

Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) http://www.cchrint.org/psychiatric-drugs/drug_warnings_on_violence/

SSRI Stories http://ssristories.org/ssris/

Psychiatric Meds: Prescription for Murder? Written by  Rebecca Terrell http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/14655-prescription-for-murder

To be Voted on Week of 7/7/2016.

This Bill below will be voted on next week.
It is an anti-terrorism bill requiring due process before firearm purchases are denied for suspicion of terrorism, DOJ record keeping requirements, and scrubbing of wrongly accused persons from terror watch lists and no-fly lists.

  • I am told the parts requiring a court order to be obtained (due-process) before a firearm purchase is denied due to terrorist suspicion has NRA support.
  • The DOJ would be required to keep a record of all the orders of denial they request from the courts and report to congress the results of those requests.
  • There is also a provision that would require the DOJ to scrub the no fly list and all other watch lists of any names erroneously placed on them.

I’m no attorney, but this bill seems to do a pretty god job of holding the DOJ responsible for their actions and keeping those actions under close scrutiny. 

I was also told the Democrats are not in favor of it; they don’t like the idea of due process.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Protect America Act of 2015′.

SEC. 2. GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY TO DENY THE SALE, DELIVERY, OR TRANSFER OF FIREARMS TO KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; REQUIRING INFORMATION-SHARING REGARDING ATTEMPTED FIREARMS PURCHASES BY KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; AUTHORIZING THE INVESTIGATION OF KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TERRORISTS WHO ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE FIREARMS.

(a) Short Title- This section may be cited as the `Preventing Terrorists From Obtaining Firearms Act of 2015′.

(b) Amendment- Section 922(t) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(7)(A) If the Attorney General is notified of a request to transfer a firearm to a person who is a known or suspected terrorist, the Attorney General shall–

`(i) as appropriate, take further steps to confirm the identity of the prospective transferee and confirm or rule out the suspected nexus to terrorism of the prospective transferee;

`(ii) as appropriate, notify relevant Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies or intelligence agencies concerning the identity of the prospective transferee; and

`(iii) determine whether the prospective transferee is already the subject of an ongoing terrorism investigation and, as appropriate, initiate such an investigation.

`(B) Upon being notified of a prospective transfer under subparagraph (A), the Attorney General or the United States attorney for the district in which the licensee is located may–

`(i) delay the transfer of the firearm for a period not to exceed 72 hours; and

`(ii) file an emergency petition in a court of competent jurisdiction to prohibit the transfer of the firearm.

`(C)(i) An emergency petition filed under subparagraph (B) shall be granted upon a showing of probable cause to believe that the prospective transferee has committed or is furthering a plan to commit an act of terrorism.

`(ii) An emergency petition filed under subparagraph (B) to prohibit the transfer of a firearm may be granted only after a hearing–

`(I) of which the prospective transferee receives actual notice; and

`(II) at which the prospective transferee has an opportunity to participate with counsel.

`(D) For purposes of this paragraph–

`(i) the term `known or suspected terrorist’ means a person determined by the Attorney General to be known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism;

`(ii) the term `material support or resources’ has the meaning given the term in section 2339A; and

`(iii) the term `terrorism’ includes international terrorism and domestic terrorism, as defined in section 2331.’.

SEC. 3. GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY TO DENY THE SALE, DELIVERY, OR TRANSFER OF EXPLOSIVES TO KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; REQUIRING INFORMATION-SHARING REGARDING ATTEMPTED EXPLOSIVES PURCHASES BY KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; AUTHORIZING THE INVESTIGATION OF KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TERRORISTS WHO ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE EXPLOSIVES.

(a) Short Title- This section may be cited as the `Preventing Terrorists From Obtaining Explosives Act of 2015′.

(b) Amendment- Section 843 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(j)(1) If the Attorney General receives an application for a user permit, limited permit, or license to import, manufacture, or deal in explosive materials from a person who is a known or suspected terrorist, or receives information under subsection (h) about a responsible person or employee who is a known or suspected terrorist, the Attorney General shall–

`(A) as appropriate, take further steps to confirm the identity of the applicant, responsible person, or employee and confirm or rule out the suspected nexus to terrorism of the applicant, responsible person, or employee;

`(B) as appropriate, notify relevant Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies or intelligence agencies concerning the identity of the applicant, responsible person, or employee; and

`(C) determine whether the applicant, responsible person, or employee is the subject of an ongoing terrorism investigation and, as appropriate, initiate such an investigation.

`(2) Upon receipt of an application or information described in paragraph (1), the Attorney General or the United States attorney for the district in which the applicant, responsible person, or employee is located may–

`(A) for a period not to exceed 90 days, delay the approval of the application or the determination to issue a letter of clearance under subsection (h), as the case may be; and

`(B) file an emergency petition in a court of competent jurisdiction to prohibit the approval of the application or the issuance of a letter of clearance under subsection (h), as the case may be.

`(3)(A) An emergency petition filed under paragraph (2) shall be granted upon a showing of probable cause to believe that the applicant, responsible person, or employee has committed or is furthering a plan to commit an act of terrorism.

`(B) An emergency petition filed under paragraph (2) may be granted only after a hearing–

`(i) of which the applicant, responsible person, or employee receives actual notice; and

`(ii) at which the applicant, responsible person, or employee has an opportunity to participate with counsel.

`(4) For purposes of this subsection–

`(A) the term `known or suspected terrorist’ means a person determined by the Attorney General to be known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism;

`(B) the term `material support or resources’ has the meaning given the term in section 2339A; and

`(C) the term `terrorism’ includes international terrorism and domestic terrorism, as defined in section 2331.’.

SEC. 4. SUNSET.

The amendments made by sections 2 and 3 shall cease to have effect after the 3-year period that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

Not earlier than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act and not later than 3 years after such date of enactment, the Attorney General shall submit to the Congress a written report on the petitions filed and court orders granted under sections 2 and 3, including–

(1) the number of petitions so filed;

(2) the number of orders so granted;

(3) the number of petitions that were denied;

(4) the disposition of any arrest made after such an order was granted, including any charges brought and the outcome of those charges;

(5) with respect to each of the matters described in paragraphs (1) through (4), whether the subject of the petition or order was a United States citizen or foreign national and whether the allegations involved domestic terrorism or international terrorism;

(6) for any such order issued against a foreign national, whether a deportation proceeding was initiated against the individual and, if so, the outcome of the deportation proceeding; and

(7) whether multiple petitions were filed against any individual.

SEC. 6. CORRECTION OF THE TERRORIST WATCH LIST AND `NO-FLY LIST’.

Within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall–

(1) review the terrorist watch list and the no-fly list referred to in section 44903(j) of title 49, United States Code, and any other list used by the Transportation Security Administration for purposes of identifying individuals who are prohibited from boarding aircraft because they pose a threat of terrorism, and remove from any such list the name of any person erroneously placed on the list or otherwise is not a known or suspected terrorist; and

(2) submit to the Congress a written report that describes the steps taken to comply with paragraph (1).

Comparing Heaney and Faso in CD19

You can- Comment – Like – Share – Print – Email -below the article.cropped-vow-to-our-boys.jpg

If you are voting for Faso because Heaney gave to Obama then you are entitled to know Faso’s money went to the coffers of the most 2nd Amendment hating politicians in this country. The facts and links are below.

FULL DISCLOSURE:

I am a Republican town chairman and not speaking for my committee. I constantly fight for our rights and believe we are failing in our duty to pass on our liberties to our children. I consider myself an American before a Republican and, if ever need be, will speak out against members of my own party as quickly as I would any other if I feel they support or encourage the suppression or erosion of our liberties. I never have and never will put the party before the people’s liberties.

I have been called numerous times by John Faso and Andrew Heaney and asked to endorse them. I have chosen to support Andrew Heaney. I personally called John Faso and told him I would be supporting Heaney. In the same phone call I also told John if he (John) wins the primary that I will then help him beat Teachout – if he wants my help.

I am not writing this to smear John Faso. It is to lay out some facts and links so you are more fully informed about what some consider their controversial contributions. In addition it is an explanation as to why I’m supporting Andrew Heaney first and John Faso second.

I am not being compensated for my support of Andrew Heaney in any way, shape, or form.
END DISCLOSURE.

Here are two links for the Federal Elections Commission that show where the Faso and Heaney money went.

The 1st shows which candidates the Golden State Political action Committee (GSPAC) supports with the money they raise. Since 1997 GSPAC money continuously went to the most anti-2A and anti-Constitution politicians in our country. People like Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Barbara Boxer, and many more including Barak Obama’s Senate Campaign.
http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/com_supopp/C00145342/

The 2nd link will take you to the Federal Elections Commission page where you can type in Faso and Heaney’s names and see the contributions I speak of.
http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml

Type in Heaney, Andrew and it will show, among all his other donations, Andrew Heaney gave to Obama and then also to McCain in the same election cycle.

Type in Faso, John and it will show, among all his other donations, how for 10 straight years (2003-2012) John Faso fed the coffers of Feinstein, Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, Boxer, and other anti-2A and anti-America politicians via his donations to Golden State Political Action Committee (GSPAC). Click on the GSPAC link while in John’s name and it will take you to the page my 1st link took you to with all the politicians GSPAC supports.

They both did things with their money I never would have done with mine, so I actually consider the donation issue to be a wash. The one difference is Andrew readily admits and takes responsibility for his actions while John denies and deflects responsibility for his.

Andrew’s excuse is he fed Obama’s coffers because he did not want Hillary anywhere near the White House and that he thought McCain would have a better shot at beating Obama in the general election than beating Hillary. The FEC filings point to him telling the truth.

John’s excuse is he says he didn’t give money to those anti-2A politicians because “he didn’t give it to them directly.”

So, John takes no responsibility for filling their coffers so long as he gives it to somebody else to put it in their coffers for him.

John’s other excuse is even though John took his pen and his check book and wrote a check directly to GSPAC he claims it wasn’t his choice. He says his law firm [b]”expected”[/b] him to give to the GSPAC.

In the end, John actually gave more than twice as much ($5,360) to the coffers of anti-2A politicians as Andrew did ($2,300) to Obama. Unlike Andrew, John refuses to take responsibility for his actions.

Why I’m going with Heaney in the primary.

To be clear: Either of these two candidates will be better than Zephyr Teachout in the general election and I will be going out to help whichever of them wins the primary election. But, I am going with Heaney over Faso for the following:

1 – John is a career politician/lobbyist/lawyer and I’ve been preaching for years we need to remove them from both our state and federal legislative houses. The cronyism and buddy system has to be broken up. I told John Faso that I preach to everyone about replacing career politicians with outsiders and he fits the definition of career politician so I am choosing Heaney over him at this point because, out of the two, I consider Heaney to be the furthest from the inside.

2 – Among other things,

  • I believe Andrew will stand strong and fight against the wrongs, no matter the party, on the federal level the same way I would at my own level.
  • I have no doubt that Andrew Heaney will not waiver in his duty to defend the 2nd Amendment.
  • He believes in term limits and will limit himself to 3 terms (6 years).
  • He will not use congressional healthcare unless it matches the garbage every other American is mandated to have.
  • He does not believe our elected representatives should be getting better healthcare than our veterans.
  • He thinks all congress members should be forced to use the VA healthcare system because then they will trip over one another to fix it and our veterans will finally get the healthcare they really deserve.
  • He believes once a politician retires they should be banned for life from lobbying.
  • He will not accept a congressional pension and doesn’t feel any of them deserve one after serving just 5 years in office.

3 – Because he is not a career politician I believe Heaney has the better chance of beating their presumptive opponent, Zephyr Teachout, in November. The Democrat-Socialist, Zephyr Teachout, played the anti-establishment card against Cuomo and will have a field day playing it against John Faso. She cannot do that with Heaney because he is the anti-establishment and he has never been a politician himself. He was a little league coach and is a volunteer fireman. He destroys their “typical politician”, anti-establishment game plan.

4 – I don’t agree with or accept John Faso’s answer that he had to give to the GSPAC because his law firm expected him to. I don’t agree or accept his answer that he’s not responsible for where the money went because he didn’t give it directly. My take is that I would quit my job before I allowed my boss to force me to give to any anti-2A/anti-America politicians. I feel he should’ve refused support this PAC and then told his bosses to find an America friendly PAC for him to give to. John disagreed with me that he should’ve stood up to his bosses and disagrees he did anything wrong funding GSPAC.

5 – Andrew Heaney’s claim that he gave to Obama specifically because he wanted Hillary stopped at all costs and he thought McCain was better able to beat Obama is confirmed by his donation patterns. I don’t agree with or accept his strategy, but anyone involved in a group or club knows it is a reality that group members believe in different strategies for reaching the same goal.

6 – If Faso thinks Heaney is unfit to serve because he gave $2,300 to Obama then he should think himself unfit for giving $5,360 to GSPAC which funds the likes of Feinstein, Waxman, Pelosi, Reid, and others

7 – Bonus: As a business owner, Heaney knows first hand, and will fight to end, the havoc being wreaked on businesses not only in NYS, but across the country by overreaching rules and regulations.

Tom Maerling

Just A Thought

I’m upset with my government for subsidizing cell phones -which are NOT a constitutional right- while they refuse to subsidize firearms -which are a constitutional right.
I’m also upset that the EPA, which loves to tout their protection of our environment with mandates to states and businesses, won’t mandate that every state must allow and every ammo store must sell 100 round drums because one 100 round drum uses less environmentally dangerous materials and consumes less energy to produce than ten 10 round magazines.

Gun Owners of America: Call to Action

http://www.gunowners.org

Gun Owners of America call to action. 5 pro-gun amendments up for votes. Contact your 2 State Senators ask them to support them.

Anybody can call the U.S.Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for your senator’s office or:

 ———– if you live in New York State their contact:———-

Gillibrand, Kirsten E. (202) 224-4451

Email:  http://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/contact/

478 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

and

Schumer, Charles E. (202) 224-6542

Email: http://www.schumer.senate.gov/contact/email-chuck

322 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

 All other states click this link and choose your senators for full contact information.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

GOA call to action

Senator Nozzolio Asks Public to Help Block unSAFE Act Funding

Please help the few politicians that are trying to help us. Senator Mike Nozzolio is asking for our help. He wants us to give our Assemblymen/women a call.

Read His Letter To Us All

 http://pubfiles.nysenate.gov/crm/nozzolio/view/7d933a5444d2174a

Find Your Assembly Representative and Their Contact Info.

If you don’t know your Assemblyman click this link —> http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/search/ 

If you know your Assemblyman, but need their contact info click this link — > http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/

 

Here are 1,022 well sourced examples of Obama’s lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy, waste, etc.

This originated on a blog by “Dan from Squirrel Hill.” http://tinyurl.com/ku9vxug
I actually had a short list of my own that I titled “30 Reasons Not to Vote Obama or The Democrat/Communist Party”, so when I saw 1,022 in Dan’s title, while searching for something else, I was pretty impressed with the number and felt compelled to jump over and see what it was. Not only did he do a great job archiving these events he also opened them up for the public to use and share in their own works. I hope everybody takes advantage of Dan’s benevolence and spreads these facts on all their social sites.

Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog

By Dan from Squirrel Hill

Posted on August 15, 2013. Updated on March 13, 2015.

As the author of this blog post, I place it into the public domain. Anyone may freely copy it in any part or in its entirely, without asking my permission, and without paying any money. I do ask you please cite a link to http://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/obama-252/

I ask you to please show this list to as many people as possible – and especially, to please show it to as many Obama supporters as possible. Sunshine really is the best disinfectant. I can’t stop Obama from doing any of these horrible things, but I can tell people about what he is doing. So please share this list with others on Facebook, Twitter, etc. Thank you. The short link for this is http://tinyurl.com/ku9vxug

Every President, every politician, and every human being tells lies and engages in acts of…

View original post 86,194 more words

My Comments Objecting to BATFE Proposed Ban on 5.56 Ammo

Comments to ATF must be received by midnight 3/16/15 and can be sent via:
Email comments to: APAComments@atf.gov
or
Fax: (202) 648-9741
_________________________________________________________________

RE: Proposed AP Ammo Ban Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Monday, March 16, 2015 To whom it may concern,

From this point forward “we” refers to, Thomas and Tammy Maerling of Greenfield Park, N.Y., our sons, and anyone else who may wish to associate with these comments.

The word “framework” to which I will refer to throughout this comment refers to the BATFE notice, titled, ATF FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN PROJECTILES ARE “PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C)

We are writing in objection to the announced action to “withdraw the exemptions for 5.56 “green tip” ammunition.” On the following grounds:

  1. The Firearms Alluded To In The “Framework” Are Not Handguns

We would like to first bring your attention to section IV, pages 14 and 15 of the ATF “framework” stating that:

“Specifically, 5.56mm projectiles loaded into the SS109 and M855 cartridges are commonly used in both “AR-type” rifles and “AR-type” handguns. The AR platform is the semi-automatic version of the M16 machinegun originally designed for and used by the military. The AR-based handguns and rifles utilize the same magazines and share identical receivers. These AR-type handguns were not commercially available when the armor piercing ammunition exemption was granted in 1986. To ensure consistency, upon final implementation of the sporting purpose framework outlined above, ATF must withdraw the exemptions for 5.56 mm “green tip” ammunition, including both the SS109 and M855 cartridges.”

It is our belief that the ATF has gravely erred in defining the AR platforms as handguns and based on this incorrect definition we implore you to rescind your decision to withdraw the current exemptions for the 5.56 ammunition in question as the AR platforms cited by the ATF are indeed NOT handguns at all. The correct definition for these AR platforms as found in the “Definitions” of 18 U.S.C 921(a)(8) and cited below is in fact a “short-barreled rifle”.

18 U.S.C. 921(a)(8) “The term “short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.”

Furthermore, the AR platforms defined as handguns in the ATF “framework” is again evidenced as being incorrectly defined by the “Definition” in 18 U.S.C 921(a)(29)(A) and cited below.

18 U.S.C 921(a)(29) “The term “handgun” means—

(A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand;…”

By no means, whatsoever, are the AR platforms cited in the ATF “framework” “designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.” In fact the short-barrel, AR platform, rifle is no more a handgun than is the short-barreled shotgun ~18 U.S.C. 921(a)(6) and the shotgun is the shorter of the two.

So, we again ask that the ATF rescind their decision to withdraw the current exemptions afforded the 5.56 ammunition in question because the AR platforms cited are indeed NOT handguns at all.

  1. The Ammunition in Question is “Primarily Intended to Be Used for Sporting Purposes.”

Throughout the “framework” it states that ammunition can be exempt from being considered armor piercing if that ammunition is: “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.”

We feel the M855 and SS109 have thus far correctly been exempt, as they are indeed “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.”

With that in mind we would strongly urge that this same exemption continue unimpeded because, other than the ATF’s incorrect defining of the AR platform as a handgun, no circumstance(s) has(have) changed to warrant withdrawing the current exemptions.

In fact, where previously this ammunition warranted exemption it now warrants even stronger exemptions, as today its sporting purposes have increased further with the growing popularity of match shooting competitions and the introduction of the short-barreled AR platform rifles used in match competition.

  1. The Ammunition in Question Does Not Pose “Extreme Safety Risks to” LEO’s

As for the misconception in the “framework”, page 2, Section II, that this particular ammunition poses “extreme safety risks to police officers when used by criminals”, we would direct your attention to the recent comments of James Pasco. Mr. Pasco is the “Executive Director of the Washington office of the Fraternal Order of Police, the world’s largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers, with more than 325,000 members.”

“Any ammunition is of concern to police in the wrong hands, but this specific round has historically not posed a law enforcement problem,” ~ James Pasco

Source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/police-say-ar-15-bullet-up-for-ban-is-not-a-threat-countering-atf-white-house/article/2560964

Please note E.D. Pasco made his statement in response to the ATF’s decision and thereby contradicts the ATF’s finding that the withdrawal of exemptions are warranted for officer protection.

  1. Criteria to Qualify for Exemption in Section III of “framework” Have Been Met

In section III, pages 7 and 8, of the framework it says:

“… the Attorney General must determine that [1] a specific type of armor piercing projectile does not pose a significant threat to law enforcement officers [2] because the projectile at issue is primarily intended” for use in shooting sports, and [3] is therefore unlikely to be encountered by law enforcement officers on the streets.”

We believe public testimonial from the Executive Director of the largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers stipulating that,

”this specific round has historically not posed a law enforcement problem,”

in addition to the ATF providing zero evidence contrary to the Executive’s expert testimonial confirms that criteria 1,

“a specific type of armor piercing projectile does not pose a significant threat to law enforcement officers”

and criteria 3,

It “is therefore unlikely to be encountered by law enforcement officers on the streets.”

have both been satisfied.

Therefore, with criteria 2,     “because the projectile at issue is “primarily intended” for use in shooting sports,”

already being confirmed via common knowledge throughout the sporting industry and again confirmed within the ATF’s own “framework”, it has now been proven that all 3 criteria have been met and we feel the Attorney General (AG) and or the person(s) delegated by the AG should rescind the decision to withdraw the exemptions.

Sincerely,

Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Maerling (and sons),

These 2 sources were not sent with comment to ATF, but are included in this blog post for the readers knowledge and study.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Notices/atf_framework_for_determining_whether_certain_projectiles_are_primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf

If I Had A Daughter…

I love this woman. If I had a daughter this, I hope, would be her character. Though, daughterless I may be, I hope just the same that my nieces and cousins watch and emulate this woman’s character, courage, and love for America.

This woman was strong enough to do it on her own, but so many other Americans are only strong enough to do it when they have support and or encouragement from others. This is the strength needed to save this country for our children to enjoy.