Thursday, February 7, 2013

Old West - Interesting Facts - Part Three


 Myths and trivia of the Old West seems to linger long and hard.

One huge myth about the Old West has to do with how many murders did those old Western towns see in a year?

If say we take the bloodiest, gun-slingingest of the famous cattle towns with the cowboys doing quick-draws at high noon every other day, would it be a hundred? Two hundred? More?

Just last month in Chicago, this year 2013, that city saw over 40 murders in one month. So how many did those supposedly "violent" Old West towns see?

How about 5. Yup, just five. The average is five in one year. That was the most murders any Old West town saw in any one year. That's where myth is defeated by fact.

Fact is, most towns averaged about 1.5 murders a year, and not all of those were shooting.

You are much more likely to be murdered in Chicago today in 2013 than you were back in Tombstone in 1881, the year of the famous gunfight at the OK Corral.

How many dead at the most famous gunfight in the Old West, thanks to Hollywood, three. That town's most violent year ever.

As for the traditional Western gunfight as depicted in movies, the inaccuracy of those using handguns at the time are legendary. And yes, as for those who would use a quick-draw - good luck with that one.

It was simply extremely unlikely that the "average" man using a gun would be able to hit an assailant on the first shot using a quick draw from any real distance other than up close where you can draw and shove your pistol into someone's chest like say Luke Short did in one of his shootouts. 

Though, as it still is today, almost all attercations with firearms take place within 3 to 7 feet of each other, there are all sorts of stories of two guys shooting at each other across a poker table and neither hitting the other - and emptying their guns while firing at each other.

The closest history got to high-noon show downs was "dueling" where two men just stood across from one another with their guns out, aimed and fired until one or the other got lucky and someone was hit or dead.

And yes, we can all forget about "fanning" a pistol. Like the low slung holster, it was a Hollywood invention. Rapidly cocking a single-action revolver between rounds by fanning your single-action and you'd be lucky to hit anything close to what you were aiming to hit. It just wasn't done.

So why do people believe that the Old West was so violent? Hollywood and television mostly. If you've seen Young Guns on cable, you probably know the guy was gunning somebody down every ten minutes!

In reality, according to researchers, Billy The Kid's lifetime kill count was four.

In the Old West, it was nothing out of the ordinary for a criminal to inflate his murder stats for the same reason a guy in prison might want to appear tougher than he really is: survival.

Almost none of the so-called gunfighters of the Old West killed the numbers of men that they are purported as having done. Sure, there are a few exceptions to that rule, such as John Wesly Hardin or Kiler Jim Miller.

On the overall, men who lived in saloons and gambling parlors and on the either side of crime talked up their violent lawless natures in order to be intimidating to those who they may cheat or rob or steal from.

The Old West, with little or no government, was a generally peaceful place, and not the violent frontier often depicted in movies.

The frontier West was not the violent "Wild West" depicted by the press and history teachers who don’t know history.

Before 1900, there were no successful bank robberies in any of the major towns in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, Kansas, Nebraska, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, or New Mexico, and only a pair of robberies in California and Arizona.

They were relatively very few bank robberies at all in the entire period from 1859 through 1900 in all the frontier West.

In the Old West, even with No Carry Laws like the local Gun-Control laws instituted by the Earps in Tombstone, most people in the Old West carried concealed weapons.

Fact is, in the Old West, criminals not wanting to get hurt doing their criminal acts were not as likely to pick on a  prey that appears willing to fight back. And yes, most were armed because they were definitely willing to fight back.

There is no evidence anyone was ever killed in a frontier shoot-out at "High Noon." And no, not even the Dave Tutt ambush by Wild Bill Hickok was at High Noon.

Billy the Kid was a pyschopathic murderer, but he didn't kill 21 people by the time he was 21 years old, as the legend says. Authorities can account for three men he killed for sure, and no more than a total of six or seven.

Wild Bill Hickok claimed to have killed six Kansas outlaws and secessionists in the incident that first made him famous. But he lied. He killed just three—all unarmed.

Bill Cody's reputation as a gunslinger was mostly from his own fiction.

He freely admitted that he fabricated all the excessive shooting in those dime novels. But he was a good shot and is said to have proved it repeatedly at the bison-killing contests where he earned the nickname Buffalo Bill.

But he didn't kill many Indians, and when he was old, his estranged wife revealed that he had been wounded in combat with Indians only once, not 137 times as he claimed.

In 1880, wide-open towns like Virginia City, Nevada, Leadville, Colorado, and Dallas, Texas had no homicides. By comparison, Cincinnati, Ohio, had 17 homicides that year.

From 1870 to 1885, the five Kansas railheads of Abilene, Caldwell, Dodge City, Ellsworth and Wichita had a total of 45 homicides, or an average of three per year - a lower homicide rate than New York City, Baltimore and Boston for those same years.

Sixteen of those 45 homicides were committed by duly authorized peace officers, and only two towns  Ellsworth in 1873 and Dodge City in 1876 ever had as many as five killings in any one year.  

Before the advent of vigilante committees, banditry was a major issue in California after 1849.

As thousands of young men detached from family or community moved into a land with few law enforcement mechanisms. San Francisco solved the problem with informal citizens' vigilance committees that gave drumhead trials and death sentences to well-known offenders.

 The California Gold Rush of 1849 wasn’t America’s first gold rush. Fact is that it wasn’t even the second.

When young Conrad Reed found a large yellow rock in his father’s field in Cabarrus County, North Carolina, in 1799, he had no idea what it was. Neither did his father, John Reed.  

The family reportedly used it as a doorstop for several years, until a visiting jeweler recognized it as a 17-pound gold nugget. The rush was on.  

Eventually, Congress built the Charlotte Mint to cope with the sheer volume of gold dug up in North Carolina.  

In 1828 gold was discovered in Georgia, leading to the nation’s second gold rush.  

The first gold strike West of the Mississippi River was made by Jose Ortiz in 1832 south of Santa Fe, New Mexico, in what would quickly become the boom town of Delores.  

Finally, in January of 1848, James Marshall struck it rich at Sutter’s Mill in California, and tens of thousands of Forty-Niners moved west to seek their fortunes.  

Phoebe Ann Mozee (Moses in some accounts), born on August 13, 1860 in Paterson Township, Ohio, was later known as the great Annie Oakley, expert rifle and shotgun markswoman.

In 1880, Judge Roy Bean found $40.00 and a six-gun on a deceased cowboy. Judge Roy charged the corpse with carrying a concealed weapon and fined him $40.00.

Bean once killed a Mexican official in a dispute over a girl in California. A friend of the Mexican official hanged Bean, but, before he died, he was cut down by the contested damsel. Ever after, Bean was unable to turn his head due to the injury.

One pivotal Civil War battle was fought in, believe it or not, New Mexico.

In a bold move designed to fill rebel coffers with Cripple Creek gold, Confederate General Henry Hopkins Sibley invaded New Mexico Territory from the south in early 1862, believing he could march right up the Rio Grande and take Colorado.

Unbeknownst to Sibley, however, the First Regiment of Volunteers in Colorado caught wind of the scheme and marched 400 miles south in just 13 days to join the Yankees at Fort Union, near Santa Fe.

Instead of a cakewalk, Sibley’s forces wound up fighting what many historians call the “Gettysburg of the West.”

After just two days of skirmishing, Union troops, who most likely relied on local ranchers as guides, outflanked the Confederates and burned their supply train. After that, it was a long slow march back to Texas for the rebels who never returned.
It is believed that Billy the Kid was born in New York City on September 17, 1859.

Established in 1827, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas is the oldest military post in continuous operation West of the Mississippi River.

The oldest human skeleton ever found in the Western Hemisphere was discovered in 1953 near Midland, Texas.

It was first believed that the skeleton, the remains of a 30-year-old woman, was 10,000 years old. However, the latest estimates are that it is much older.

Estimates of how many people lived in North America before the arrival of the European explorers vary, but are thought to be in the millions. Whether that is true or not, no one knows for certain.

It is simply a hypothesis that that was the population divided among about 240 tribal groupings speaking an estimated 300 different languages. Who knows how they come up with that?

Buffalo carcasses were strewn across the Great Plains after the mass buffalo hunts of 1870-1883. They were later bought by Eastern firms for the production of fertilizer and bone china. "Bone pickers” earned eight dollars a ton for the bones.

Around 1541, the present state of Texas was called Tejas, a Spanish version of the Caddo word meaning "allies."

Wyatt Earp was indicted for horse theft in Van Buren, Arkansas on May 8, 1871. He escaped trial by jumping bail and fleeing to Kansas. Just a damn horse thieve!

Rumor has it that the tradition of spreading sawdust on the floors of bars and saloons started in Deadwood, South Dakota due to the amount of gold dust that would fall on the floor. The sawdust was used to hide the fallen gold dust and was swept up at the end of the night.

More on Deadwood. It certainly was a man's world. Deadwood in the late 1870s had 200 men for every woman.

In Deadwood, a prospector could find $20 to $25 worth of gold a day in the early days of the gold rush. He often lost it in the saloons and brothels in Deadwood.

If he managed to not lose it on the many vices available he would probably lose it buying food. Fact is that 100 pounds of flour started at $10 and went as high as $80. Fresh eggs sold for several dollars apiece.

Seth Bullock became Deadwood’s first sheriff in 1877. He and Theodore Roosevelt were good friends. Seth rode in Roosevelt’s 1905 inaugural parade, leading 50 cowboys.

A small pox epidemic hit the Black Hills in 1878.
This sounds ify, but supposedly Wyatt Earp spent the winter of 1876-77 in Deadwood. Since no claims were left, he started a business hauling winter stove wood to the residents. It was cold hard work, but in the spring he supposedly left Deadwood a lot of money.

The queen of female gamblers, “Poker Alice” Ivers was known to make up to $6,000 a night at the height of her career. She became a legend in the Black Hills and often sat in on big stakes games.

The Sundance Kid spent time in the Lawrence County jail in Deadwood in 1897 for a robbery of a bank in Belle Fourche, South Dakota. After several weeks he escaped.

A man who stood only four foot three inches tall, known as Potato Creek Johnny, aka Welshman John Perret, was the stereotype of a well-worn prospector.

His fame exploded when he found the largest gold nugget ever discovered in the Black Hills. It weighed 7 ¾ troy ounces. A replica of the nugget is on display in the Adams Museum in Deadwood. The real one is in their safe.

After serving more than twenty years in prison, Cole Younger got a job selling tombstones, worked for a while in a Wild West show with Frank James, and died quietly in 1916 in Lee’s Summit, Missouri, where he was known as an elderly churchgoer.

Wyatt Earp was neither the town marshal or the sheriff in Tombstone, Arizona at the time of the shoot-out at the O.K. Corral.

His brother Virgil was the town marshal. He had temporarily deputized Wyatt, Morgan and Doc Holliday just prior to the gunfight.

The Oregon Trail, from Independence, Missouri to Fort Vancouver, Washington measured 2,020 miles.

An estimated 350,000 emigrants took the Oregon Trail but one out of seventeen would not survive the trip. The most common cause of death was cholera.

Harry Longabaugh became known as "the Sundance Kid” because he served a jail term for horse stealing in Sundance, Wyoming.

Mike Fink was a keel boatman along the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers and an expert marksman.

However, he loved his drink and was a known brawler. One of his favorite games was to shoot a mug of brew from the top of some fellow's head.

However, on one night in 1823, Fink had drank so much that it didn't matter how good were his shooting skills. This time he missed and killed the guy who was wearing the mug on his head.

In no time, the dead man's friends retaliated by killing Fink.

For whatever reasons, his legend was being told for decades along with the likes of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill.

The oldest settlement in the United States is Acoma Pueblo. Yes it is.

It’s no revelation that Native American settlements predate European ones, but it may surprise some people that Acoma Pueblo, west of Albuquerque, New Mexico, has been continuously occupied since the 12th century.  

The Acoma still inhabit their “Sky City,” a settlement of about 4,800 people that sits atop a 365-foot high mesa.   Traditionally hunters and traders, the Acoma people now make their income from a cultural center and casino complex. That's right, Indian gambling.  

Coincidentally, the oldest state capital in the United States is Santa Fe, which recently celebrated its 400th anniversary.

The Colt Peacemaker, a .45-caliber single action revolver, was manufactured by Colt Firearms Manufacturing Company in Hartford, Connecticut in 1873.

At the time it sold for $17.00, which was about  half a month's pay for the average laborer in 1873.

On average, cowboys earned $30 to $40 per month, because of the heavy physical and emotional toll, it was unusual for a cowboy to spend more than seven years on the range.

As open range ranching and the long drives gave way to fenced in ranches in the 1880s, the glory days of the cowboy came to an end. It was then that the myths about the "free living" cowboy began to emerge.

Samuel Clemens, struck by silver fever, tried his hand at prospecting in the town of Unionville, Nevada in 1862.

Having more luck in trading mining claims than actually producing silver, he wound up leaving the area.

A short time latter Clemens, started using the pen-name Mark Twain and becomes one of the greatest writers of American Literature.

Too bad Mark Twain's books are now being banned in the United States because of "Political Correctness" over Twain's 19th Century use of the word "Nigger".

On December 21, 1876, Clay Allison shot and killed Deputy Sheriff Charles Faber at the Olympic Dance Hall in Las Animas, Colorado.

If it weren’t for Allison purposely stomping on the feet of other dancers, the law probably would never have been called.

Was he a mean one? You bet he was.

It was reported that after sitting in a dentist’s chair in Cheyenne, Wyoming, Clay Allison turned the tables on the dentist and started to forcibly pull one of the dentist’s own teeth when the doctor accidentally started drilling into the wrong molar in Clay's mouth.

He would have continued pulling the dentist's teeth, except the doc's screams brought in people from the street and Clay Allison let things be.

If you've watched as many old Westerns on television as I have, you'd probably start thinking that the infamous Dalton Gang was around for years.

Fact is that that outlaw gang only operated for only a year and five months.

They began with a train robbery in Wharton, Oklahoma on May 9, 1891 and ending at the shootout at Coffeyville, Kansas on October 5, 1892.

There seems to be some disagreement as to the origin of the term "red light district."

Some say it came from the Red Light Bordello in Dodge City, Kansas. The story is that the front door of the building was made of red glass and produced a red glow to the outside world when lit at night. The name carried over to refer to the town's brothel district.

Another explanation is that the Railroad used to stop a while at bordellos along its route, the brakemen (or signalmen) of the time used a red lantern to signal the conductor to either stop and start the trains.

It became common place for a red brakeman's lantern to be hung near the door of a bordello to signal trains -- letting them know that business can be had there.

It was in the news today that the US Post Office may discontinue Saturday mail delivery. The announcer on the radio said that Saturday mail delivery is going the way of the Pony Express. 

So I started wondering, how long was the Pony Express in operation?

Well, fact is that the Pony Express was in operation for only nineteen months from April 1860 through October 1861.

The Pony Express ran 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

The Pony Express carried almost 35,000 pieces of mail over more than 650,000 miles during those nineteen months and lost only one mail sack.

At the start of the Pony Express, the cost to mail a letter was $5.00 per ½ ounce.  By the time the Pony Express ended, the price had dropped to $1.00 per ½ ounce.

The typical Pony Express rider was nineteen years old and made $50 per month plus room and board.

According to a newspaper ad in the Sacramento Daily Union, the pay for riders and station keepers was $50.00 per month.   This amount would equal $850.00 per month today.

So now, how many riders were Pony Express riders?

Well, if you count everyone in the Old West who said they were than the number is probably in the tens of thousands.

But in reality, only about 186 men are known to have ridden for the Pony Express during its operation of just over 18 months.

And no, Buffalo Bill Cody and Wild Bill Hickok were not Pony Express riders. 

Now as for the imagine of a rider throwing himself off one horse and onto another at breakneck speeds then taking off like a bat out of Hell, well though Pony Express riders changed horses every 10 to 15 miles - their speed was not exactly all out.

Fact is that their horses reached an average speed of 10 miles an hour. That's right, just 10 miles an hour on average.

So how fast is that on a horse? Well, obviously a horse's speed varies with their stride length, body build, and other factors. But basically, in miles per hour, horses move at their various gaits:

At a Walk, they roughly move at between 3 to 4 mph. A pleasure show horse can go as slow as 2 mph. Gaited horses, who do not trot, can do what is called a "running walk" as fast as 15 mph.

At a Trot, horses move out at roughly 8 to 10 mph. Again, a shorter striding horse could trot slower, and a horse with a long stride could move faster.

At a Lope or Canter, which are the same speed a Lope being Western and a Canter being English riding terminology, a horse is moving out at 10 to 17 mph.

At the Gallop, full out, which most think the Pony Express riders did travel at but in actuality they didn't, is run at about 30 mph.

And realize this, some horses are not built to run fast and may only do a fast canter at their best.

Thoroughbreds, which are bred for running distance but not speed, have been clocked at over 40 mph.

Quarter horses, bred and raced for short quarter mile distances, can reach 50 mph in short bursts according to the AQHA's website.

So you might ask, why did they move so slow riding at speeds between a trot and a lope?

That answer has to do with the approximately 400 horses, Thoroughbreds, Mustangs, Pintos, and Morgans, that were purchased for the Pony Express.

Since there were approximately 165 stations along the route, and Pony Express riders changed horses every 10 to 15 miles on a trail almost 2,000 miles long, it was all about knowing exactly how much time it would take to cover the needed distance and still not burn out the available stock.

Horses were not expendable.

Besides, it is said that a good Express Rider knew how to gauge his horses.

A trot or lope was the usual, to a horse this is the easiest gait to use when covering vast miles.

Of course this also depended on the terrain and the distance between swing stations. A gallop was used when needed to get the rider out of harm's way.

One researcher found out that the qualifications for the riders were: "Wanted. Young, skinny, wiery fellows. Not over 18. Must be expert riders. Willing to risk death daily. Orphans preferred."

Most of the riders were around age 19. The youngest rider, Charlie Miller also known as Broncho Charlie was only 11 years old.

The oldest was a man whose name is presently unknown, he is said to have been 45.

To give folks an idea of how important it was not to completely play out your horse, take for example what happened in June of 1876 when George Custer's command was looking for a fight.

After moving 72 miles in three days, they found their fight on the Little Bighorn.

On June 25, Custer stumbled on one of the largest Indian camps the Plains had ever seen–around 7,000 strong, made up of Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapaho bands.

With all sorts of self-confidence and political ambitions, he split his troops into three columns to encircle the Indians.

Yes, believe it or not, he took his tiny force and decided to encircle the largest gathering of Plains Indians on record.

While Custer may have been brave, he was not very bright. It's no wonder he failed tactics at West Point. 

Custer led roughly 200 men toward the camp because he was afraid the 7,000 Indians there would run away from his tiny force of a few hundred men.

He, counting on his two other columns to encircle the Indian warriors, instead found himself surrounded by well-armed Indians atop what is today called Custer Hill.

Most historians agree the battle was quick – about 20 minutes. Custer was found two days later, stripped naked and shot in the left temple and chest. Every one of his 210 men was killed and mutilated.

One reason this massacre took place was that Custer pushed his mounted troops, and more importantly their horses, to such a point of exhaustion that his men were completely unable to retreat if they needed to.

The movies show a charge at the Little Big Horn river by Custer's troops, but witnesses there say that the horses in his command could not have preformed a charge because they were so spent.

As for a last bit of trivia, George Armstrong Custer got his appointment to West Point even though his family was widely known to be staunch Democrats and the Ohio Congressman who made the appointment was a Republican.

It’s believed a constituent recommended Custer in order to keep him away from his daughter.

For more, click:

Old West - Interesting Facts - Part One

Old West - Interesting Facts - Part Two


And yes, that's the way it was!

Tom Correa

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Obama's American Citizen "Kill Policy"

The Obama White House thinks they have a legal right to kill Americans overseas if they are involved in terrorism. Key word being "if"!

Of course the whole idea that Obama has decided that the United States is better off skipping due process and finding out if the charges against the person are valid or not does bother me. But then again, who am I to argue with the wisdom of President Obama and his faithful followers.

The idea that a U.S. President would authorize the murder of American citizens if he deems them a security risk or threat should bother everyone in our nation. Yes, everyone. That includes those working for Obama right now.

I see it this way, and yes you can call me old fashion for thinking such things, American citizens should be afforded due process. To summarily kill someone on mere intelligence from a government agency is pretty scary stuff.

Government agencies get things wrong all the time. Yes, big and small things. Small things like say telling you that you owe more money than you do in say property taxes, and big things like say President Bill Clinton and his Intelligence agency telling America that WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) were in Iraq years before George W. Bush was ever in the White House.

Government agencies have gotten Intelligence wrong as many times as right, and to think that their say is all that the Obama White House would need to order YOUR death --- well, that's scary!

I first learned what bad Intelligence was after the Mayaguez incident took place in May of 1975. It was a combat action that took place between the Khmer Rouge and the United States. US intelligence had my brother Marines hit the wrong island, Koh Tang Island, and a needless loss of lives ensued.

And yes, there have been other incidents where US Intel has been wrong or questionable and the needless loss of lives are the result.

Of course there is that person out there reading this right now who may be asking his or herself if I would have wanted some turd like Anwar al-Aulaqi taken alive?

The answer is no, I don't care if they killed him! I don't care that that jackass was killed at all. Besides, we have since found out that he was partly responsible for 9/11 by helping the Muslim Terrorists who did the act.

No, his death means nothing to me. Absolutely nothing. Besides, I truly believe that Americans like Anwar al-Awlaki forfeit their American citizenship when they urge others to kill Americans -- or when they commit such acts themselves.

What I am worried about is the slippery slope of a White House, present or future, first saying its OK to simply kill Americans overseas if they "believe" they are helping terrorist -- and second, possibly using that same reasoning to kill Americans here at home who they "believe" is up to something they deem as wrong.

Here at home? Yes, here!

Let's look at the News for February 5th, 2013 ...

DOJ Memo says drone strikes on U.S. citizens legal


The United States can target its own citizens with drone strikes if they have recently been involved in violent attacks, a Justice Department memo says.

NBC News reported Monday it had obtained a copy of the confidential 16-page memo. The case made for targeting U.S. citizens in countries such as Yemen is similar to, but goes beyond, the one laid out by Attorney General Eric Holder and other officials.

"The condition that an operational leader present an 'imminent' threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future," the memo said.

The undated memo, titled "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qaida or An Associated Force," was given to members of the Senate and House intelligence committees.

It said American citizens can be considered imminent threats if they have recently been involved in violence and "their views" remain unchanged.

Such killings would be "a legitimate act of national self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban," the memo said.

Even a jerkweed who I never agree with over at the ACLU, Jamel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the memo "a chilling document."

"Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen," he added.

"It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it's easy to see how they could be manipulated."

Yes, manipulated. And that's what scares me about this turn of events.

Not saying it will happen, or it's going to happen, or it might happen, but what if the Obama White House uses that same logic to kills those American citizens that he considered imminent threats?

All he has to do is "believe" they have recently been involved in violence, or threats of violence, and that "their views" remain unchanged?

Such as, say someone who may have polar opposite political views as Obama himself. Would that person be considered a threat by the White House? Some say they certainly would be.

My concern is this: If the government believes that it has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen overseas, what stops the government from believing that it can do it here as well?

You think it can't happen here? You think this cowboy has fallen off one too many horses and has whacked my head on the hard ground one too many times?

Well, let's go to the News for February 6th, 2013 ...

States step up fight against use of surveillance drones by law enforcement


dronespolice12.jpg

Sept. 2011: This photo provided by Vanguard Defense Industries, shows a ShadowHawk drone with Montgomery County, Texas, SWAT team members. (AP)

Lawmakers in at least 11 states are proposing various restrictions on the use of drones over their skies amid concerns the unmanned aerial vehicles could be exploited by local authorities to spy on Americans.

Concerns mounted after the Federal Aviation Administration began establishing safety standards for civilian drones, which are becoming increasingly affordable and small in size.

Some police agencies have said the drones could be used for surveillance of suspects, search and rescue operations, and gathering details on damage caused by natural disasters.

Virginia lawmakers on Tuesday approved a two-year moratorium on the use of drones by police and government agencies.

Proponents of the legislation say the unfettered use of drones could infringe on Virginians' privacy rights. The legislation was supported by the ACLU, the Tea Party Federation and agriculture groups, while several law enforcement organizations opposed the moratorium.

"Our founders had no conception of things that would fly over them at night and peer into their backyards and send signals back to a home base," said Sen. A. Donald McEachin, D-Henrico and sponsor of the Senate bill.

In an attempt to address police concerns, legislators carved out exceptions for the use of drones in emergencies, or to search for missing children or seniors.

The General Assembly action came a day after the Charlottesville City Council passed a resolution imposing a two-year moratorium on the use of drones within city limits and urging the General Assembly to pass regulations.

The Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties group behind the city's effort, said Charlottesville is the first city in the country to limit the use of drones by police.

In Montana, a libertarian-minded state that doesn't even let police use remote cameras to issue traffic tickets, Democrats and Republicans are banding together to back multiple proposals restricting drone use. They say drones, most often associated with overseas wars, aren't welcome in Big Sky Country.

"I do not think our citizens would want cameras to fly overhead and collect data on our lives," Republican state Sen. Matthew Rosendale told a legislative panel on Tuesday.

Rosendale is sponsoring a measure that would only let law enforcement use drones with a search warrant, and would make it illegal for private citizens to spy on neighbors with drones.

The full Montana Senate endorsed a somewhat broader measure Tuesday that bans information collected by drones from being used in court. It also would bar local and state government ownership of drones equipped with weapons, such as stunning devices.

The ACLU said the states won't be able to stop federal agencies or border agents from using drones.

But the Montana ban would not allow local police to use criminal information collected by federal drones that may be handed over in cooperative investigations.

The drones could be wrongly used to hover over someone's property and gather information, opponents said.

"The use of drones across the country has become a great threat to our personal privacy," said ACLU of Montana policy director Niki Zupanic. "The door is wide open for intrusions into our personal private space."

Other state legislatures looking at the issue include California, Oregon, Texas, Nebraska, Missouri, North Dakota, Florida, Virginia, Maine and Oklahoma.

In Texas, State Rep. Lance Gooden, a Republican, introduced 'The Texas Privacy Act,' a bill that would ban the use of drones over private property, according to MyFoxAustin.com.

Gooden said the legislation is necessary because of the growing privacy concerns over the aircraft, which he says are getting smaller and cheaper, according to the report.

"The drones that are coming out today, they're very small. They're cheaper. In four to five years everyone can have these," Gooden told MyFoxAustin.com.

A Missouri House committee looked at a bill Tuesday that would outlaw the use of unmanned aircraft to conduct surveillance on individuals or property, providing an exclusion for police working with a search warrant. It drew support from agricultural groups and civil liberties advocates.

"It's important for us to prevent Missouri from sliding into a police-type state," said Republican Rep. Casey Guernsey of Bethany.

A North Dakota lawmaker introduced a similar bill in January following the 2011 arrest of a Lakota farmer during a 16-hour standoff with police. A drone was used to help a SWAT team apprehend Rodney Brossart.

Its use was upheld by state courts, but the sponsor of the North Dakota bill, Rep. Rick Becker of Bismarck, said safeguards should be put into place to make sure the practice isn't abused.

Last year, Seattle police received approval from the Federal Aviation Administration to train people to operate drones for use in investigations, search-and-rescue operations and natural disasters. Residents and the ACLU called on city officials to tightly regulate the information that can be collected by drones, which are not in use yet.

In Alameda County, California, the sheriff's office faced backlash late last year after announcing plans to use drones to help find fugitives and assist with search and rescue operations.

Super Liberal Alameda County California is against the use of drones. And no, these drones are supposedly not armed.

But then, since it is very easy to arm a drone, will Americans here see armed drones in our skies? And if the slippery slope becomes real, will it one day be OK, all nice and legal, to kill Americans here?

Will it one day be OK for Americans to be killed on American soil by the Obama White House or any other administration because they find it expeditious to kill a suspect instead of putting him or her on trial?

And though I'm sure some of you who are reading this believe that my tin-foil cowboy hat is a little too tight, I'm sure you would have thought the very same thing if I had said that the Department of Justice says it's legal and justified to murder American citizens overseas?

No, it is not that far fetched to wonder how far a power hungry administration will go. It is not outlandish to wonder if the very people who supposedly represent us truly understand the concept of American Justice and American ideals when they come up with things like this.

Please understand the criteria that the government wants to use here. As reported today:

The leaked secret Justice Department “white paper” detailing the Obama administration’s legal justification for the targeted drone assassinations of Americans living abroad made its way onto the Internet late Monday evening.


The 16-page white paper — said to be a summary of a longer 50-page document on the highly controversial policy — is seeing the light of day ahead of the Senate confirmation hearing of John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s top pick for CIA chief.

The longer document was written in 2010 to justify the addition of al-Qaida member Anwar al-Aulaqi, a U.S. citizen, to Obama’s secretive “kill list.”

The white paper points out that the federal government has legal recourse to engage in the extrajudicial assassination of an American citizen, reported NBC News, if “an informed, high-level official” has determined that the American is a “continuing” threat to the country.

Remember that. All it takes is an informed, high-level official who has determined that the American that they want killed is a continuing threat to the country.

The individual would be determined a “continuing” threat if he were “”recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack, and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities,” according to the news outlet, which obtained and published the paper.

“The memo does not define “recently” or “activities,” according to NBC News.

Brennan is said to be the policy’s architect.

“Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense”,” reported NBC News.

Not to mix up political issues here, but ...

Don't you find it strange that John Brennan, who is President Barack Obama’s top pick for CIA chief, finds it “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense” to use a drone to kill an American citizen because he deems that American a threat  -- yet at the same time the Obama administration doesn't understand that a person's right to own a gun is “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense” to use a gun to defend ourselves?

But back to Obama using drones to kill Americans ...

President Obama walked out of a press conference and away from media questions about his "kill policy".

It's true, it was reported that at about 3:15 PM EST, yesterday, that President Obama walked away from a roomful of journalists, leaving Jay Carney to evade numerous media questions about the administration’s leaked secret process of killing American citizens who are thought dangerous.

The numerous questions were prompted by the release late Monday of the administration’s legal brief explaining why it has the legal and presidential authority to kill overseas Americans overseas -- even without a trial or public due process.

Numerous reporters asked for more details and officials explanation of how the policy would work, for example, if an American-born "jihadist" living in the United States was about to launch an attack would he be fair game to kill here as well?

“These issues are best explained by a lawyer,” said Obama's Press Secretary Jay Carney.

But wait, Obama is a lawyer -- and he supposedly worked as a Constitutional Law lecturer during the 1990s. So why didn't he explain it?

Carney dismissed a letter from 11 senators seeking more information on the Obama "Kill Policy" of American Citizens.

A policy which the Obama administration used to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, who was an American citizen who did in fact urge others to attack American civilians while he was working for al-Qaida in Yemen.

Awlaki was the Muslim son of Saudi immigrants to the United States. But for me, if an American citizen urges others to kill other Americans -- then he or she has lost the rights and privileges of a citizen of this nation. To me, he becomes fair game.

After killing Awlaki for urging others, Obama ordered a missile-attack on Yemeni citizens which also killed Awlaki’s 16 year-old American Muslim nephew.

It is not clear if Awlaki’s nephew was targeted and killed because he was just with jihadis in Yemen or if he was indeed urging others to jihad.

Anyone who has read my opinion on Muslims knows that I do not like the religion because of their blood thirsty desires. But, with that being said, even I have to say, if the only reasoning used to kill an American citizen overseas is that he or she "urged" other Muslims to do harm -- well, that takes some thinking about on the justification scale.

Muslim jihad seems to apply to just about everything over there in the sand box. It seems that they don't know any other way to live. It seems its jihad this and jihad that. They don't seem to understand that after a while the term jihad means nothing to the rest of the world.

According to one source, jihad is Islam’s doctrine of holy war. Radical Islam requires Muslims to attack non-Muslims until they become Muslims, or until they are accepted in a subsidiary legal status under a Muslim government -- such as slaves, which of course Muslims still believe in.

For more than a decade, numerous jihadis and jihad groups in American and Europe have cited the doctrine to rationalize their blood lust while attacking American and European civilians. It's all just bullshit!

They are a violent religion and they try to justify it by saying that they have been insulted in some way shape or form when its all just a bullshit excuse to hate and do harm to others.

So it seems that Obama's "Kill Policy" is such that he wants to kill Americans who sympathize with Jihadis overseas.

And yes, though I find that wrong in a humanitarian sense because I believe that all men should be allowed due process, I really understand wanting them dead.

And sad as it sounds, yes this is the first thing that I really can't fault Obama for doing. 

You see, I don't care what befalls radical Muslims overseas - American citizen or otherwise.

As I said before, to me, Anwar al-Awlaki forfeit his American citizenship when he urged others to kill Americans. That's really how I see it.

Some can call Anwar al-Awlaki an American citizen if they want, but his actions said otherwise. He was a traitor to this nation.

My concern is whether Obama and future administration will use this so-called "kill policy" here on American soil?

And really, as of yesterday at the news conference, it is apparent that Obama would rather walk away than address this topic. 

Story by Tom Correa

Monday, February 4, 2013

The Government Is After Our Gun Rights

Among other pro-2nd Amendment Rights groups, there is the First State Firearms Freedom Association.

The First State Firearms Freedom Association is a group dedicated to protecting the rights of all firearms owners in Delaware.

Their website states, "It doesn’t matter what your level of firearms enjoyment or use might be. Sporting, hunting, or defensive use; rifles, shotguns, or pistols. FSFFA is here to protect YOUR rights.

Criminals do not and will not obey laws that ban certain types of weapons and magazines, or areas that are designated as 'gun-free zones.' Law abiding citizens in Delaware who carry and use firearms are not the problem, and they should not be penalized for the actions of others.

If you believe that it is your right to own and carry firearms commonly in use today, and you are tired of politicians who continually believe that infringing on your rights is the only way to address acts of violence committed by criminals who use firearms, we need your support."

Their mission: A grass-roots organization devoted to the preservation and protection of firearms rights for the citizens of Delaware.

They are constantly monitoring legislation at the federal level to ensure that the firearms rights of Delaware citizens are not further restricted by the federal government.

Below is the list of legislation that they are watching right now.

Common Sense Legislation to End Gun Violence

This proposal is far too open-ended and far reaching to support.

In addition, any talk of banning semi-automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines will be opposed by the FSFFA. Just as it is by the NRA and other pro-2nd Amendment groups.

We do not need another ban. We need enforcement of laws that we have right now, no plea deals, and tougher sentencing - especially on repeat offenders.

As for violent acts, politicians need to look at and censor extreme violence in movies and video games. If they want to ban something, ban what inspires these horrible acts.

Extreme violence in film is not art, it only incites more violence like what we have recently seen in Newtown Connecticut and Aurora Colorado, it must be dealt with.

H.R. 21: NRA Members’ Gun Safety Act of 2013

H.R. 21 would extend the Brady Law background check procedures to all sales and transfers of firearms.

The bill would also require the reporting of thefts within 48 hours; require that all states that allow residents to carry concealed firearms institute a permitting process requiring that the applicant demonstrate good cause for requesting a permit, and that the applicant is “worthy of the public trust” to carry a concealed firearm in public; and allow the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or deny a firearm (or explosives) permit to persons known or "suspected" of terrorist acts.

This bill is designed to end our right to carry. This bill was named the NRA Members' Gun Safety Act by a Democrat politician who is both anti-gun and anti-NRA. It is a hoax to make people think it is in the best interest of NRA Members.

H.R. 34: Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2013

H.R. 34 would institute a licensing scheme and require a license in order to possess any handgun or any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device (except antiques).

H.R. 34 would also require firearms thefts to be reported within 72 hours after the theft or loss is discovered, create new child access prevention laws, and essentially create a federal version of California’s Dealer’s Record of Sale (DROS) system. A system that benefits only criminals because it makes firearms essentially inaccessible to those in harm's way.

Failure to comply with H.R. 34’s requirements would subject a person to criminal penalties if passed.


H.R. 35 seeks to repeal the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)).

The GFSZA currently prohibits possession of a firearm within 1,000 feet from the legal boundaries of a school with certain exceptions.

Obviously this has not stopped those there to do harm to our children, but instead restricts the protection that our children can receive.

H.R. 65: Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2013

H.R. 65 increases the age for ownership, sale, purchase, and possession of handguns, handgun ammunition, semiautomatic assault weapons, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices to 21, and enhances penalties for possession of the aforementioned items.

Remember that our young men and women fighting for our freedoms overseas were able to enlist in America's military services at age 18 (or at 17 with their parent's signature).

This bill would effectively stop any decorated American serviceman or woman under the age of 21, who may have just returned home from defending us on the battlefield, from being able own, sale, purchase, and possess handguns, handgun ammunition, semiautomatic assault weapons, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices.
  As a Veteran who was a Marine Sgt (E-5) at the age of 20, and who returned home from overseas at the age of 19, I find this an assault on all of those members of our armed forces - under the age of 21 - who have given so much to our nation.

The bill also requires anyone under age 18 to be accompanied by an adult when attending a gun show and makes it illegal for firearm dealers to sell, transfer, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer) unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device.

Additionally, with certain exceptions, H.R. 65 makes adult firearm owners guilty of a crime if a juvenile uses their firearm to cause death or serious bodily injury to the juvenile or any other person.


If passed, H.R. 93 would make it illegal for a person who has been notified by the Attorney General that the Attorney General has made a determination to revoke the person’s federal firearms license or deny a renewal thereof to:

(1) transfer a business inventory firearm (a) into a personal collection OR (b) to an employee or, if the licensee is a business, an individual who possesses the power to direct the management and policies of the business.

H.R. 93 would also make it illegal for a person whose federal firearms license was revoked or not being renewed to receive a firearm that was a business inventory firearm of the person as of the date the person received notice of the revocation/denial from the Attorney General.

After the license has been revoked, it would then become illegal for the person to transfer business inventory firearms to any person other than a law enforcement agency. The aforementioned provisions would not apply “with respect to a license revocation or denial determination that is rescinded.”


H.R. 117 would establish a federal system for the licensing and registration of all handguns owned, possessed, or controlled in the United States, and make it a crime for a person to own, possess, or control a handgun unless the person has obtained a license and registered the handgun with a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency.

This law abolishes our 2nd Amendment Right. This law would make us all subjects of the Federal Government, it will make it a crime for a person to own, possess, or control a handgun unless the person has obtained a license and registered the handgun with a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency.

In essence, because handguns are mainly used as defensive weapons, our right to keep and bear arms for personal defense reasons would be completely turned over to the Federal and State governments.

H.R. 117 would not apply in states that have a system for the licensing and registration of handguns owned, possessed, or controlled in the State as long as that licensing and registration scheme meets certain requirements.  


In past attacks, when criminals have been presented with armed resistance - or even the threat of armed resistance - they have ended their attacks.

Creating "Gun Free Zones" in our schools creates an environment where criminals are free to carry out an attack with little to no resistance being presented until law enforcement arrives - usually many minutes after the attack started, and after many people have been injured or killed.

Criminals already disobey "Gun Free School Zones" now.

Removing this restriction would allow citizens who are permitted to carry firearms in locations surrounding the school the ability to carry a firearm at the school.

This would in turn make it more difficult for an armed criminal to carry out an attack without facing resistance. We should all be in favor of repeal of the Gun Free Zone Act.

H.R. 137: Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013

H.R. 137 would require a background check for every firearm sale and “ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system.”

The bill also changes the definition of the term “adjudicated as a mental defective” for National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) purposes to include the definition found in 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 as well as “an order by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, in response to mental illness, incompetency, or marked subnormal intelligence, be compelled to receive services including counseling, medication, or testing to determine compliance with prescribed medications; and not including testing for use of alcohol or for abuse of any controlled substance or other drug.”

The bill would also require that federal court information be made available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and increase penalties for states that do not make data electronically available to NICS.

First, this act creates a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for gun-owners only!

Please understand that we do not have such a Database for Child Molesters, Rapists, Murderers, or even Terrorists. Any sort of Database would be called profiling!

Yet, there are those in the Federal government who now want a National Database for the names and personal information of law-abiding citizens.

Yes, citizens who have done nothing wrong in the way of committing a crime in any way shape or form.

And second, if this sort of Orwellian totalitarianism passes, than any person who has ever had counseling for anything, whether it be counseling for stress related their job or some other reason including marriage counseling and anxiety reduction program, would have their name go into that Database.

And yes, furthermore, this act goes into a citizen's medical records to find out if he or she has ever been given any sort of medication.

If a citizen has received medication for an illness such as say anxiety, then they will lose their rights under the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

Personally speaking, if this is passed, then I can tell you from first hand experience that many who need counseling will refuse to get it out of fear of losing their gun ownership rights.

For example, I know many Veterans who will refuse to get needed counseling regarding their military experiences if they just think they will lose their right to owning a firearm if they do go to counseling.

This is worse than a Scarlet Letter!  This marks law abiding citizens and takes away their rights, even if they have done nothing but maybe get some assistance for something as simple as sleep problems.

This should be fought with all means possible. It is an infringement on our rights and our privacy.


Restricting or prohibiting standard (or "large") capacity magazines will not solve the crime problem.

Criminals will get around this restriction by using two or three low capacity magazines as opposed to one standard capacity magazine. It takes very little time to change the magazine on any modern firearm.

Therefore, criminals can create the same amount of carnage with several low capacity magazines as with one standard capacity magazine.

H.R. 141: Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2013

The "gun show loophole" is a myth. There is no loophole.

The private sale and transfer of firearms is unregulated, just as the private sale between two individuals of all other goods are unregulated.

Anytime a company is involved with the sale or transfer of a firearm, a form is completed and a background check is performed.

Criminals do not typically purchase firearms at gun shows, and this legislation will do little to stem the tide of gun violence in the country.

H.R. 142: Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2013

This bill would require the face-to-face purchase of ammunition, the licensing of ammunition dealers, and the reporting of any purchase of bulk ammunition - any purchase greater than 1000 rounds.

Bulk ammunition is not a crime problem.

In fact, very few criminal incidents have ever involved the use of more than 30 rounds.

Since this bill would do nothing to reduce crime, we must consider that the true intention of this bill is to make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain ammunition.

If the government cannot regulate our firearms, they see their next option, their next best thing, is the total regulation of ammunition. Make it impossible for civilians to obtain ammunition or reloading supplies!

And yes, since the Federal government is also trying to stop citizens from getting Reloading supplies, has anyone ever heard of some street punk reloading his own bullets? No, they don't! This is designed to attack our rights pure and simple!

H.R. 226: Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act

If passed, H.R. 226 would allow individuals who surrender specified “assault weapons” to receive a $2,000 federal income tax credit.

In order to apply the credit, the firearm must be lawfully possessed, the firearm owner must provide written acknowledgment of the surrender, and the credit may only be used for one firearm.

Since this has no effect on criminal types who do not lawfully possess their firearms, this is an enticement by liberals to disarm those who think they will be criminals if other legislation is passed.

H.R. 227: Buyback Our Safety Act

H.R. 227 would establish a gun buyback grant program wherein the Assistant Attorney General could issue funding grants to state and local law enforcement agencies for gun buyback programs provided certain criteria are met.

Additionally, H.R. 227 would provide for $15,000,000 in funds to be appropriated to carry out for the period of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.

The bill would also require the Attorney General, through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs, to enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to “develop standards for identifying, and identify, guns that are the most likely to be used in violent crimes and establish a pricing scale for purchasing guns so identified through gun buyback programs receiving grants under this section.”

First, this bothers me because we are in the midst of fiscal problems - and here it is that the government wants to throw away our tax dollars on guns that have been proven to be stolen in most cases.

And second, and more importantly, will there be any checks and balances to see if the money is used as it is designed to do - and if or when it is used, will the data be made public even if it disproves the anti-gun argument that so-called "assault weapons" are a problem?

Probably not!

H.R. 236: Crackdown on Deadbeat Gun Dealers Act of 2013

H.R. 236 increases the number of times that the Attorney General is allowed to inspect or examine the inventory and records of a licensed firearms dealer, importer, or manufacturer (FFL) to ensure compliance with record keeping requirements from once during any 12-month period to three times.

If passed, H.R. 236 would also increase the penalties for false statements, misrepresentations, or generally otherwise failing to maintain proper records from up to one year in prison to up to five years.

The bill also gives the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives the ability to hire at least 50 more personnel in order to carry out the additional inspections, and removes the prohibition against the Attorney General denying or revoking the firearms license of any dealer if that revocation or denial is based in whole or in part on facts which formed the basis of criminal charges relating to the dealer’s violation of federal firearms laws when that dealer was not found guilty under certain circumstances.

H.R. 238: Fire Sale Loophole Closing Act

H.R. 238 would restrict the ability of a person whose federal firearms license has been revoked, whose application to renew such a license has been denied, or who has received a license revocation or renewal denial notice, to transfer business inventory firearms.

H.R. 321: Firearm Safety and Public Health Research Act of 2013

H.R. 321 would essentially create an exception to the 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 112-74)’s ban on National Institutes of Health funds being used to advocate or promote gun control in order to allowing funding of “research on firearms safety or gun violence.”

H.R. 329: To amend the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 to encourage States to provide records to the National Instant Background Check System.

First State Firearms Freedom Association has no position on this legislation at this time. But they assure us that they will update their position once they have studied the legislation.

What it sounds like to me is an effort of the Federal Government to get the records from every State. It's all about Big Brother at its worse!

H.R. 332: To provide victims of gun violence access to the same civil remedies as are available to those injured through other means.

H.R. 332 essentially undoes the protections that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act grants those in the firearms industry by declaring that “[a]n action against a manufacturer, seller, or trade association for damages or relief resulting from an alleged defect or alleged negligence with respect to a product, or conduct that would be actionable under State common or statutory law in the absence of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, shall not be dismissed by a court on the basis that the action is for damages resulting from, or for relief from, the criminal, unlawful, or volitional use of a qualified product.”

The bill also makes the contents of the Firearms Trace System database discoverable and admissible in a civil action in any State (including the District of Columbia), federal court, or administrative proceeding.

In other words, this law, if enacted, would makes it easier for liberal groups and individuals to sue gun makers, gun shops, gun shows, and even gun groups in court. It is something that almost killed our firearms industry previously.

H.R. 339: To require the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to make video recordings of the examination and testing of firearms and ammunition, ...

This bill would require the BATFE to create video recordings of firearms and ammunition testing, and to make those recording available in criminal proceedings.

H.R. 410: To provide that any executive action infringing on the Second Amendment has no force or effect, and to prohibit the use of funds ...

I agree with the FSFFA when they say that it is unfortunate that this legislation is even being considered, but like the FSFFA, I endorse this legislation.

In a recent poll, it was found that a majority of Americans do not trust the federal government and believe their rights are being threatened by Obama.

While House Bills are being looked at right now, below you will find a few Senate Bills that are being proposed. Yes, their abuse of authority is constant.

S. 22: A bill to establish background check procedures for gun shows.

S. 22 would introduce new restrictions on gun shows and their operators/promoters, including, but not limited to: requiring gun show promoters to register with and pay a fee to the Attorney General in order to hold a gun show; requiring that gun show promoters verify the identity of each vendor participating in the gun show by examining a valid identification document containing a photograph of the vendor; requiring certain documents to be signed by each vendor before commencement of the gun show; and, new record keeping requirements for gun show operators.

S. 22 would also require that all firearm transactions taking place at gun shows go through a licensed firearms dealer, that a background check take place with each transaction, and that firearm dealers conducting firearms transfers at gun shows follow certain record keeping requirements.

S. 33: Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2013

S. 33 would make it illegal to sell or transfer standard (or "large") capacity magazines.

Magazines lawfully possessed prior to the bill's passage would remain legal.

Prohibiting standard capacity magazines will not reduce criminal activity, as the overwhelming majority of firearms crimes occur with the use of only a dozen rounds or less.

This legislation will not impact criminal activity; it will only impact lawful possession of accessories that are currently owned by law abiding citizens.

S. 34: A bill to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and ...

We have not yet studied this bill in detail. However, if the legislation will allow the AG to deny firearms or explosives licenses to *suspected* dangerous terrorists, this would undermine the legal concept of innocent until proven guilty.

Nobody should have their rights removed without due process.


As with HR 142, this bill would require the face-to-face purchase of ammunition, the licensing of ammunition dealers, and the reporting of any purchase of bulk ammunition. Bulk ammunition is not a crime problem. In fact, very few criminal incidents have ever involved the use of more than 30 rounds. Since this bill would do nothing to reduce crime, we must consider that the true intention of this bill is to make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain ammunition. If the government cannot regulate our firearms, the next best thing would be the regulation of ammunition.

S. 147: A bill to establish minimum standards for States that allow the carrying of concealed firearms.

While we have yet to review this bill, we would be opposed to this legislation. The federal government does not belong in the business of regulating the permitting process in any of the states.

S. 150: A bill to regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.

Like the FSFFA, I oppose new restrictions on firearms that are legally owned by citizens today.

New restrictions on firearms and components will not solve the problem of gun violence in today's society.

As said before, we do not need another gun ban. We do need enforcement of laws that we have on the books right now, less plea deals, and tougher sentencing - especially on repeat offenders.


Please get involved, our rights are at stake! 




Sunday, February 3, 2013

Brownells: Iowa Gun Accessories Supplier a Key Part of Community

Story by Donnelle Eller, The Des Moines Register

February 3, 2013

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Brownells is an economic developer's dream: a fast-growing, homegrown Iowa business that treats workers like the neighbors they are, eagerly donates to a passing community hat, and grooms leaders who sit on city boards and holler from soccer game benches.

The Montezuma-based supplier of firearm accessories, ammunition and supplies also stands on the front lines of a national debate over gun control — selling controversial high-capacity ammunition magazines and parts for semi-automatics like the AR-15. Third-generation CEO Pete Brownell, 41, is a member of the National Rifle Association board, and the company is a high-dollar donor to the powerful gun-rights organization.

Brownell's battle against efforts to restrict access to guns is about more than business, Brownell's friends and colleagues say. He's passionate about protecting the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right "to keep and bear arms."

"Government is trying to restrict this industry, restrict this economy … and probably the most dangerous thing is that it's trying to restrict our freedoms," Brownell told members of the Iowa Firearms Coalition last fall.

Gun opponents have attacked Brownells' website to slow its business. Another group claims the company and other industry leaders have given "blood money" to the NRA to pad their profits.

"Today's NRA is a virtual subsidiary of the gun industry," said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, two years ago when his group released a report on gun industry contributions to the NRA.

Last month, the Huffington Post reported that Brownells has given the NRA from $1 million to $4.9 million since 2005.

Pete Brownell said Friday that his family has supported the NRA for 60 years. Since 1991, its donations have exclusively supported safety training, education and programs for youth and training for law enforcement.

The gun-control debate has only intensified since the shootings in Newtown, Conn., in December, when a gunman carrying three firearms, including a semi-automatic assault rifle and high-capacity ammunition magazines, killed 20 schoolchildren and six educators.

Russ Behrens, the Grinnell city manager and a neighbor of Brownell's, said the company leader is respectful of opponents' views: "Even though his stance is pro-gun, he's also not so thick-headed that he can't understand the other side of the discussion."

"That's relatively rare in this discussion," said Behrens, himself an avid outdoorsman and a key player in persuading Brownell to bring a nearly $16 million expansion of the company to Grinnell. They reached the deal after hunting pheasants two years ago.

Construction began last fall on the 200,000-square-foot office and distribution center. It is expected to create 162 jobs initially and about 200 more over the next decade.

Legislation to ban some weapons and ammunition shouldn't hurt Brownells' growth plans, the CEO said.

"Brownells has a very diverse customer base and product base," Brownell said in written responses to questions from the Register.

Demand grows

Demand for high-capacity ammunition magazines and semi-automatic weapons has escalated with efforts to ban them.

In December, Brownells told customers that it has received magazine orders equal to about 3 1/2 years of demand. The company, in a yellow banner across its website, asks customers to be patient as it works to fill orders.

Brownells, Inc. fulfillment team members prepare an order at the in Montezuma, Iowa operation.(Photo: courtesy of Brownells, Inc.)

The guns and ammunition industry has grown steadily throughout the recession, increasing 5.7 percent annually over five years to nearly $12 billion last year, said Nima Samadi, a senior analyst at IBISWorld Inc., a research company in Santa Monica, Calif.

Fear over potential changes in gun laws has "probably been the single largest driver for the industry's aggressive growth," Samadi said.

But once Congress decides the issue, one way or the other, sales should return to historical levels, he said. Through 2017, growth is expected to slow to about 3.5 percent annually.

"There is the possibility certain people will opt to not purchase a gun if the one they want is not available on the market," Samadi said. More likely, "people could simply substitute" an available firearm for a banned model.

And "the vast majority of gun buyers should see little or no impact" from more thorough background checks, Samadi said.

Debi Durham, Iowa's economic development director, said Brownells creates the kinds of jobs the state wants: advanced manufacturing, highly skilled service techs, and distribution and warehousing.

"There are other companies Brownells works with that can grow here," said Durham, who has come to know Pete Brownell through his work as a member of the Iowa Economic Development Authority Board. The board oversees her department.

In August, Brownells received $1.1 million in state tax credits for the Grinnell project and an estimated $5.8 million in property tax abatement from the city over 20 years.

The community also received a $1.4 million transportation grant to help build a road to the company's 60-acre site.

Durham, Behrens and others in the community say the firearms industry is misunderstood. "There's a lot of education that needs to be done," said Durham, adding that Brownell's work with the NRA and other industry groups has helped to spread the word about recreational and sport activities.

Company helps lead growth

Local leaders said Brownells, founded in 1939 by Bob Brownell, has been key to helping Montezuma, Grinnell and other nearby communities grow. "Having owners who live in the community is a huge advantage, especially as cities rely more on philanthropic support for parks, aquatic centers and libraries," said Behrens, the Grinnell city manager.

Frank Brownell, the founder's son, has been a Montezuma City Council member since 1965. And both Frank and Pete Brownell have been active in Montezuma's long-term visioning initiative, called Monte 20-20. It surveyed 700 residents.

"We wanted to know what's important and what do we want to build on," said Dave Veerstag, the Montezuma school superintendent.

The group's work has led to efforts to add new housing, refurbish downtown buildings and develop a child-care center for working parents, said Deb Collum-Calderwood, executive director of Poweshiek Iowa Development, called POW I-80.

The community's efforts will help businesses like Brownells better attract workers, Collum-Calderwood said. One reason Brownells decided to expand in Grinnell was a desire to access a larger labor pool.

Brownell said his family has overcome extreme challenges to build its business.

Bob Brownell began the company, originally a gun-smithing business, because an illness prevented him from operating the gas station and sandwich shop he owned.

The development of new medications helped him regain his strength and build his gun business. He began a column for the NRA and developed a popular catalog.

His grandson told Iowa Firearms Coalition members last fall that Brownells represents the American dream. "It started as a small business … and through hard work, dedication, entrepreneurial effort — taking a lot of risk and taking a lot of time — it grew into the largest supplier of firearm parts, tools, accessories and ammunition."

In fact, the only year Brownells failed to increase its business was during World War II, when paper was rationed, limiting Bob Brownell's ability to produce a catalog, Brownell said Friday.



Official NRA Membership Application

Editor's Note:

Brownells is the largest supplier of firearm accessories, ammunition, and supplies. This is a great company who stands on the front lines of a national debate over gun control.

I have ordered from Brownells in the past and they are always a wonderful company to deal with.

Please remember that this company is under attack just like others in the firearms industry are these days.

So please, don't forget to support Brownells. After all, they too are fighting to preserve the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights. Our freedoms as Americans.

Thank you,
Tom Correa
Editor
The American Cowboy Chronicles