I am NOT a lawyer and am not giving legal opinions. The following information is copied directly from the State of Tennessee website and is the code of law for the state. I believe that if you want to carry a baton, you need to be familiar with baton law. Law also changes, so please […]
A Planned Event Designed to Disarm the Australian Public
2017. An election in Queensland which offers to change our nation and will vibrate and inspire the world. That is of course, “IF” the apathetic Firearm Owners of Queensland turn the telly off and aid the people who support them, to replace those corrupt puppets of the internationalist. A very big “IF” of course, but the key has turned. The 2016 Federal election where 22 % of the voters excluded the major parties, Brexit, Trump, Le Pen, Geert Wilders are showing that the mainstream media is losing its grip on the minds of the people. They call it populist, but it’s the internet that exposes the fake news that has been rammed down our throats on the 6 o’clock news.
The 2 million licensed shooters in Australia can make this happen. At the last federal election there were 13 million voters and our shooting companions are nearly 18 % of them, that is enough for us to chose which government rules this country.
We are now the largest single interest group on the Australian political landscape, we just have to be the best organised lobby group.
Of course the main party hacks will bring out that old furphy, ‘if the aircraft is having a few problems would you ask farmer plod sitting in the back economy seats to come and fly the plane.’ Besides, it’s not being relative and just an rhetorical trick, if we made a simile between the plane and our country, our pilots – sold out to another country, baled out and left us in a screaming power dive towards the rocks, anyone who pulled up the joy stick and levelled up the plane would be appreciated and loved by all the passengers.
http://www.smh.com.au/victoria/its-really-concerning-scores-of-domestic-violence-offenders-get-their-guns-back-20161107-gsk908.html (Why would the courts & government do this do you think?!)
I can understand the need to stop illegal imports of firearms, & I can understand the need to stop the Black Market sales of firearms, but what I DO NOT understand is WHY the government is so determined to disarm law abiding Australian citizens. This to my suggests that for some reason they are afraid of us. So what are they planning that should require them to disarm us? Slowly but surely, through legislation without consultation or referendum, the government has been taking away our rights & freedoms. Gun violence by criminals & terrorists is being used against us, used as an excuse to legislate more restrictions on the public. Homes can be entered without any requirement to show just cause. Firearms confiscated. Protesters can be arrested & imprisoned. Does this sound like a democratic society to you? Where is all this going? Do the majority of Australians know this is happening & simply not care (she’ll be right mate!)?
Gun control is NOT about public safety, it is about controlling the people, controlling law abiding citizens. Police officers come into my home to inspect my firearms safe keeping, but all the time they are assuming that I am guilty of some crime until I am proved to be innocent. They are looking for any excuse to charge me with a crime. I have been accused of not registering guns, guns that are antiques & do not require registration in NSW, & it is I who have to foot the bill, I have the expense of having to defend my rights as a law abiding citizen.
The local police have informed me that I have no right to use a firearm to defend myself or my family unless I have first been shot! The police can not protect me or my family!
I pose a question to anyone out there with a knowledge of the law: Why do I have to lock my gun away in a gun safe when I am at home, & yet not have to lock my gun in a gun safe when I am away from home hunting for several days? What is the difference? In both cases I am physically there in charge of the firearm.
A Christmas Read. This is a long one take your time, read it over the Christmas break, then please distribute the information. Its Good News and everyone deserves to hear it.
When our politicians can knowingly make a decision on a lie to push the ideological view of their financial masters banning the Adler then none of our property is safe. Our political leaders have shown that they can concoct fear, lies and misinformation and present it as an acceptable method of creating legislation. I suspect that most of them realise that the Adler out come – will be the catalyst that removes them from government, but they are so dependent on party donations from the international trust funds, that they will commit personal political suicide to save their status quo party.
We have had it burnt into our minds that if it’s lever-action shotgun today, it will be something else tomorrow, semi-automatic pistols, pump-action rifles, lever-action shotguns and lever-action rifles are all on their list and they won’t be happy until they take our pea shooters.
On the other side of this long war, we know well that we have never been better placed to fight this battle, if we are going to win this battle now is the time to do it. We all know that any recommendations that COAG make have to be forced through the State parliaments. Nothing that happens in COAG is final. Nothing is set in stone. It is only a committee with no legislative power. Soon, this will be a much broader struggle, but given the fracturing of state politics, we have a much better chance of preventing ratification. We have up and coming elections in Western Australia, NSW and Queensland, we have two members of the Katter party willing to cross the floor in Queensland and vote against its introduction. To bulldoze this legislation through the Queensland house Labour would have to go to a general election, and an election at this time would NOT give either Labour, or Lib/Nats a majority. At the next election, minor parties will have the balance of power in Queensland, so we must work and vote to ensure that pro firearm rights candidates are elected to parliament. If this legislation is blocked in one state, the federal governments uniformity is fractured and ultimately lost. Whatever happens, the media will hype this re-categorisation as a done deal and besmirch any candidate who speaks out against it. These people must have our support and our encouragement to cross the floor when the time comes. Start preparing a list of your state candidates in categories:
“Pro Gun” – will vote against re-categorisation
“Persuadable” – can be persuaded to cross the floor with the Pro members
“Lost Cause” – Greens and others who will never change their minds.
So we have an up and coming battle, this is the letter I sent (and I hope they received thousands more like it) last week to local MPs and Police Ministers.
I am one of the two million (Crimtrac Annual Report 2015/16) Licenced firearm owners, who have conscientiously jumped through all the hoops and impositions, paid application fees, Permit to Acquire fees, and 20 or so renewal fees(which are more like un just fines) all created to punish us, for enjoying our sport and hobby. All of us are worn ragged with corrupt politicians incessantly crucifying the innocent pillars of the community, to appease the internationally financed socialist Gun Control, lusus naturae’s who could have their annual meeting in a telephone box.
(The voters are waking up, the Orange NSW by Election can be repeated successfully in every State in Australia.)
These international financiers who donate so well to mainstream political parties, make huge donations to academics in Gun Control, they are also huge shareholders in mainstream media and give generously to organisations that prop up the billion dollar budget to the ABC, have replaced the constitutional representation with corrupted dollars. If this information is a conspiracy theory, and not just information re-published by Jennifer Oriel Australian, 22nd August 2016 newspaper from Wiki leaks,
Thirty five years ago, when I began to write about the international trust fund intervention in our firearm legislation I was castigated by mainstream media and even opposition Australian shooting magazines poo poohed the facts that I presented in Lock, Stock and Barrel. The opposition shooting magazines and the general firearm trade changed its tune, when John Howard adopted the 23 points of gun control issued by the United Nations Civilian Disarmament Conference in Cairo, Egypt and placed Daryl Smeaton, (who had attended that Conference) as Director, Office of Law Enforcement Coordination, Commonwealth Attorney -General’s Department to supervise the Un informed Gun Steal Back which took the people’s property and paid some of them back with their own money.
When the United Nations policies were forced on Australia, most people instrumental in resisting the activities of the Gun Control Australia and Daryl Smeaton looked at the common factor in this movement intent on destroying all individual liberties. That common factor was the international funding, that went to the three heads of the hydra, being
1. Gun Control Australia, Academics,
2. Main Political Party Campaign donations, and
3. Ownership of mainstream Media outlets. The connecting factor was mainly the journalist academics who were involved in all three heads, but finance ultimately came from one source in the body of the monster.
Gun Control Bought and Paid For.
If you have had to suffer under the continued, ever increasing, creeping impositions of firearm legislation a large part of that served up to you has been due to the orchestrations of Rebecca Peters who served as Director of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) from 2002 to 2010. She was still listed on the IANSA board of directors as of April 2012.
Prior to her work with IANSA, Rebecca Peters was also paid by the Open Society Institute, a private foundation funded by George Soros. As chair of the (Australian) National Coalition for Gun Control at the time of the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Rebecca Peters played a key role in the impositions and suppression of individual liberty in Australia.
The following was taken from ” Andy’s RANT published on 1 May, 2011. I can vouch for much of this information..
The National Coalition for Gun Control (NCGC) was based in Sydney, but had an important branch in Hobart, Tasmania, headed up there by lawyer Roland Browne, while in Melbourne a “sister” organisation, the Coalition for Gun Control (CGC) was run by John Bruce Crook. Prior to 1996, Crook was involved in a defamation action in Melbourne, and in that trial it was reported that none other than Daryl Smeaton presented the Court with a supportive character reference for Crook.
It was in Sydney where Rebecca Peters rose to prominence, arriving in 1981. While Peters says “she decided” to settle Down Under and become an “Australian citizen. We must remember those famous words, “In politics nothing happens by chance. If it happens, it was meant to happen that way”.
Rebecca Peters grew up as a teenager in Costa Rica, the second of six children in an American family. As her father worked for the American Government there, ‘half jokingly,’ she suggested in an interview in Australia he “probably worked for the CIA.” In Sydney, Peters enrolled in a university in the faculty of Engineering (possibly Macquarie), being just one of only two females in the course, but in 1983 she dropped out. For a time Rebecca took a job as a researcher and reporter with ABC Radio (known locally as the “Gay-BC”), and worked with Andrew Olle. In 1991 with a not-so-subtle agenda, Peters returned to university, enrolled as a law student gaining her law degree, at the end of which, she produced a thesis on ‘tighter gun control’. This was the “centrepiece” of an enormous folio of material she collected and wrote for her campaign to remove loop-holes in existing gun laws in Australia. She promoted herself as a ‘multilingual middle-class lawyer’ who was fanatical about “gun control”.
By ’91 Peters was running the NCGC, rising fast to the position of “chair”, almost as quickly as the death rate climbed with each incident of that new phenomenon to Australasia, the gun massacre. With the shooting massacres she produced a ‘win-win sound-bite’ for the minds and meek support of the gullible Mums and Dads of Australia. The Dunblane massacre occurred on 13 March ’96 and Port Arthur followed 46 days later. Then all the pieces fell into place for Federal Attorney General, Daryl Williams, to implement the gun-ban laws prepared and ready from Daryl Smeatons’ trip to Cairo.
However, in relation to both massacres it should be remembered it was Rebecca Peters’ colleague, Roland Browne, now chair of NCGC, who predicted a shooting massacre in Tasmania in November of 1995, and quite remarkably again made a repeated prediction on the “A Current Affair” TV show, straight after Scotland’s Dunblane Massacre. But then anti-gun proponents in Australia seem to have this remarkable psychic skill. For in Tasmania’s capitol city Hobart after a Special Premier’s Conference in relation to Gun Control held in December of 1987, NSW’s then Premier, Barry “No-gunsworth” Unsworth stated bluntly: “There will never be uniform gun laws in Australia until we see a massacre in Tasmania.”
What should be engraved in everyone’s minds is that while Rebecca Peters was “Down-Under”, 6 shooting massacres occurred in Australia and New Zealand resulting in 76 deaths and 53 wounded people. In “gun control” here, Peters was no doubt – numro uno supremo. Curiously though since Peters left, the shooting massacres, of the same style, lone gunman, have ceased! And private firearm ownership and number of firearms have doubled. Since Peters has returned to the USA, they have been subjected to the lone gunmen syndrome ever since.
It was announced in 1997 that Peters was awarded (if you believe their own news releases – or if logic is your guide, rewarded may be the more appropriate word) – with a Senior Fellowship in March 1997 by the Soros Foundation’s Open Institute funded Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Merryland. So the good citizens there should perhaps keep her Australasian achievements in mind.
In making application for her fellowship, Rebecca Peters had to ‘submit a budget’ for her envisioned work … forgive me from chuckling. Can you imagine her difficult task here? Think of a big digit add lots of zeros and voila … a budget!
You may wish to drop a line to the Doctor so here is her working address: The Center on Crime, Community and Culture, 400 West 59th Street, New York, NY10019. Or perhaps you may wish to forward a congratulatory e-mail to email@example.com . Rebecca’s doctorate included a stipend incidentally of US$32,500 p.a., plus various expenses covered in her ‘budgeted’ expenses, the lot bankrolled by the tax-exempt Soros Foundation.
It should come as no surprise to learn that John Hopkins in 1986, received funding of a reported $317m American “defence dollars”! What level of “Arms and Military” funding does John Hopkins receive today that in any way assists the works of Dr Peters and her ‘arms-grabbing’ cadre?”
To put this together, who is George Soros, (just check him out on google)http://concit.org/soros-and-his-australian-minions/
Here is a short synopsis that shows the links between the body of the hydra beast and its three heads. George Soros was born in Hungary. His family were non practising Jews and changed their name to assimilate into the gentile population. When Hitler’s henchman, Adolf Eichmann arrived in Hungary to oversee the extermination of the Jews, George Soros ended up working with a man whose job it was to confiscate property from the Jewish population. Seventy percent of Hungary’s half a million Jews were killed that year.
“Sixty Minutes”, Steve Kroft interviewed Soros about that time, years later:
In 1956 Soros moved to New York City where he would work on Wall Street specialising in hedge funds and currency speculations.
In 1992 Soros made his first billion by breaking the Bank of England shorting the English Pound.
In 1994 Soros went onto to almost collapsed the Russian economy by similar means.
In 1997 Soros almost destroyed the economies of Thailand and Malaysia. Soros was part of the full court that dismantled Yugoslavia in a coup, caused trouble in Georgia, Ukraine and Burma (Myanmar). France also fined him $2.9 million for felony insider trading in France. Hungary fined him $2.2 million for illegal market manipulation after putting his own home country’s economy into a tail spin by driving down the share price of its largest bank.
These actions earned Soros the title of “Financial Terrorist” and was described by various commentators and leaders as a “planetary parasite”, “a kind of “Dracula that sucks the blood from nations of people”.
His eyes are now on America, with a wealth far more vast than the Rothschild’s empire. He told the Australian newspaper “America is the centre of the globalised financial markets was sucking up the world savings, this is now over…the time has come for a “very serious adjustment in America’s consumption habits, he implied he was the one with the power to bring this about.”
On the economic front he is shorting the dollar in global currency markets, trying to force a devaluation. At the same time Soros is orchestrating a nationwide movement to encourage mass migration into the United States and to mandate the provision of free social services to illegal immigrants in order to bankrupt the nation.
(On Aug 7, 2015 Obama, who is financially backed by Soros, reissued his pledge to the press that he wanted to legalise all illegals.)
When Soros arrived in the UK he attended the London School of Economics a Fabian establishment where he met his mentor, philosopher Karl Popper. (Fabians are socialists who support the notion of a One World Government and key supporters of the United Nations.)
The Open Society Foundations, created by George Soros, was inspired in name and purpose by Popper’s book—”Open Society and its Enemies”.
To this end Soros’ “Open Societies Foundation” pick and choose organisations to support and activists to get behind, according to local advisors that will further their cause. Universal acceptance of the United Nations has given Soros the right to meddle in any country if the meddling promotes human rights, democracy and fundamental freedoms. Soros is using the Human Rights Charter of the United Nations to direct support from his Open Societies Foundation.
Soros is shaping the governments and societies of the world to the tune of $18 billion dollars a year—influencing government policy, education, media, public health, and human and women’s rights, as well as social, legal and economic engineering according to his personal and Foundation’s agenda.
President Obama—a Liberal Democrat, recently promised $10 billion dollars to Brazil in order to give them a leg up in expanding their off-shore oil fields. This came after his political financial backer George Soros invested heavily in Brazilian Oil (Petrobras). The Petrobras loan was a windfall for Soros and Brazil which could produce $1.7 trillion in revenues.
Soros virtually owns the Liberal Democratic Party of America and is currently backed the billions for Hilary Clinton’s campaign.
In August of 2016 Wikileaks released a series of emails between Soros and Hillary Clinton on the Albania situation which clearly show Soro’s recommendation being adopted by Hillary Clinton even to the person recommended as mediator.
Soros intervenes in elections both in the US, and Australia. In the US he spent $42 million at the High Court of America to ensure that “non political” groups were able to give political donations and agitate for change but not have their donations scrutinised by the various electoral commissions.
In 2013 Soros bought into Australia’s Channel 9 network—Billionaire investor George Soros is understood to have bought $6 million to $8 million of shares in Nine Entertainment ahead of the company’s $1.9 billion IPO.
These groups have received enormous support from Soros because these are the change agents for elections, in both Australia and the US that can operate outside of Governmental control.
Australian GetUp was founded by David Madden and Jeremy Heimans, the same week Liberals under Howard won power in the Senate in 2005. These two founders both from America were also involved with another Soros-financed left-wing activist group, MoveOn.org.
Public records reveal that between January 2003 and December 2004, Soros contributed $2,500,000 to MoveOn.org.
GetUp! (who is a major agitator for their ABC). Sources have also suggested that Soros’ money is being funnelled into the coffers of militant groups such as Refugee Action Coalition (RAC), Socialist Alternative, ANTIFA and other radical Left-wing cadres. Following the lead of the Australian Greens, the left wing organisation, ‘GetUp!’ has launched a campaign to fund political action in electorates where recent criticism of the ABC is likely to have an impact.This action by GetUp!, complementing the Greens’ ‘Hands off our Aunty’ campaign, Landscape is more evidence that the ABC is not only biased, but as a media organisation, has become hopelessly, and perhaps irredeemably politicised. The ABC is supposed to be an independent and impartial media service for all Australians, but it is becoming clearer and clearer that this is not the case.
What is becoming crystal clear is that the ABC is only serving one constituency in Australia, and that is the ‘progressive’ Left. Not only is the ABC only serving the left, the desperate campaigns launched by the Greens and GetUp! reveal that the ABC acts as an important mouthpiece and advocate for their policy agenda. Without the ABC’s billion dollar plus budget provided by tax payers, and vast resources to disseminate the so called ‘progressive’ agenda, the left would have to rely on its own resources and funds to promote its political platform. Of course, this is why the Greens and GetUp! have been so quick to criticise calls for the ABC to be accountable to its charter, to all Australians and tax payers, and have launched their campaigns defending the ABC and its bias.
Madden and Heimans are also co-founders of the global activist group, Avaaz.org, an organization that the Canadian Minister John Baird in 2008 labelled as “shadowy foreign organization tied to billionaire activist George Soros.”
The largest donor to Get Up in Australia in 2010 with a donation of $1.1 million is the CFMEU, a coalition of 5 former communist unions.
Another AVAAZ linked cause to GetUp, namely “Climate Alarmism” in Australia, received an alleged $15 million donation from Soros.
Shorten on Soros Payroll?
On Get Up’s original board, members included Australian Workers Union secretary Bill Shorten, Australian Fabian Society Nation Secretary Evan Thornley, Green activist Cate Faehrmann, and left-wing trade union researcher and “community organiser” Amanda Tattersall.
(Little know fact…GetUp are the first two words from the first Communist Anthem “The Internationale” by Pier de Geyter Lille. “GetUp Not Arise”) (It depends on the translation)
In 2005 they campaigned AGAINST anti terrorism legislation and against Racism of the Cronulla riots.
In 2006 They campaigned AGAINST changes to the migration laws and Iraq war, supported terrorist David Hicks.
In 2007 They campaigned AGAINST Northern Territory National Emergency Response, but campaigned for repeal of laws that stopped electoral fraud (closing rolls the same day an election is announced—100,000 fake voters could then be counted in the election.)
In 2009 They campaigned AGAINST mandatory detention, but for same sex equality, renewable energy, paid parental leave.
In 2011 Against mining, coal seam gas…in order to fund a climate change Disaster fund in line with UN policies, and for marriage equality. (For homosexuals)
On the surface you could be forgiven for thinking it is simply a front for the Labor Party and the Greens. While it did criticise Labor’s Fuel Watch—it has NEVER criticised the Greens.
Get Up is an instrument of mass manipulation …not a mass movement. It was conceived in league with the unions. In 2007 and 2010 elections GET Up fielded 7,000 volunteer campaigners complete with T-shirts and how to vote cards. In 2010 they ran 700 television ads and fielded 3,000 booth workers. Every member on their board has been associated with either ALP, Fabians, trade unions or extreme environmentalism. They raise millions of dollars each year but have no actual accountability to their members.
Get Ups role in our elections is excessive yet, because its not a registered political party it does not come under the charge of the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). (Abetz, Minister for State, in 2005 asked to have Get Up investigated by the AEC and the ACCC but that request was turned down due to “insufficient grounds”.)
EMILY’s List is another Soros funded Fabian organisations. It functions with the Democratic Party in the US and the Labor Party in Australia.
EMILY stands for “Early Money Is Like Yeast”—because it rises like dough.
The stated aim of Emily’s List is to raise money to help progressive, (PRO ABORTION), women get elected. The reason we can say pro-abortion is a mandate because anyone standing against abortion, as one Emily List candidate found out, had their $100,000 support subsidy immediately withdrawn. That is why in Victoria because of Ms Gillard’s intervention we have late term abortion right through 9 months of pregnancy. Gillard herself a socialist, Fabian and EMILY List member.
This groups funds women into Parliament. They negotiate seats (with Labor in Australia) to ensure that a woman and not necessarily the best person, gets the seat in at least 40% of the time. EMILY’s List candidates also support “equality” — the promotion and preferential hiring of women and “diversity”— homosexual rights. They claim to have have helped 115 women into State and Federal politics in Australia.
EMILY’s List is now the second most powerful lobbying and fundraising task force in the United States. It was founded in 2007 by Ellen Malcolm (Fabian) after Soros won his court case to stop the limit that political candidates could receive from individuals to EXCLUDE donations from organisations…hence Getup, Move On AND EMILY’s List.
Fabians are the new communists—supporters of One World Government, Agenda 21 and the United Nations. They will feature in the next Soros post along with the Club of Rome and the influence they have had in destabilising Australia while creating the United Nations and One World Government.
Suffice to say that Soros after his introduction through the London School of Economics supports the UN and backs the establishment of a One World Government. Obama—Soros’ current Liberal Democratic puppet—last month also signalled that he wanted the top job in the UN at the end of his Presidency. Just keep watching that space.
As for Australia, Greens Leader Sarah Hanson Young last month flew to Switzerland to accept her World Economic Forum, Young Global Leader for 2016. The Chairman of the World Economic Forum is none other than George Soros. So we can safely assume the Greens now have the full support of Soro’s tentacles over here.
What Soros wants, simply put, is a New World Order outside of the grips of the US congress where he can exert his control and is prepared to dismantle America to do it. He also uses the values of the UN Human Rights Charter and and his enormous wealth to facilitate his Open Society utopia. The problem for us in the West that as a Fabian and a Socialist, Soros is a one world government man and therefore against any movement that preserves a Nation’s Sovereignty to go it alone or to leave the United Nations. Abbott and the Canadian PM—the only nay-sayers to the United Nations, were both ousted by Soros’s tentacles before the 2015 November UN Climate Summit. As a result the UN received 100% acceptance of a global taxation system and wealth redistribution system using the ruse of climate change. Any group that challenges the One World Government direction like the Reclaim Australia Rallies did in Australia in 2015, would also be shut down by what ever means. We all watched this happen in Australia with the heavily backed” No room for Racism” counter rallies through Soros’s mates—the Unions, Greens and the Left. The media then finished the job with unrelenting, biased reporting of all their rallies and a further towing the United Nations socialist “equality” and “diversity” line—without realising they were weakening the sovereignty of their own nation in the process. Soros is an atheist and has fallen into the same trap that so many non-religious, communists and Fabians have fallen into, believing that all religions are the same and that Islamic believers, like any other person, in the comfort of having their needs met, will let go of their religion. The fault in this logic is that Islam has been falsely identified as a “religion”. Instead, had it been classified as a totalitarian ideology with a religious component steeped in terrorism and death, then perhaps his planetary utopia could move a step closer as Islam would not have been granted the licence it currently has. Instead it would have been relegated with all those other totalitarian regimes like Nazism, Fascism and Communism that are the true enemies to open societies. But the way that the UN Charter reads concerning the practice of well meaning and quaint religions, is leading to social travesty of monumental proportions. Islam is not a religion first, but a totalitarian ideology first—complete with its system of racist laws, and prescriptive intolerant social behaviour and a religious component that glorifies those who die or used their possessions for those who die, killing for Islam. This is what makes the current Open Society support to this Charter a threat to humanity.
Soros is globally promoting a social system that fits neatly into Islamic expansionism with catastrophic results. He will never realise his New World Order because of the clash of values between the West and Islam that must inevitably result in civil war. Soros by his support of organisations that support left wing counter rallies like the “no room for Racism” he is forcing the tolerance of the West to tolerate the intolerant—Islam. His support of the UN Charter of Human Rights is giving Islam the ammunition to drive its totalitarian system into the world instead of allowing a true open and democratic society. There is nothing democratic in Islam. Further, by supporting these Communist, Green and left wing groups Soros is also removing “freedom” for the sake of “equality”, flying in the face of his Mentor, Popper’s warnings NOT to do so.
Political Correctness is being underpinned globally by Soros sponsored organisations like “Common Cause“. “Common Cause” is program designed for governments on “political correctness” for the sake of equality and diversity. The Rotherham Muslim rape gangs flourished in the UK for 10 years because of the Common Cause training the police departments were obliged to follow. As a result tens of thousands of innocents suffered. The Fabian, come Popper student, has now become the greatest agent of oppression of mankind in the 21st Century ensuring the rise of Islamic imperialism and the closing down of freedom and democracy in the West. He is more interested in how to break nations than strengthen them. He intends to force a sovereign UN based government on the world rather that a nation state model. Soros—the God Father of the Left—with his socialist New World Order goals has become the most dangerous man on planet Earth, because he has the means to do it.”…
Every person in Australia who has been charged for not closing the window of his house, or not locking their gun safe, or have lost their guns due to the domestic issue of not putting the milk on the wife’s cornflakes in the morning, or have been charged for having a broken un-fireable Daisy Red Ryder can put the blame fairly on these international monsters. Please research this subject yourselves we must use this information against our three headed enemy.
Legislation that would allow judges to strip citizens of their Second Amendment rights with the stroke of a pen might be coming to your state.
Lawmakers in 11 states want to give judges the authority to issue a Gun Violence Restraining Order, also known as a GVRO or “risk warrant,” The Atlantic reported. A risk warrant gives law enforcement the power to search homes and confiscate guns without notice, based on allegations that persons are a threat to others or themselves. It also bars people in that category from buying firearms or ammunition.
The subject of the GVRO would not know it was issued until police knocked on the door.
California and Connecticut have similar laws, and 11 other states are expected to consider such bills next year: New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia, Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, Minnesota, Michigan and Massachusetts, according to The Atlantic.
Here is how California’s law works:
- A family member or law enforcement officer who believes someone is mentally ill or capable of violence asks law enforcement or a prosecutor to apply to a judge for a Gun Violence Restraining Order, or GVRO.
- The subject of the GVRO is not notified of this action. This allows the judge to issue the order without seeing the person it is directed against and gives that individual no opportunity to contest it.
- Once the GVRO is issued, law enforcement officers have the power to confiscate the subject’s guns and hold them for 21 days – unless the judge determines that the order should be made permanent.
- The GVRO would give police the power to search homes and businesses without a warrant.
- Under California law — the model for such legislation — all the judge would need to issue it is a claim from a family member or a law enforcement officer that a person is mentally ill.
Gun Confiscation to Save Lives?
The rationale behind the California bill was to keep firearms out of the hands of potential mass killers, such as Elliot Rodger, who killed six people in Isla Vista, California, in 2014. News reports indicate the family tried to get law enforcement to take Rodger’s guns prior to the killing spree. Researchers also say that gun confiscation can prevent suicides. Jeffrey Swanson, a psychiatry professor at Duke University, believes that a Connecticut gun confiscation law that’s been on the books since 1999 has saved 100 lives, Atlantic writer Dan Friedman wrote. The Connecticut law that Swanson studied is different from the California law and allows only law enforcement to request risk warrants, the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action noted.
Second Amendment-rights groups say they understand the intent behind the laws but believe that gun owners should have a right to make their case first.
“It’s important for gun owners to have the opportunity to put up their own defense before losing their Second Amendment rights,” the NRA said in a statement on its website.
When Connecticut legislators wanted to strengthen that state’s law and make it similar to California’s law, the NRA argued that the proposal had “low evidentiary standards” and allowed “doctors and family members, including even distant relatives, ex-husbands or ex-wives, to strip” gun owners of their rights. The Connecticut proposal eventually failed, but other states are considering similar legislation.
Would you support a California-type law in your state? Share your thoughts in the section below:
The old ‘news’, but it was good news, was that 25% of the 15 million voters at the Federal election did not vote for the major Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dummer parties and instead voted for Independents and small (more independent) parties. Two million licensed shooters 14% of the voting population helped to make that difference.
“The ban on lever-action shotguns with a magazine capacity greater than five rounds was due to expire on August 7, but Justice Minister Michael Keenan said on Friday it would be extended until a review of the National Firearms Agreement is completed and the agreed outcomes put in place. The review of the agreement is due to be considered by commonwealth, state and territory ministers later this year.” AAP.
A Freedom Of Information request was denied by Stephen Bouwhuis, Assistant Secretary at the Attorney-General’s Department from Dr Samara McPhedran, (Senior Research Fellow at Griffith University’s Violence Research and Prevention Program,) who submitted a FOI in March 2016 to access the documents mentioned in a News.com.au article that the government has been circulating since November 2015.
Mr Bouwhuis confirmed the document existed, however refused to disclose it. He said in a letter to McPhedran,
“The information contained in the document was communicated to the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department by or on behalf of state or territory governments on a confidential basis, for the purposes of discussions about the proposed agreement,”
Well it seem the cat is out of the bag and the dangerous document is from the Tasmanian Police Minister, who is either a genuine certifiable nit wit, or a cold calculating power hungry potentate. The Tasmanian Minister of Police Rene Hidding, MP said,.
It is now prohibited for the federal government to describe people as American Indians or Spanish-speaking, according to a new law signed by President Obama on May 20
The law, House Resolution (HR) 4238, targets what supporters of the bill called outdated and even offensive terms in laws which were written decades or generations ago, Media Research Center reported.
Seven terms are now prohibited: American Indian, Indians, Eskimo, Oriental, Aleut, Spanish speaking and Spanish descent. They have been replaced by phrases such as Native American, Alaska Natives, Asian American, Hispanic and Pacific Islanders.
The law amended the Department of Energy Organization Act, and the Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act of 1976, each of which used old terms.
“Many Americans may not be aware that the word ‘Oriental’ is derogatory,” the bill’s sponsor US Rep. Grace Meng (D-New York) said in a press release. “But it is an insulting term that needed to be removed from the books, and I am extremely pleased that my legislation to do that is now the law of the land.”
“It will enable police to share data on guns used in crimes, and provides a quick way to match firearm information against a national dataset. This will significantly affect the way Australian police agencies investigate gun-related crime, by linking ballistic evidence from crimes involving firearms both locally and nationally. This will also provide a national picture of criminal use of firearms in Australia, enhancing the capability of Australian police to investigate firearm-related crime and target violent offenders in our community. Our firearms solutions are valuable tools for police to solve firearm-related crime and to prevent gun crime in Australia. Will support police in addressing violent gun-crime.”
Where is the accountability in this? There is transparency its easy to see through the verbal manure of self justification and gratification for no real result, bar one.
‘Blind Freddy’ can understand the futile waste of recording all the details of the most law abiding part of our community. Only those as ‘Mad as a Hatter’ would believe that those with criminal intent would record any information. So why spend all that money and impose all those costs on us? Are they ‘Mad’, or is it really “People Control” not Gun Control?
Yet, in this report there is some truth, a small grain that should make every shooter in Australia celebrate. It forecasts the winning of our war for firearm freedom. On page 29 it reports that in 2015 there was 1.9 million licenced shooters in Australia and 5 million firearms.
Powerful Political Force.
The largest “Nosy Parker” in Australia has achieved one single good thing, it has officially told us that we are now a powerful force. All we have to do is to let each and all of us know that we have that force. Now with the internet we can even improve it, if each one of us encouraged and succeeded to help a family member or friend to get a shooters licence, we would not have 2 million licenced shooters in Australia we would have 4 million. Well I never thought I would be encouraging shooters licences, I don’t think they serve any useful purpose, but now there is a newfangled point to it all. It unites us in the largest club in this country, expensive and inconvenient, but a means to end the tyranny that we have suffered for the last twenty years.
As with the United States if you prove that more homicides are committed by black people, it would be more logical to address that problem on a racial basis rather than to ignore it. When they blame a tool that by itself has no cause, if there is a problem it will continue un abated. Allowing the politicians to return to it again and again, to fuel their real agenda, People control. When causes are identified like Race or Economics that cannot be discussed, it would not be ‘Politically Correct” they know that high unemployment areas have higher armed crime rates and homicide rates, logically we should address that problem in that area instead of imposing legislation on un related items in all unaffected areas?
Soon Politicians will come to the realization that our 10% of un happy licenced shooters can keep them out of government, or put them into government, their next tactic will be to try and split licenced shooters into categories backing some against others, but before that happens we can form new parties and destroy old ones. Please never forget Mr. Wendell Phillips said, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few. The manna of popular liberty must be gathered each day or it is rotten. The living sap of today outgrows the dead rind of yesterday. The hand entrusted with power becomes, either form human depravity or esprit de corps, the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continued oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot; only by unintermitted agitation can a people be sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.”
One of the Northeast’s most powerful politicians is fighting hard to make sure the selling of homemade baked goods is a crime in the Garden State.
New Jersey State Senator Joe Vitale (D-Woodbridge) has used his position as chairman of the Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee to block a bill that would make it legal to sell baked goods — cookies, pies and cakes — made at home. The reason: He wants to protect businesses that sell baked products.
“They’re concerned at some level of being undermined by these home-baked products,” Vitale said in a statement to the Associated Press. “If the cap is $50,000, that’s potentially $50,000 or some portion that’s out of the bottom line of a small baker.”
Others, though, say the law needs to be overturned. State Senator Christopher Bateman (R-Neshanic Station) has introduced a bill that would allow the selling of baked goods.
“New Jersey is expensive enough,” Bateman said. “To give people an opportunity to supplement their income or pay their taxes, why not do it? I’m sure it’s being done. Why not legalize it?”
A bill to overturn the baking law has passed New Jersey’s General Assembly lower house twice, but Vitale has tabled it in his committee both times, AP said.
That leaves bakers such as Martha Rabello stuck in limbo. Rabello currently has to spend $20 an hour to rent a commercial kitchen in order to do her baking. The alternative is to buy a bakery or spend around $15,000 to build a commercial kitchen.
“That’s a big investment; you don’t have that leeway to try things,” Rabello told the news service. “This is a business that has a high failure rate. If you invest all that money and what you decided (to make) doesn’t sell, you lose a lot more than if you had the ability to start at home.”
New Jersey is one of two states in which it is illegal to sell home baked goods. The other is Wisconsin, where the Institute for Justice is challenging a similar ban on baking in court.
“All these home bakers want to be able to do is sell their goods at community events, farmers markets and directly to consumers,” said Erica Smith, an attorney with the Institute. “This is something that people have been doing in this country for hundreds of years. It’s just an American tradition to sell to your neighbors.”
What is your reaction to New Jersey’s law? Share your thoughts in the section below:
Father ‘using force to defend family’ charged with murder over death of intruder.
The US Supreme Court has vacated a Massachusetts court ruling that had declared stun guns and other non-lethal weapons are not protected under the Second Amendment.
The high court’s ruling was a win for owners of such weapons, although the court – technically — did not overturn the law.
The case involved Massachusetts resident Jaime Caetano, a single mother who started carrying a stun gun for protection after her ex-boyfriend injured her so badly she ended up in the hospital. When police discovered that Caetano was carrying the weapon, she was arrested for violating a state law that bans private ownership. Her attorneys filed a lawsuit and when they lost at the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, they took their case to the US Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court issued a page and a half unanimous ruling calling the Massachusetts court’s decision “inconsistent” with the Supreme Court’s Heller decision protecting individual gun rights. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Massachusetts court for “further proceedings.”
But Justice Samuel Alito, with Justice Clarence Thomas joining him, said the court should have overturned the law. Their 10-page opinion raised the prospect that the law would have been overturned if Justice Antonin Scalia had not died. The court currently has only eight members.
“Electronic stun guns are no more exempt from the Second Amendment’s protections, simply because they were unknown to the First Congress, than electronic communications are exempt from the First Amendment, or electronic imaging devices are exempt from the Fourth Amendment,” Alito wrote.
Alito in his Monday opinion added that the Massachusetts court’s “reasoning defies our decision in Heller, which rejected as ‘bordering on the frivolous’ the argument ‘that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.’
“While stun guns were not in existence at the end of the 18th century, the same is true for the weapons most commonly used today for self-defense, namely, revolvers and semiautomatic pistols,” Alito noted. “Revolvers were virtually unknown until well into the 19th century, and semiautomatic pistols were not invented until near the end of that century.”
Alito criticized the Massachusetts law for making it difficult for residents to protect themselves.
“By arming herself, Caetano was able to protect against a physical threat that restraining orders had proved useless to prevent,” Alito and Thomas wrote. And, commendably, she did so by using a weapon that posed little, if any, danger of permanently harming either herself or the father of her children.”
“Under Massachusetts law, however, Caetano’s mere possession of the stun gun that may have saved her life made her a criminal.”
Do you think stun guns should be banned from private ownership? Share your thoughts in the section below:
Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
SWITZERLAND’S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
IT’S A NO BRAINER!
You’re not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people.