6. May 2010 by Democratic Party News - The News of the Democratic Party.

Eric Holder with the help of the department of homeland security is attacking our second amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States. They have introduced a gun controll bill called H.R.2159, and it says discharged vets, gun owners and christians are potential domestic terrorist. Our love of freedom frightens these liberals to the point we are labled domestic terrorist. Quoting President Obama, “We are bitter uneducated people clinging to our guns.”

Our liberty is being attacked on so many fronts it will be hard to defeat them all. We must keep up our fight and must tell our congress a yes vote for H.R.2159 is a vote against them in November.

Posted in Right To Bear Arms, WakeUp America, Democratic Party, Constitution Violations | 9 Comments »

22. February 2010 by Democratic Party News - The News of the Democratic Party.

George Soros is funding the United Nations Gun Control treaty, and Hillary Clinton is pushing this agenda. Our Congress would have to ratify this treaty, and from what I understand, this treaty is unbreakable if Congress does ratify it. This would make Onazi very happy; this way he can impose a tyrannical government upon us to have total control over our lives. These people have to be stopped!

Constitution of the United States:

AMENDMENT II

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Posted in Right To Bear Arms, Socialism In America, WakeUp America, Constitution Violations | Comments Off

16. January 2010 by Democratic Party News - The News of the Democratic Party.

Imagine a state law that says that any federal agent that comes into said state and runs afoul of a new state law should be considered a felon! Well, that is what New Hampshire is about to do if HB1285 passes during the coming 2010 legislative session.

HB1285 is another one of those laws that exempts all firearms and firearms accessories that are made in a state from certain federal restrictions if they remain in that state. Several states have made attempts to implement these 10th Amendment laws and New Hampshire intends to be one of the next to do so.

Thus far Montana and Tennessee have passed their own firearms freedom acts and thirteen or so other states have introduced or are introducing laws that exempts local firearms industries and accessories as well as in-state firearms owners from overweening federal gun banning laws.

To be sure, these laws have not yet been challenged in a Supreme Court case and there is no doubt that they will be, but until that happens as each state passes its own firearms act exempting its in-state manufacturers and owners from federal laws we cannot help but expect an increasing amount of tension to build up between the states and the federal government as a result.

All that said, there is an interesting aspect of the New Hampshire law that goes a step beyond that of other states, that being the aforementioned idea of making felons of federal agents that dare to try and implement federal firearms laws that conflict with the new state laws.

Here is section II. of the Penalty section of New Hampshire’s proposed new Lawful Commerce in Firearms law: (my emphasis) II. Any official, agent, or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B felony.

Interesting is it not? This law would make a felon of any federal agent that tries to implement a federal firearms law that conflicts with New Hampshire’s new firearms law. That is simply an astonishing flourish, is it not?

Whatever happens these laws are setting up a certain clash between the states and the federal government. unless the federal government follows the states to the same destination for firearms regulations, that is.

So, it’s a waiting game. Which will come first? Will the feds follow the states to the same firearm regulation conclusions or will the feds haul the states into court?

It ought to be an interesting few years in firearms law making.

Posted in State Sovereignty, Federal Government, Right To Bear Arms | No Comments »

15. January 2010 by Democratic Party News - The News of the Democratic Party.

A front-page headline in the January 1, 2010 edition of the Washington Post read “Homicide totals in 2009 plummet in District, Prince Georges.” The story below detailed how the number of murders in the U.S. Capital had dropped to the lowest level in 45 years.

Last year was also the first full year since the Washington D.C. handgun ban was overturned by the Supreme Court - meaning it was the first full year Washington D.C. residents could legally keep handguns in their homes - yet the front page story didn’t even mention the case. If the murder rate had gone up even .1%, you can be sure our Democratic Party representatives in Washington and the Washington Post Newspaper would’ve pointed out that handguns had been legalized.

To help get this story out, we direct your attention to this op-ed piece that sheds light on the Post’s omission.

Read full article…

Posted in Right To Bear Arms, Politics | No Comments »

24. October 2009 by Democratic Party News - The News of the Democratic Party.

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

** SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE **

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.”

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: “The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States.” In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, “that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.”

“This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.”

The Honorable William Gordon

Congressional Record, House, Page 640 – 1917

Posted in Militia, Right To Bear Arms, WakeUp America, Politics | No Comments »