As I worry about violent backlash against Obama and the liberals overt assault on our liberties, it comforts me to know an organization like Oath Keepers exists. Soon the House begins consideration of H.R. 45, a bill that is nothing less than a blatant attempt to infringe upon your privacy rights as a gun owner by enforcing registration of all firearms. There will now be a firearm registry, just like a sex offender registry.

The abuse of power by government and military is not limited to liberal administrations as evidenced by this video from Oath Keepers. Part of the video deals with the aftermath of Katrina and the role the government, police, and military played in infringing upon the constitutional rights of the citizens of New Orleans. Whether you are liberal or conservative does not matter, the theft of these rights knows no ideology. Watch as what appear to be armed police or military literally attack an old woman, forcefully remove her firearm and then arrest her.

All military, police, politicians, and judges take an oath to protect the constitution. This is not an oath to follow the President’s orders if they conflict with constitutional rights. Or any orders by any politician, superior officer, or judge for that matter if those orders violate another’s constitutional rights. The oath itself is to “uphold the constitution”, not “uphold the President”. Oath Keepers is an organization which reaffirms this oath and identifies oaths they will not obey. It is an organization that is growing by the day. Military and police personnel should search their souls. As the protectors and warriors of society, they must make up their minds how to wield the powers they possess and decide for themselves the meaning of the oath taken. It is clear to me, however, that if an order violates the constitutional rights of any citizen, then duty demands the order be disobeyed – regardless of who gives it.

The Oath Keepers Declaration Of Orders We Will Not Obey (go to the link for the full-length version):

• We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
• We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
• We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
• We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
• We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
• We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
• We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
• We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control.”
• We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
• We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

I hope a certain person hears the above loud and clear. I will leave it to the reader’s imagination to discern who I am referring to.

In other news and opinion:

Team Obama denies politicizing homeland security. Insert laugh track.

Culture of corruption: Rangel edition

Liberal Paranoia and the Kopechne Effect

Betsy Markey Tells The Truth In Front Of Large Astroturf Audience

Huffington Post on Mary Jo Kopechne’s Death: “Who Knows– Maybe She’d Feel It Was Worth It”. Sick.

“One of his favorite topics of humor was indeed Chappaquiddick itself”; Update: Audio added

Congressional Research Service: ObamaCare will cover illegal immigrants

Spreading the Health (Care) Around

Sneaking in under the radar – more liberty stealing legislation. I really can’t wait until 2010. As I said to a troll in a previous post, “Liberals are very much like arithmetic; they add trouble, subtract pleasure, divide attention, and multiply ignorance”.

Snopes verifies it is true. The full text of the bill can be found on the Library of Congress Website for further verification. Link sent to me by one of my Twitter followers. Thanks to ZanP.

Claim: A bill before Congress would prohibit ownership of handguns by those who have not obtained firearm licenses.

[Verified TRUE]

Example: [Collected via e-mail, February 2009]

It has started.

Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009.

We just learned yesterday about this on the Peter Boyles radio program.

Even gun shop owners didn’t know about this because it is flying under the radar.

To find out about this – go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information.

Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm – any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:

• It is registered
• You are fingerprinted
• You supply a current Driver’s License
• You supply your Social Security #
• You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing [this does not appear to be true - see below]

Each update – change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 – Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.

There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18.

They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.

If you think this is a joke – go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your family – pass this along.

Peter Boyles is on this and having guests. Listen to him on KHOW 630 a.m. in the morning. He suggests the best way to fight this is to tell all your friends about it and “spring into action”. Also he suggests we all join a pro-gun group like the Colorado Rifle Association, hunting associations, gun clubs and especially the NRA.

This is just a “termite” approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense – chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it.

This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not.

If you take my gun, only the criminal will have one to use against me. HR 45 only makes me/us less safe. After working with convicts for 26 years I know this bill, if passed, would make them happy and in less danger from their victims.

Variations: An August 2009 version of the Blair Holt e-mail combined it with the Handgun Safety and Registration Act e-mail that falsely claims a bill before Congress would require all handgun owners to list their firearms on their federal income tax returns.

Origins: On 10 May 2007, 16-year-old Chicago honor student Blair Holt was riding a bus to school when another teenager began firing a handgun in a gang-related attack. When Holt moved to shield a girl on the bus from the spray of bullets, he was himself hit in the abdomen and died.

At Blair Holt’s funeral, Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois (representing the state’s First Congressional district) promised to honor Holt’s memory by introducing a strong gun tracking bill in Congress. One month later, Rep. Rush introduced Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act to Congress, but it was referred to a subcommittee and languished there without ever having been voted upon. On 6 January 2009, Rush introduced essentially the same bill to Congress again as Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (H.R. 45).

In a nutshell, the Blair Holt bill would:

• Prohibit possession of any handguns or any semiautomatic firearms that can accept detachable ammunition-feeding devices (excluding antiques) by anyone who has not been issued a firearm license.
• Require all sales of those types of firearms to go through licensed dealers.
• Direct the Attorney General to establish and run a federal record-of-sale system.
• Require the possessors of firearms to secure them (by secure gun storage or safety devices) when they are kept in locales where children might be capable of gaining access to those firearms.

In order to be issued a firearm license under the provisions of the Blair Holt legislation, applicants would be required to submit the following information to the Attorney General:

• a current, passport-sized photograph of the applicant that provides a clear, accurate likeness of the applicant
• the name, address, and date and place of birth of the applicant
• any other name that the applicant has ever used or by which the applicant has ever been known
• a clear thumb print of the applicant, which shall be made when, and in the presence of the entity to whom, the application is submitted
• with respect to each category of person prohibited by Federal law, or by the law of the State of residence of the applicant, from obtaining a firearm, a statement that the individual is not a person prohibited from obtaining a firearm
• a certification by the applicant that the applicant will keep any firearm owned by the applicant safely stored and out of the possession of persons who have not attained 18 years of age
• a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination, which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding:
• the safe storage of firearms, particularly in the vicinity of persons who have not attained 18 years of age
• the safe handling of firearms
• the use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use
• the legal responsibilities of firearms owners, including Federal, State, and local laws relating to requirements for the possession and storage of firearms, and relating to reporting requirements with respect to firearms
• any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate
• an authorization by the applicant to release to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant
• the date on which the application was submitted
• the signature of the applicant

(Contrary to the example e-mail quoted above, the bill would not require applicants to “submit to a physical and mental evaluation at any time of their choosing”; applicants would have to authorize the release of any existing mental health records. Also, the right of inspection to ascertain compliance with the law would apply to “any place in which firearms or firearm products are manufactured, stored, or held, for distribution in commerce,” not to ordinary households.)

Proponents of the Blair Holt bill maintain that it is not an attempt to ban or otherwise infringe on the constitutional right to own or carry guns; it would simply establish a system for registering and tracking the ownership of guns that are used illegally, similar to the system currently used for automobiles. Opponents of the bill maintain that it “focuses on the instruments of crime rather than on the criminals who use the instruments,” and that, rather than targeting the criminal element, it “would simply further burden law-abiding people.”

As was the 2007 version of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act, the current version has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, and the fact that the bill does not have even a single co-sponsor makes it unlikely that it will ever be brought to a vote before Congress, much less passed. ESPN Outdoors correspondent Wade Bourne summed up the bill’s chances of passage thusly:

So, how likely is the Blair Holt bill’s chance for passage? Pro-gun activists are vigilant but don’t seem overly worried about it. They point out that the bill’s failure to attract co-sponsors is an indication of a lack of enthusiasm for it among other congressmen. They feel it is too far-reaching and repressive of gun owners’ rights to merit serious consideration by a majority of Congress.

Lawrence Keane of the NSSF [National Shooting Sports Foundation] states, “If this bill passes, Democrats would likely lose (control of) their chamber in upcoming mid-term elections (2010). The leadership in the House knows that.” Keane says some 80 million-plus U.S. citizens own firearms, representing nearly half the households in the nation. He believes that House Democrats will allow the Blair Holt bill to die in subcommittee rather than risk the ire of so many pro-gun voters.

In other news and opinion:

Oh, no: Here comes “Open Borders For Teddy”

Rush and Beck on the Fairness Doctrine threat

Guess who has a missile defense system? Thanks Obama – for nothing.

New Mexico GOP to Holder: Where’s the transparency?