…Graciously, the left had given Americans the opportunity to do as they were told, and they refused, costing the Democrats the House, the Senate, and the Presidency in 2016. There will be no more trying to rally Americans around to their way of thinking. “The people,” going forward, are the enemy. Because of that, the left will be forced to give us the government we “deserve to get… good and hard.”
When the enemy stands between those with blinding hatred in their hearts and the power they crave, there is nowhere else for them to go but to war.
There is just one problem with their strategy, Americans see what the Democrats have planned for them. Americans understand what is coming.
They are coming for those who will not acquiesce to the left’s plans for America. All that remains is how the people will react. Normal Americans have had enough — they are going to fight.
Trump can only do so much with the media and the Democrats in their entirety opposing him — so far, it’s miraculous how successful he has been against such odds. The left’s tactics have changed, as we’ve seen in the recent actions in Virginia. With the Democrats taking over the state government, the first legislation they have proposed for the next state legislative session is nothing more than gun confiscation.
Make no mistake, Virginia is a test. Unable to depose the president, they will proceed on a state-by-state basis to create the nation they long for. And disarming Americans is crucial for the Democrats as a first and necessary step, because an armed populace can say, “No!”
Will Virginians willingly give up their guns to the Democrats? Some might. After all, Virginia is proximate to D.C. and many will obey. Yet, many will not. Virginia will be the future, because the Democrats will brook no dissent. They will come heavy and hard and it won’t be long before there is gunfire, and someone is hurt or killed…
This report comes from Summit News, citing a speech that billionaire Presidential Candidate Michael “your-rights-are-void” Bloomberg announced during a speech in Aurora, CO on Thursday.
…Bloomberg went on to outline a gun control plan that includes every proposal that has ever been attempted, and has failed.
These include proposals to:
— Reinstate the federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
— Require every gun buyer to obtain a permit before making a purchase.
— Require point-of-sale background checks on all gun purchases while closing the gun show loophole.
— Institute a new age limit of 21 for those wishing to buy handguns, semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.
— Require a mandatory 48-hour waiting period for all gun purchases.
— Institute a federal “red flag” law to deny permits to “troubled people who pose a danger to themselves or others.”
— Institute a temporary ban on gun possession for those convicted of assault or other violent misdemeanors.
— Ban all guns in K-12 schools, colleges, and universities, except for law enforcement.
— Reverse the law that gives gun makers and gun dealers immunity from lawsuits.
— Create the position of White House gun coordinator “to mobilize the public to fight gun violence and launch an inter-agency hub to fight gun violence.”
“My agenda is not some johnny-come-lately list of borrowed ideas,“ Bloomberg claimed, adding “This is part of my life‘s work, and I‘m just telling you I will get this done whether I get elected or not.“
Addressing the proposal for permit requirement, Bloomberg attempted to conflate the idea with voting rights…
One of the events that inflamed tensions just prior to the US Civil War was the 1859 raid by abolitionist John Brown against a military arsenal at Harpers Ferry in Virginia (Now it’s in West Virginia). Brown was hoping to lead an uprising of slaves and establish an independent stronghold of freed slaves in the mountains. Slaves were, of course, denied the right to have arms, so the raid’s success would provide weapons to supply the slaves and other freedom fighters. But the raid was not a success. Ten of Brown’s men were killed during the raid and John Brown was executed for treason and murder. His last written words were, “I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood.”
2020 Presidential candidate, former New York City mayor, Democrat, billionaire, and wanna-be tyrant Michael Bloomberg recently spent millions to help the Democrats win majorities in the Virginia state house and senate. Shortly after the election, Governor Northam announced that they would begin “banning the sale of [semi-automatic firearms] and high-capacity magazines, restoring the law that limits purchases to one gun a month, and a red flag law that would empower a court to temporarily remove a gun from a person deemed to be a risk to himself or others” as soon as they could pass such laws. Northam additional said that confiscating firearms was something he is working on.
Democrat senators in Virginia submittled SB16 which among other things creates an extremely broad definition for “assualt firearm” and prohibits any person from “importing, selling, transferring, manufacturing, purchasing, possessing, or transporting” the same. There is no grandfather clause; possession is prohibited.
Last night, hundreds of Virginia citizens decended on a Virginia Beach city council meeting, calling for the city to become a Second Amendment sanctuary. Gloucester County earlier had voted to become a Second Amendment sanctuary. As of December 3rd, twenty-four counties in Virginia had adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions.
In the Declaration of Independence, our forefathers wrote that some of the most important, unalienable rights were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The rights and powers contained in the Bill of Rights all support those three unalienable rights. Most of the Bill of Rights are in support of the right of liberty. The Second Amendment is one of the few which supports all three. What good is your right to life without means to defend it? Those who claim that their right to life means that no one should be allowed arms are profoundly incorrect. Noted professor of law at the time of the Bill of Rights ratification St. George Tucker said “the right to self-defence is the first law of nature” and that the Second Amendment is “the true palladium of liberty.” A world without arms simply means that those with physical strength will take as they want. As the old saying goes, “God created men, but Sam Colt made them equal.” No tool so far invented is a greater equalizer in a fight against a superior opponent than a firearm.
The most dangerous words in this proposal are “knowing or having reason to know” and “in furtherance of”.
The reason being that intent is no longer really required, leaving every gun range owners and employees susceptible to prosecution for simply doing business. It’s plain as day why this language is the way it is, because with these key words, only loose connections need to be established to criminalize gun owners and enthusiasts.
Furthermore, civil disorder is also quite a broad term as well to be concerned about.
The Second Amendment has a prefatory clause, that being “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” Recently some people have opined that well regulated means that there may be laws banning certain firearms from ownership. What well regulated meant at the time, however, was that the populace making up the militia must be well trained at arms and their use in order to be effective as a fighting force. Banning training in the use of arms because it might be put to use in a civil disorder runs exactly counter to having well trained/regulated citizens.
Attempts to disarm the populace are attacks both on the people’s right to life and their right to liberty. (They are also attacks on the right to pursue happiness.) This is why such legislation is so vigorously opposed by firearms owneres. It isn’t because “they are gun lovers;” it’s because they love life and liberty. And this is why Viginia’s new direction is so dangerous. The rapid surge in sanctuary counties is telling of people’s sentiment. The government there may be satisfied to criminalize possession and then wait things out, but if there is a push toward confiscation things could get ugly. Any success will lead to other states following suit.
There is another old saying that there are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty – the soap box in which people use free speech to sway people to their cause; the ballot box in which the people try to vote in representatives who will actually represent them rather than succumb to other corrupt influences; the jury box in which people may show their dissatisfaction with laws through the use of jury nullification; and, finally, the cartridge box or ammo box through which people fight for their liberty.
The battles of Lexington and Concord were an attempt by our government to seize firearms so that the citizens could not fight back. They sparked the Revolutionary War. The raid on Harpers Ferry was an attempt to seize arms from the government so that slaves could fight for their freedom. It sparked the US Civil War. Could firearms confiscation in Virginia or in another state be the spark for a second, much uglier, civil war?
In addition to passing their Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolution, the county also passed a Militia Resolution. This resolution formalizes the creation, and maintenance of a defacto civilian militia in the county of Tazewell…
Author, economist and political scientist Ryan McMaken has an article at Mises on the Second Amendment and the militia clause. The analysis is, for the most part, good, but not new to those who spent time studying the history of the Second Amendment and the militia. I disagree where he says that “privately-armed citizens can only offer relatively token resistance” to today’s standing armies, and I suspect a lot of enemy fighters would disagree as well, unless we can call eighteen years of war against lightly armed Afghani resistance fighters “token.”
While many defenders of private gun ownership recognize that the Second Amendment was written to provide some sort of counterbalance against the coercive power of the state, this argument is often left far too vague to reflect an accurate view of this historical context surrounding the Amendment.
After all, it is frequently pointed out that private ownership of shotguns and semi-automatic rifles could offer only very limited resistance to the extremely well-equipped and well-armed United States military.
It is often, therefore, just assumed that the writers of the Second Amendment were naïve and incapable of seeing the vast asymmetries that would develop between military weaponry and the sort of weaponry the average person was likely to use.
Was the plan really to just have unorganized amateurs grab their rifles and repel the invasion of a well-trained military force?1
The answer is no, and we know this by looking at the wording and reasoning behind the Second Amendment. The text, of course, reads “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.”
Gun-rights advocates often fixate on the second half of the amendment, claiming that the phrase about a militia is just something that provides a reasoning for the second phrase. Many opponents of gun control even suggest that the only phrase here of key importance is “shall not be infringed.”
The Second Amendment as a Guard Against a Standing Army
Looking at the debates surrounding the Second Amendment and military power at the end of the eighteenth century, however, we find that the authors of the Second Amendment had a more sophisticated vision of gun ownership than is often assumed.
Fearful that a large federal military could be used to destroy the freedoms of the states themselves, Anti-Federalists and other Americans fearful of centralized power in the US government designed the Second Amendment accordingly. It was designed to guarantee that the states would be free to raise and train their own militias as a defense against federal power, and as a means of keeping a defensive military force available to Americans while remaining outside the direct control of the federal government.
This grew out of what was a well-established opposition to standing armies among Americans in the late eighteenth century. In his book Eagle and Sword: The Federalists and the Creation of the Military Establishment in America, 1783–1802, Richard Kohn writes:
No principle of government was more widely understood or more completely accepted by the generation of Americans that established the United States than the danger of a standing army in peacetime. Because a standing army represented the ultimate in uncontrolled and controllable power, any nation that maintained permanent forces surely risked the overthrow of legitimate government and the introduction of tyranny and despotism.
We can see this plainly in the speeches and writings of the Anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry, but we also see it in the more moderate attendees of the constitutional convention as well, such as George Mason, who “When once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty.”
Sentiments like Mason’s did not represent the views of oddball outliers. Rather, Kohn notes, these were mainstream views of the danger of an unimpeded federal military establishment.
But how to combat the power of a federal standing army?
On this, the Americans did not need to re-invent the wheel. After all, the idea of locally-controlled military forces answerable to civil officials was put into place in seventeenth-century England. The English militias had been created out of fear of a large standing army directly answerable to the king.
Although the system had fallen into disuse in England by the time the Americans were debating the matter in the eighteenth century, the Americans were well aware of this history.
These ideas were further developed at the Virginia ratifying convention where Patrick Henry mocked the idea that liberties could be preserved by simply “assembling the people.” Without locally controlled, military might, Henry noted, federal force could destroy the independence of the state governments. Similarly, George Mason concluded that the “militia … is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it.”
As historian Leon Friedman concludes, “the people organized in the state militias were regarded as a counterforce against the threat that the regular army could be used as an instrument of oppression and service in the militia was a right of the citizen that could not be transgressed by the federal government.”2
In light of this, it’s easier to see the key element offered by the “militia” phrase of the Second Amendment.
Even after the adoption of the new constitution, opposition to a powerful federal military continued. Congress opposed not only attempts to increase the size of the professional US army much beyond 1,000 men, but also opposed attempts to mandate any specific training in a “federally organized militia system.” In the end, opposition to federal control of military affairs meant training of militias was “left entirely to the states.”3
The “Unorganized Militia” and Private Gun Ownership
As Brion McClanahan has shown, the Second Amendment — like the First Amendment — was never written to apply to the states themselves, but to Congress. The states were still free to regulate the ownership of weaponry in their own constitutions and by their own legislatures. Most state governments, however, elected to include provisions in their own constitutions protecting private gun ownership as an element of the state’s overall militia strategy…
Most are familiar with the right to be armed, while wholly unfamiliar with the duty assigned to that right. The preservation of such right is predicated upon first being armed then proficiency at arms, followed by the assurance of violence should any other right be taken. Your duties accompanying the right of being armed is the capacity for all three of those qualifiers. And that violence must be both quick and decisive; violence has no other legitimate purpose aside from the preservation of one’s liberty.
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- Frustration and fury are the two main ingredients of what can best be described as a grassroots revolt in Washington State with the launch of a counter initiative effort to repeal gun control Initiative 1639, the extremist measure passed by about 60 percent of Evergreen State voters last November.
This isn’t a case of “sore losers” but legions of law-abiding private citizens who believe their right to bear arms under both the federal and state constitutions is being violated.
I-1639 has already resulted in one federal lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association, one declared candidacy for governor by a small town police chief, refusal by sheriff’s in a majority of the state’s 39 counties to enforce provisions of the measure, and the creation of a new crime, “Community Endangerment.” This carries either gross misdemeanor or Class C felony penalties, depending upon the violation.
The initiative also, for the first time in history, defined a firearm that, according to Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich, doesn’t really exist: the “semiautomatic assault rifle.” Under the language of I-1639, a “semiautomatic assault rifle” is “any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.” This translates to literally any self-loading rifle ever manufactured anywhere on the planet, according to critics.
There is no indication Sheriff Knezovich, or any of the other lawmen who opposed I-1639, is involved in this repeal effort.
Perhaps most famously, the initiative prohibits the purchase of a so-called “semiautomatic assault rifle” to anyone in the 18-20-year-old age group; young adults who can still join the military, get married, enter into contracts and vote. They just can’t exercise their Second Amendment right to purchase or own one of these firearms.
It also created a registry requirement.
The initiative was opposed by nearly every major law enforcement organization in the state, a fact that was systematically downplayed, if not ignored, by the establishment media. It was opposed by some newspapers, endorsed by others.
And now I-1639 has spawned the effort to erase it. The office of anti-gun Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who has spent the last three years filing lawsuits against the Trump administration and who was an early endorser of I-1639, has given this new effort a number and ballot title.
The new measure is Initiative 1094, and the ballot title approved by Ferguson’s says this:
“This measure would remove requirements for sale or delivery of semiautomatic assault rifles, remove certain age limitations for pistols and semiautomatic assault rifles, repeal crimes regarding firearm storage, and change other firearms-related laws.”
The language applies to rimfire as well as centerfire rifles, so such popular sporting guns as the Ruger 10/22, Remington Nylon 66, Marlin Model 60 and Browning SA-22, the popular “gallery gun,” all chambered for the .22 Long Rifle rimfire.
The ballot measure summary provided by Ferguson’s office explains:
“This measure would remove increased background checks, firearm safety training requirements, and waiting periods for purchase or transfer of semiautomatic assault rifles; remove certain age limitations for pistols and semiautomatic assault rifles; repeal crimes related to firearm storage and firearm sales to unauthorized persons; modify requirements for private, non-dealer transfer of firearms; and repeal or amend other firearms-related laws, including requirements for recordkeeping, notification to law enforcement of firearms sales and denials, and background checks.”
The campaign, according to activist John Valle, is so far being conducted via social media. Initiative forms were being printed, and Valle said copies will be available for downloading online for printing on an 11×17-inch sheet.
Valle told Ammoland News, “We have a network of volunteers. Every Patriot group is on board and I’ve got 23 gun shop owners in Eastern Washington who will put it in their shop.”
He has spoken with gun show operators, and there is a growing legion of volunteer signature gatherers who plan to canvas the state.
Here’s the downside. The goal of this unorganized grassroots movement is to collect 5,000 valid signatures every day in order to turn in 300,000 signatures to the Secretary of State’s office.
The deadline for signature turn-in is Jan. 3, 2020 for the measure to appear on the November 2020 ballot, where it faces the likelihood of disappearing amid the presidential, congressional, gubernatorial and legislative election choices.
Among those involved in this effort is Nick Culp, son of Republic Police Chief Loren Culp. He’s the lawman who famously went before the Republic City Council following the passage of I-1639 to declare he would not enforce it and ask that Republic become a “Second Amendment sanctuary.” Sheriffs around the state followed suit, and more than a half-dozen county commissions also expressed opposition to enforcement.
The lawsuit, meanwhile, is lumbering forward. It is joined by gun shop owners in Spokane and Vancouver, and three private citizens in the affected age group. Currently, in the discovery phase, there may not be a hearing or trial until sometime next year.
Backers of the initiative are fired up, though they realize the challenge is formidable. I-1639 supporters spent about $5 million on their campaign. Valle, a Spokane-area resident, told Ammoland that he has no budget, and really can’t start a PAC.
But what this effort has is devoted participants. Getting enough signatures to validate is only half the problem they face. If the measure does quality, supporters face a daunting campaign in which they will almost certainly be out-spent by the Seattle-based gun prohibition lobby, which is bankrolled by billionaires and wealthy elitists, living primarily in a handful of zip codes in and around the Seattle area.
Sheriff Knezovich theorized earlier this year that the reason this measure included a definition of “semiautomatic assault rifle” is to lay the groundwork for a future effort, either via legislation or another initiative, to ban such guns. Anti-gunners think in the long term, he indicated at the time.
Attorney General William Barr is reportedly floating a proposal to expand background checks for gun buyers that is similar to an unsuccessful 2013 bill sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.) and Patrick Toomey (R–Pa.). The proposal would require background checks for “all advertised commercial sales, including gun sales at gun shows.”
Manchin and Toomey’s Public Safety and Second Amendment Protection Act would have required that federally licensed firearm dealers, who are already required to conduct background checks, be involved in all sales at gun shows and all transfers resulting from online or print ads. It explicitly exempted transfers “between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins.”
Barr’s proposal would do pretty much the same thing, but it also would authorize licenses for “transfer agents” to help gun owners comply with the background check requirement. The idea, presumably, is that the new category of licensees would make compliance easier by providing an alternative to firearm dealers.
This proposal is less sweeping than the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, which the House of Representatives approved last February. That bill, which was supported by 232 Democrats but only eight Republicans, would ban almost all gun transfers by people who are not licensed dealers. It applies to any sale, whether or not it happens at a gun show and whether or not the firearm was advertised.
The House bill makes an exception for “a transfer that is a loan or bona fide gift between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, including step-parents and their step-children, between siblings, between aunts or uncles and their nieces or nephews, or between grandparents and their grandchildren.” If money changes hands, in other words, a background check would be required even for transfers between relatives.
Both proposals share the same problems as any other effort to expand the reach of background checks. First, the categories of prohibited buyers are irrationally and unfairly broad, encompassing millions of people who have never shown any violent tendencies, including cannabis consumers, unauthorized U.S. residents, people who have been convicted of nonviolent felonies, and anyone who has ever undergone mandatory psychiatric treatment because he was deemed suicidal.
Second, background checks are not an effective way to prevent mass shootings…
To say that Turkey did not enjoy a smooth transition from being the seat of the collapsing Ottoman Empire, through World War One and into the modernist Ataturk era, would be a massive understatement. In those turbulent times, ethnic Turks, Muslims composing the vast majority of the population, considered their Christian minorities, especially the Armenians, to be disloyal and treacherous.
In 1911, a national gun registration law was passed in Turkey, with no apparent ill intention beyond increasing public safety. In 1915, during The Great War, these gun registration lists were used to disarm the Armenian and other Christian populations. Army battalions cordoned off entire towns and did gun sweeps. Once disarmed, the official state violence visited against the Armenians ratcheted up to murderous levels. Typically, on town-wide sweeps, all of the men and boys were taken away by the Turkish soldiers, never to be seen or heard from again…
…A new low standard had been set. A nation’s leaders could commit genocide against a despised minority, murder two million living souls in full view, and the world would not give a good damn. It was an important lesson for future dictators, leading to even greater mass murders under the Nazis and Soviets.
And the German Nazis and the Soviet Communists learned another crucial lesson from the Turks: national gun registration laws could be passed easily in the name of dubious “public safety,” and the registration lists could be used later to disarm selected minorities and then subsequently to arrest, deport, and murder them by the millions after they were helpless to resist…
In this video are some common sense statements by Colion Noir. Because many acts of self-defense go unreported, there are no government statistics on self-defense uses of firearms. That said researchers have found that firearms are used in self-defense anywhere between 300,000 and 2,000,000 times a year in the USA. The next time someone mentions “the health cost of gun crime victims” as a reason you shouldn’t be allowed to own a firearm, you can ask them how much more the cost would be of adding a million crime victims.
Benton County Commissioners are publicly showing their opposition to Initiative 1639.
On Tuesday [April 2, 2019], commissioners unanimously approved a resolution that supports Sheriff Jerry Hatcher’s opposition to the initiative, which imposes strict gun regulations statewide.
The resolution is meant to “recognize the right of citizens of Benton County to self-defense with the legal and constitutional right to lawfully purchase, own and possess firearms as permitted under the federal and state constitutions,” according to a news release.
Sheriff Hatcher was one of more than a dozen sheriffs across the state who have said they will not enforce I-1639, claiming that the legislation violates citizens’ Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Commissioner Shon Small told KAPP-KVEW the resolution is meant to send a message to the community on where he and his fellow county leaders stand on the matter.
“The bottom line is that we believe in our citizens of Benton County, we believe in our sheriff, we’re going to support our sheriff and any kind of law enforcement action that he’s planning on doing, specifically toward 1639,” said Small.
Don Brockett is the former Spokane County prosecuting attorney (1969-1994), and author of The Tyrannical Rule Of The U.S. Supreme Court: How The Court Has Violated The Constitution. He wrote this opinion piece which appeared in the Spokesman-Review on March 13, 2019.
Recently, Gov. Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson sent a letter to gun dealers about the provisions of Initiative 1639. Ferguson previously criticized sheriffs who are resisting the passage of the initiative. The sheriffs are correct; the governor and attorney general are wrong.
As state elected officials, Inslee and Ferguson take the following oath: “… I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the state of Washington, …”
The foundational documents of our state and nation are the Washington and U.S. Constitutions. These documents establish contracts between the people and their governments and form the basis for our constitutional republic. Both contracts have provisions for their change by amendment (WA Article XXIII, U.S. Article V).
Article I, Section 24 of the Washington Constitution provides:
RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired … .
The provisions of Initiative 1639 certainly “impair” the right to bear arms in violation of the provisions of the Washington Constitution and therefore can only be changed by amendment. Since the attempt to change the gun laws was not accomplished by that process, the provisions of Initiative 1639 are void.
In addition, Article I, Section 2 of the Washington Constitution provides:
SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides:
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.
It is equally clear that the provisions of Initiative 1639 “infringe” on the right to bear arms under the language of the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution and are therefore void. Such a change would have to occur by amendment of that document.
Is it true that court proceedings should have to occur when laws are passed in violation of the mandated procedure? Even the ones that are void because of the manner in which they were established? The argument is made that Initiative 1639 expressed the will of the people. That may be true but all citizens and especially a lawyer guided by the contracts we call the Washington and U.S. Constitutions know that their provisions can only be changed by amendment. The initiative process allowed by Article II, Section 1 of the Washington Constitution is not an amendment.
A contract must be followed as written, until it is changed by amendment by the allowed procedure. Any other attempt to change the language or effect of the language in a constitution is void.
A simple example may make it clearer to see that the suggestions of the governor and attorney general would be dangerous. What if an initiative approved by the people were to take away the right of free speech or free press? Would they then argue that a vote on such an initiative should be followed until a lawsuit is brought and a court decides the issue? What if the initiative were to allow a search and seizure without a warrant being obtained based on probable cause? Would we all blindly accept such a change without the constitutional language being amended under the amendment articles and have to bring a lawsuit for a court to decide the issue? So even if the action is void we would have the burden to question it by filing a lawsuit and waiting for a decision in the meantime suffering a loss of our rights? To suggest such a procedure is ridiculous.
The governor and attorney general should obey their oaths and follow the provisions of the Washington and U.S. Constitutions or they should leave office. That is what they signed up to do.
Scott Brumback of the Washington Strikes Back movement will be speaking at the next LVA General Meeting on March 14th at Caffe Villa, 602 7th St, Prosser, WA at 6:30 PM. Washington Strikes Back seeks to hold AG Ferguson accountable for violation of his oath to uphold the US and Washington Constitutions and for overstepping the authority of his office.
Update from 3/6/19 as posted by Scott on Facebook:
Yakima filing update.
First, I talked with the district court clerk today. She is very nice, cordial, cooperative and is working to help this be a fair, open hearing. I detect no bias or consternation at all. Very professional. She’s helping to make sure we have a projector and screen to put up exhibits.
Second, we have a cause number that this action is filed under in the clerk’s office. It is: “Citizen 01”. We are the first. If you wish to submit an Affidavit, you may… do so. You can file the completed affidavit at the Yakima County District Court Clerk’s office this week. After that, I would recommend that you bring the affidavit to the court with you.
Third, we have a judge assigned from Benton County. His name is Judge Terry Tanner. He did his undergrad study at the University of Washington and law school at Pepperdine University. He is a prior city attorney for Richland, Pasco, West Richland and Connell. He appears to have a good background to hear this matter. I have no concerns at this point.
Fourth, the hearing is TENTATIVELY set for Friday, March 15, at 11:00 a.m. at the Yakima County District Court in Grandview, WA The district court clerk is still finalizing this. It may change, but I doubt it. I will post any update about that if it occurs.
Again, citizen attendance is welcome. Those who filled out Affidavits for Yakima are encouraged to attend. I hope that we all conduct ourselves accordingly. It is important for the judge to see concerned, responsible citizens standing up for their rights.
Below are videos of a seminar that he gave last month.
In the video below, Scott Brumback speaks at a Liberty State rally in Olympia.
In the video below, Yakima County Sheriff Bob Udell discusses I-1639 at the same meeting as the seminar above.
UPDATE:This event has been cancelled. You could still ask the commissioners to support such a resolution on your own.
There is an effort afoot to get the Benton County commissioners to sign a resolution in opposition to I-1639 similar to the resolution signed by Franklin County commissioners on January 29th. The organizer, Lisa Thomas, will be presenting a copy of the Franklin County resolution to the commissioners at the March 5th, 2019 commissioner meeting. If you can attend to support this resolution, that would be great. The board meeting is at 9:00 AM, Tuesday, Mar. 5 at the Benton County Courthouse in Prosser.
On behalf of Benton County, as a United States citizen, I am requesting that you (elected to represent me) sign a Resolution (just like Franklin County did- first in the State) supporting our Sheriff, and our Constitutional rights.
These gun initiatives are unconstitutional. They are infringing (impairing) my right to bear arms. When you took office, you took an oath: it is your DUTY to protect my rights.
A Resolution by Benton County tells the State, that we support our Sheriff (the CEO of our County); because it is also his duty to protect my rights and uphold the Constitution.
I have attached Franklin County’s template. I will draft my own and will be bringing it to Tuesday’s meeting to present during Public Comment- along with Radona Grossman-Devereaux who WROTE the repeal bill. Please be prepared to sign it.
Do you believe in the constitutional right to keep and bear arms? Do you stand with Yakima County Sheriff Bob Udell’s position that I-1639 is unconstitutional? Do you believe that WA Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s endorsement and support of I-1639 was wrong, a violation of his oath, a violation of the US and WA Constitution(s), and that he overstepped the authority of his office?
If you wish to take action, join fellow patriotic Washington citizens, Tuesday, Feb. 19, at 6:30 pm, for our concerned citizens’ event. (Yakima Convention Center)
MAKE a stand and hear how you can make a difference.
LEARN how you can stand with our constitutions.
HOLD AG Ferguson accountable.
Free admission. Coffee and water provided.
Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 6:30 PM – 8:30 PM PST