Archive for category 2nd AMENDMENT ISSUES




Yea, you read that right..  I am at a loss on explaining how this could be a good thing for the American People.  Are they (The Feds) afraid that in the event of an emergency (martial law) that US troops will not fire on US citizens if ordered to?  This is beyond the pale and unacceptable on so many levels it is beyond explanation.  THERE NEEDS TO BE A FULL AND COMPLETE EXPOSE’ AND INVESTIGATION DONE ON THIS NOW!!!  Here are the reports:



1 Comment


1 Comment




Until I heard Dick Morris on Hannity today, I thought that we were going to be ok on this issue because it takes 2/3rds of the Senate to ratify any treaty, and since there is no way 2/3rds of the Senate would sign on to this, we were going to be good. Well, according to Dick Morris, in this case, this is not true. According to him, because the United States is a signator of the Geneva Conventions (I think this is what he said, I was driving and a little distracted, but the rest was clear), it will become binding upon the signature of the President and will remain so until the Senate votes to renounce it along with the President and Sec. of State. This of course will not happen if we lose these elections and even in the event of a lame duck senate, they will try to push this crap through. I urge you all to share this as much as possible and pass the word. Sign the petition and state your displeasure in the body of the letter to your Reps like I did.This is nothing short of an “End Run” around the Constitution and the will of the American Citizens and cannot be allowed to succeed.  These people MUST pay the political price at the polls this election cycle.  NEVER LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT , it is the Dems who are working feverishly to get your guns and turn this nation into just another socialist European nation and they must be taken out of office now!



After doing a lot of detective work, I was able to decipher what is really going on with this issue.  First, it was not the Geneva Convention that Morris cited.  It was the Vienna Convention.  Most of the hub-bub is about section 12 of this document which basically outlines the binding nature of the document via the signators.  After finding this information I was lead to Richard Nixon who sent this to the Senate; 

Now you will read on this document; 185 – Message to the Senate Transmitting the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes  May 5, 1969.  I underline the key thing here…  Finding this, I went to Thomas/Library of Congress  and did a search for treaty “Vienna Convention”.  This is what is shown for the treaty in question;

Type:   International Law and Organization
Countries:   un–multilateral
Formal Title:   The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, signed for the United States on April 24, 1970

Legislative Actions   

Floor Action:   November 22, 1971 – Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations by unanimous consent.

Committee Action:   August 03, 1972 – Committee on Foreign Relations. Hearings held.
Committee Action:   August 08, 1972 – Committee on Foreign Relations. Committee consideration held.
Committee Action:   September 07, 1972 – Committee on Foreign Relations. Ordered to be reported with understandings and interpretation.
Committee Action:   September 19, 1972 – Committee on Foreign Relations. Committee consideration held.
Committee Action:   November 08, 1973 – Committee on Foreign Relations. Committee consideration held.
Committee Action:   April 30, 1974 – Committee on Foreign Relations. Committee consideration held. Index Terms :  
T.DOC. 92-12
Control Number:  092TD00012
So as you can see, it was tabled and not ratified.  Therefore is non sequitur as it relates to this case in question.  Now there is another Vienna Convention treaty that WAS ratified, and that was  “VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS WITH OPTIONAL PROTOCOL”.  The information is as follows:
Treaty Number:   91-5
Old Number:   Ex. E, 91st Congress, 1st Session
Transmitted:   May 05, 1969
Type:   Consular
Countries:   n/a
Senate Executive Report(s):   91-9
Related Document(s):   Ex. Rept. 91-9

Legislative Actions   

Floor Action:   May 05, 1969 – Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations by unanimous consent.
Floor Action:   October 21, 1969 – Reported by Senator Fulbright Committee on Foreign Relations, with printed report – Ex.Rept. 91-9.
Floor Action:   October 22, 1969 – Resolution of advice and consent to ratification agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay vote. 81-0. Record Vote No: 130 EX. Index Terms :  
Control Number:  091TD00005
So with all this being said, it looks like Dick Morris is a little off base on this issue.  This Vienna Convention treaty has nothing to do with the subject matter at hand so it seems that the Senate will still have to ratify this Arms treaty should Hillary and Obama sign us into it.  From all the reporting I am finding, it will be DOA in the Senate as there ae more than enough votes to kill it.  Below I am including a bunch of links that lead me to my conclusions.  I hope this information helps.    Go to Thomas and research 91st and 92nd congress/senate vienna convention.  Here will be the definitive data on the subject…

UPDATED 080112

The UN failed their attempt at this nefarious plan.  Click HERE for the details.

1 Comment



Leave it to the little industrious commie legislators to look for every work-around possible on getting around the 2nd Amendment.  Hey, if they can’t outlaw or otherwise further regulate guns, they are going to go after the ammunition we need to make them functional…  If this legislation passes, it will be the camel nose under the tent and the full court press on taxing ammo will begin.  I urge all to keep an eye on your own legislature in order to be on top of this subject should it raise its ugly head in your state…  Click the pic for the story…

Leave a comment

FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS – Why we have the 2nd Amendment – Charlton Heston

Leave a comment


Don't let the thieves get you guns!!

This is an excerpt from a newsletter I get that I thought I would pass on to all who exercise their 2nd Amendment rights;

While I was in a Denver gun store today, my car was tagged on the wheel in the parking lot. The gangs do this on
wheels or bumpers at gun stores, shooting ranges, gun shows etc. Later when you are parked at a restaurant, hotel, or
other location that’s less well guarded or not under video surveillance, other gang members spot the marker and break into the car fora quick gun grab. This is so RAMPANT in San Antonio where we were for a National shoot this summer, the police chief of that county came out to brief the 400 participants of our competition. Too bad three teams had already been victimized the first day. This is the first I’ve heard of this in Denver . Please pass this info along to your 2nd amendment list.
This next comment from a Gunsite instructor:
I don’t know how widespread this is becoming , but the info regarding the NSCA Nationals in San Antonio is correct, as all of us who compete in sporting clays know. Competitors there were having their vehicles marked with a small adhesive dot on the rear license plate or rear bumper, then followed for miles and having their vehicles quickly and efficiently broken in to when parked for lunch etc. Some crews were working the parking lot at the Nationals itself. 27 high-end shotguns were taken there recently. They know when 1400 shooters with high $$ competition guns are in town. BTW I shot with a young man who was trying out a new gun at the Nationals.
He and his father lost all their guns and equipment while making a quick stop for lunch at a BBQ place in Corpus Christi the month before. Please be aware that other could target you because of your affiliation with the National Guard or a gun club or store.

Leave a comment



As this article outlines, this bill is so draconian you might as well tear up the Bill of Rights.  I am appalled that Congress would do such a thing.  It is now legal to use the might of the United States military against its own citizens in the USA.  All the government needs to do is use the laws and guidelines, the very same ones I have been highlighting on this web site, determine that whatever you are doing falls within the “you might be a terrorist if” guidelines published by the DHA, and the next thing you know, you have the DOD breaking down your door at 3am and hauling you off to jail because simply, they can….  That IS where we are now thanks to the very people who we sent to DC to protect our rights and I am so very disappointed in my Rep.  She is a Freshman and was specifically sent to NOT do what she just did.  Check the list below to see how your Rep voted.  It is truly a bleak and black day in and for America………………

Votes by Representative

Name Voted
Rep. Gary Ackerman [D, NY-5] Aye
Rep. Sandy Adams [R, FL-24] Aye
Rep. Robert Aderholt [R, AL-4] Aye
Rep. Todd Akin [R, MO-2] Aye
Rep. Rodney Alexander [R, LA-5] Aye
Rep. Jason Altmire [D, PA-4] Aye
Rep. Justin Amash [R, MI-3] Nay
Rep. Mark Amodei [R, NV-2] Aye
Rep. Robert Andrews [D, NJ-1] Aye
Rep. Steve Austria [R, OH-7] Aye
Rep. Joe Baca [D, CA-43] Aye
Rep. Michele Bachmann [R, MN-6] Abstain
Rep. Spencer Bachus [R, AL-6] Aye
Rep. Tammy Baldwin [D, WI-2] Nay
Rep. Lou Barletta [R, PA-11] Aye
Rep. John Barrow [D, GA-12] Aye
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R, MD-6] Aye
Rep. Joe Barton [R, TX-6] Aye
Rep. Karen Bass [D, CA-33] Nay
Rep. Charles Bass [R, NH-2] Aye
Rep. Xavier Becerra [D, CA-31] Nay
Rep. Dan Benishek [R, MI-1] Aye
Rep. Rick Berg [R, ND-0] Aye
Rep. Shelley Berkley [D, NV-1] Aye
Rep. Howard Berman [D, CA-28] Aye
Rep. Judy Biggert [R, IL-13] Aye
Rep. Brian Bilbray [R, CA-50] Aye
Rep. Gus Bilirakis [R, FL-9] Aye
Rep. Sanford Bishop [D, GA-2] Aye
Rep. Timothy Bishop [D, NY-1] Aye
Rep. Rob Bishop [R, UT-1] Aye
Rep. Diane Black [R, TN-6] Aye
Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R, TN-7] Aye
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D, OR-3] Nay
Rep. Jo Bonner [R, AL-1] Aye
Rep. Mary Bono Mack [R, CA-45] Aye
Rep. Dan Boren [D, OK-2] Aye
Rep. Leonard Boswell [D, IA-3] Aye
Rep. Charles Boustany [R, LA-7] Aye
Rep. Kevin Brady [R, TX-8] Aye
Rep. Robert Brady [D, PA-1] Aye
Rep. Bruce Braley [D, IA-1] Nay
Rep. Mo Brooks [R, AL-5] Aye
Rep. Paul Broun [R, GA-10] Aye
Rep. Corrine Brown [D, FL-3] Aye
Rep. Vern Buchanan [R, FL-13] Aye
Rep. Larry Bucshon [R, IN-8] Nay
Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle [R, NY-25] Aye
Rep. Michael Burgess [R, TX-26] Nay
Rep. Dan Burton [R, IN-5] Nay
Rep. George Butterfield [D, NC-1] Aye
Rep. Ken Calvert [R, CA-44] Aye
Rep. David Camp [R, MI-4] Aye
Rep. John Campbell [R, CA-48] Nay
Rep. Francisco Canseco [R, TX-23] Aye
Rep. Eric Cantor [R, VA-7] Aye
Rep. Shelley Capito [R, WV-2] Aye
Rep. Lois Capps [D, CA-23] Aye
Rep. Michael Capuano [D, MA-8] Nay
Rep. Dennis Cardoza [D, CA-18] Aye
Rep. Russ Carnahan [D, MO-3] Aye
Rep. John Carney [D, DE-0] Aye
Rep. André Carson [D, IN-7] Nay
Rep. John Carter [R, TX-31] Aye
Rep. Bill Cassidy [R, LA-6] Aye
Rep. Kathy Castor [D, FL-11] Aye
Rep. Steven Chabot [R, OH-1] Aye
Rep. Jason Chaffetz [R, UT-3] Nay
Rep. Ben Chandler [D, KY-6] Aye
Rep. Judy Chu [D, CA-32] Nay
Rep. David Cicilline [D, RI-1] Aye
Rep. Hansen Clarke [D, MI-13] Nay
Rep. Yvette Clarke [D, NY-11] Nay
Rep. William Clay [D, MO-1] Nay
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver [D, MO-5] Nay
Rep. James Clyburn [D, SC-6] Nay
Rep. Howard Coble [R, NC-6] Abstain
Rep. Mike Coffman [R, CO-6] Nay
Rep. Steve Cohen [D, TN-9] Nay
Rep. Tom Cole [R, OK-4] Aye
Rep. Michael Conaway [R, TX-11] Aye
Rep. Gerald Connolly [D, VA-11] Aye
Rep. John Conyers [D, MI-14] Nay
Rep. Jim Cooper [D, TN-5] Aye
Rep. Jim Costa [D, CA-20] Aye
Rep. Jerry Costello [D, IL-12] Nay
Rep. Joe Courtney [D, CT-2] Aye
Rep. Chip Cravaack [R, MN-8] Aye
Rep. Rick Crawford [R, AR-1] Aye
Rep. Ander Crenshaw [R, FL-4] Aye
Rep. Mark Critz [D, PA-12] Aye
Rep. Joseph Crowley [D, NY-7] Aye
Rep. Henry Cuellar [D, TX-28] Aye
Rep. John Culberson [R, TX-7] Aye
Rep. Elijah Cummings [D, MD-7] Nay
Rep. Geoff Davis [R, KY-4] Aye
Rep. Susan Davis [D, CA-53] Aye
Rep. Danny Davis [D, IL-7] Nay
Rep. Peter DeFazio [D, OR-4] Nay
Rep. Diana DeGette [D, CO-1] Nay
Rep. Rosa DeLauro [D, CT-3] Nay
Rep. Jeff Denham [R, CA-19] Aye
Rep. Charles Dent [R, PA-15] Aye
Rep. Scott DesJarlais [R, TN-4] Nay
Rep. Ted Deutch [D, FL-19] Aye
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart [R, FL-21] Abstain
Rep. Norman Dicks [D, WA-6] Aye
Rep. John Dingell [D, MI-15] Aye
Rep. Lloyd Doggett [D, TX-25] Aye
Rep. Bob Dold [R, IL-10] Aye
Rep. Joe Donnelly [D, IN-2] Aye
Rep. Michael Doyle [D, PA-14] Nay
Rep. David Dreier [R, CA-26] Aye
Rep. Sean Duffy [R, WI-7] Aye
Rep. Jeff Duncan [R, SC-3] Nay
Rep. John Duncan [R, TN-2] Nay
Rep. Donna Edwards [D, MD-4] Nay
Rep. Keith Ellison [D, MN-5] Nay
Rep. Renee Ellmers [R, NC-2] Aye
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson [R, MO-8] Aye
Rep. Eliot Engel [D, NY-17] Aye
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D, CA-14] Nay
Rep. Blake Farenthold [R, TX-27] Aye
Rep. Sam Farr [D, CA-17] Nay
Rep. Chaka Fattah [D, PA-2] Nay
Rep. Bob Filner [D, CA-51] Abstain
Rep. Stephen Fincher [R, TN-8] Aye
Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick [R, PA-8] Aye
Rep. Jeff Flake [R, AZ-6] Nay
Rep. Chuck Fleischmann [R, TN-3] Aye
Rep. John Fleming [R, LA-4] Aye
Rep. Bill Flores [R, TX-17] Aye
Rep. Randy Forbes [R, VA-4] Nay
Rep. Jeffrey Fortenberry [R, NE-1] Aye
Rep. Virginia Foxx [R, NC-5] Aye
Rep. Barney Frank [D, MA-4] Nay
Rep. Trent Franks [R, AZ-2] Aye
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen [R, NJ-11] Aye
Rep. Marcia Fudge [D, OH-11] Nay
Rep. Elton Gallegly [R, CA-24] Aye
Rep. John Garamendi [D, CA-10] Aye
Rep. Cory Gardner [R, CO-4] Aye
Rep. Scott Garrett [R, NJ-5] Nay
Rep. Jim Gerlach [R, PA-6] Aye
Rep. Bob Gibbs [R, OH-18] Aye
Rep. Chris Gibson [R, NY-20] Aye
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [D, AZ-8] Abstain
Rep. John Gingrey [R, GA-11] Aye
Rep. Louis Gohmert [R, TX-1] Aye
Rep. Charles Gonzalez [D, TX-20] Aye
Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R, VA-6] Nay
Rep. Paul Gosar [R, AZ-1] Nay
Rep. Trey Gowdy [R, SC-4] Nay
Rep. Kay Granger [R, TX-12] Aye
Rep. Tom Graves [R, GA-9] Nay
Rep. Samuel Graves [R, MO-6] Aye
Rep. Al Green [D, TX-9] Aye
Rep. Raymond Green [D, TX-29] Aye
Rep. Tim Griffin [R, AR-2] Aye
Rep. Morgan Griffith [R, VA-9] Nay
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D, AZ-7] Nay
Rep. Michael Grimm [R, NY-13] Aye
Rep. Frank Guinta [R, NH-1] Aye
Rep. Brett Guthrie [R, KY-2] Aye
Rep. Luis Gutiérrez [D, IL-4] Abstain
Rep. Janice Hahn [D, CA-36] Nay
Rep. Ralph Hall [R, TX-4] Aye
Rep. Colleen Hanabusa [D, HI-1] Aye
Rep. Richard Hanna [R, NY-24] Aye
Rep. Gregg Harper [R, MS-3] Aye
Rep. Andy Harris [R, MD-1] Nay
Rep. Vicky Hartzler [R, MO-4] Aye
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D, FL-23] Nay
Rep. Doc Hastings [R, WA-4] Aye
Rep. Nan Hayworth [R, NY-19] Aye
Rep. Joe Heck [R, NV-3] Aye
Rep. Martin Heinrich [D, NM-1] Nay
Rep. Jeb Hensarling [R, TX-5] Aye
Rep. Walter Herger [R, CA-2] Aye
Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler [R, WA-3] Aye
Rep. Brian Higgins [D, NY-27] Aye
Rep. James Himes [D, CT-4] Aye
Rep. Maurice Hinchey [D, NY-22] Nay
Rep. Rubén Hinojosa [D, TX-15] Nay
Rep. Mazie Hirono [D, HI-2] Aye
Rep. Kathleen Hochul [D, NY-26] Aye
Rep. Tim Holden [D, PA-17] Aye
Rep. Rush Holt [D, NJ-12] Nay
Rep. Michael Honda [D, CA-15] Nay
Rep. Steny Hoyer [D, MD-5] Aye
Rep. Tim Huelskamp [R, KS-1] Nay
Rep. Bill Huizenga [R, MI-2] Nay
Rep. Randy Hultgren [R, IL-14] Aye
Rep. Duncan Hunter [R, CA-52] Aye
Rep. Robert Hurt [R, VA-5] Nay
Rep. Jay Inslee [D, WA-1] Aye
Rep. Steve Israel [D, NY-2] Aye
Rep. Darrell Issa [R, CA-49] Aye
Rep. Jesse Jackson [D, IL-2] Nay
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D, TX-18] Aye
Rep. Lynn Jenkins [R, KS-2] Aye
Rep. Eddie Johnson [D, TX-30] Abstain
Rep. Samuel Johnson [R, TX-3] Aye
Rep. Bill Johnson [R, OH-6] Aye
Rep. Henry Johnson [D, GA-4] Nay
Rep. Timothy Johnson [R, IL-15] Nay
Rep. Walter Jones [R, NC-3] Nay
Rep. Jim Jordan [R, OH-4] Aye
Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D, OH-9] Nay
Rep. William Keating [D, MA-10] Aye
Rep. Mike Kelly [R, PA-3] Aye
Rep. Dale Kildee [D, MI-5] Aye
Rep. Ronald Kind [D, WI-3] Aye
Rep. Steve King [R, IA-5] Aye
Rep. Peter King [R, NY-3] Aye
Rep. Jack Kingston [R, GA-1] Aye
Rep. Adam Kinzinger [R, IL-11] Aye
Rep. Larry Kissell [D, NC-8] Aye
Rep. John Kline [R, MN-2] Aye
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D, OH-10] Nay
Rep. Raúl Labrador [R, ID-1] Nay
Rep. Doug Lamborn [R, CO-5] Aye
Rep. Leonard Lance [R, NJ-7] Aye
Rep. Jeff Landry [R, LA-3] Aye
Rep. James Langevin [D, RI-2] Aye
Rep. James Lankford [R, OK-5] Aye
Rep. Rick Larsen [D, WA-2] Aye
Rep. John Larson [D, CT-1] Aye
Rep. Thomas Latham [R, IA-4] Aye
Rep. Steven LaTourette [R, OH-14] Abstain
Rep. Robert Latta [R, OH-5] Aye
Rep. Barbara Lee [D, CA-9] Nay
Rep. Sander Levin [D, MI-12] Aye
Rep. John Lewis [D, GA-5] Nay
Rep. Jerry Lewis [R, CA-41] Aye
Rep. Daniel Lipinski [D, IL-3] Aye
Rep. Frank LoBiondo [R, NJ-2] Aye
Rep. David Loebsack [D, IA-2] Aye
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D, CA-16] Nay
Rep. Billy Long [R, MO-7] Aye
Rep. Nita Lowey [D, NY-18] Aye
Rep. Frank Lucas [R, OK-3] Aye
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer [R, MO-9] Aye
Rep. Ben Luján [D, NM-3] Nay
Rep. Cynthia Lummis [R, WY-0] Nay
Rep. Daniel Lungren [R, CA-3] Aye
Rep. Stephen Lynch [D, MA-9] Abstain
Rep. Connie Mack [R, FL-14] Nay
Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D, NY-14] Nay
Rep. Donald Manzullo [R, IL-16] Aye
Rep. Kenny Marchant [R, TX-24] Aye
Rep. Thomas Marino [R, PA-10] Aye
Rep. Edward Markey [D, MA-7] Nay
Rep. Jim Matheson [D, UT-2] Aye
Rep. Doris Matsui [D, CA-5] Nay
Rep. Kevin McCarthy [R, CA-22] Aye
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D, NY-4] Aye
Rep. Michael McCaul [R, TX-10] Aye
Rep. Tom McClintock [R, CA-4] Nay
Rep. Betty McCollum [D, MN-4] Nay
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R, MI-11] Aye
Rep. James McDermott [D, WA-7] Nay
Rep. James McGovern [D, MA-3] Nay
Rep. Patrick McHenry [R, NC-10] Aye
Rep. Mike McIntyre [D, NC-7] Aye
Rep. Howard McKeon [R, CA-25] Aye
Rep. David McKinley [R, WV-1] Aye
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers [R, WA-5] Aye
Rep. Jerry McNerney [D, CA-11] Aye
Rep. Patrick Meehan [R, PA-7] Aye
Rep. Gregory Meeks [D, NY-6] Nay
Rep. John Mica [R, FL-7] Aye
Rep. Michael Michaud [D, ME-2] Nay
Rep. Candice Miller [R, MI-10] Aye
Rep. George Miller [D, CA-7] Nay
Rep. Bradley Miller [D, NC-13] Nay
Rep. Gary Miller [R, CA-42] Aye
Rep. Jeff Miller [R, FL-1] Aye
Rep. Gwen Moore [D, WI-4] Nay
Rep. James Moran [D, VA-8] Nay
Rep. Mick Mulvaney [R, SC-5] Nay
Rep. Christopher Murphy [D, CT-5] Nay
Rep. Tim Murphy [R, PA-18] Aye
Rep. Sue Myrick [R, NC-9] Abstain
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D, NY-8] Nay
Rep. Grace Napolitano [D, CA-38] Nay
Rep. Richard Neal [D, MA-2] Nay
Rep. Randy Neugebauer [R, TX-19] Aye
Rep. Kristi Noem [R, SD-0] Aye
Rep. Richard Nugent [R, FL-5] Aye
Rep. Devin Nunes [R, CA-21] Aye
Rep. Alan Nunnelee [R, MS-1] Aye
Rep. Pete Olson [R, TX-22] Aye
Rep. John Olver [D, MA-1] Nay
Rep. William Owens [D, NY-23] Aye
Rep. Steven Palazzo [R, MS-4] Aye
Rep. Frank Pallone [D, NJ-6] Nay
Rep. William Pascrell [D, NJ-8] Aye
Rep. Edward Pastor [D, AZ-4] Aye
Rep. Ronald Paul [R, TX-14] Abstain
Rep. Erik Paulsen [R, MN-3] Aye
Rep. Donald Payne [D, NJ-10] Nay
Rep. Steven Pearce [R, NM-2] Aye
Rep. Nancy Pelosi [D, CA-8] Aye
Rep. Mike Pence [R, IN-6] Nay
Rep. Ed Perlmutter [D, CO-7] Aye
Rep. Gary Peters [D, MI-9] Nay
Rep. Collin Peterson [D, MN-7] Aye
Rep. Thomas Petri [R, WI-6] Aye
Rep. Chellie Pingree [D, ME-1] Nay
Rep. Joseph Pitts [R, PA-16] Abstain
Rep. Todd Platts [R, PA-19] Aye
Rep. Ted Poe [R, TX-2] Aye
Rep. Jared Polis [D, CO-2] Nay
Rep. Mike Pompeo [R, KS-4] Aye
Rep. Bill Posey [R, FL-15] Nay
Rep. David Price [D, NC-4] Nay
Rep. Tom Price [R, GA-6] Aye
Rep. Ben Quayle [R, AZ-3] Aye
Rep. Mike Quigley [D, IL-5] Nay
Rep. Nick Rahall [D, WV-3] Aye
Rep. Charles Rangel [D, NY-15] Nay
Rep. Tom Reed [R, NY-29] Aye
Rep. Dennis Rehberg [R, MT-0] Aye
Rep. Dave Reichert [R, WA-8] Aye
Rep. Jim Renacci [R, OH-16] Aye
Rep. Silvestre Reyes [D, TX-16] Aye
Rep. Reid Ribble [R, WI-8] Nay
Rep. Laura Richardson [D, CA-37] Aye
Rep. Cedric Richmond [D, LA-2] Nay
Rep. Scott Rigell [R, VA-2] Aye
Rep. David Rivera [R, FL-25] Aye
Rep. Martha Roby [R, AL-2] Aye
Rep. Phil Roe [R, TN-1] Nay
Rep. Michael Rogers [R, MI-8] Aye
Rep. Harold Rogers [R, KY-5] Aye
Rep. Michael Rogers [R, AL-3] Aye
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R, CA-46] Nay
Rep. Todd Rokita [R, IN-4] Nay
Rep. Thomas Rooney [R, FL-16] Aye
Rep. Peter Roskam [R, IL-6] Aye
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R, FL-18] Aye
Rep. Dennis Ross [R, FL-12] Aye
Rep. Mike Ross [D, AR-4] Aye
Rep. Steven Rothman [D, NJ-9] Aye
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard [D, CA-34] Nay
Rep. Edward Royce [R, CA-40] Nay
Rep. Jon Runyan [R, NJ-3] Aye
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger [D, MD-2] Aye
Rep. Bobby Rush [D, IL-1] Nay
Rep. Timothy Ryan [D, OH-17] Nay
Rep. Paul Ryan [R, WI-1] Aye
Rep. Loretta Sanchez [D, CA-47] Abstain
Rep. Linda Sánchez [D, CA-39] Aye
Rep. John Sarbanes [D, MD-3] Nay
Rep. Steve Scalise [R, LA-1] Aye
Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D, IL-9] Nay
Rep. Adam Schiff [D, CA-29] Aye
Rep. Robert Schilling [R, IL-17] Aye
Rep. Jean Schmidt [R, OH-2] Aye
Rep. Aaron Schock [R, IL-18] Aye
Rep. Kurt Schrader [D, OR-5] Aye
Rep. Allyson Schwartz [D, PA-13] Aye
Rep. David Schweikert [R, AZ-5] Nay
Rep. Tim Scott [R, SC-1] Aye
Rep. David Scott [D, GA-13] Aye
Rep. Robert Scott [D, VA-3] Nay
Rep. Austin Scott [R, GA-8] Aye
Rep. James Sensenbrenner [R, WI-5] Aye
Rep. José Serrano [D, NY-16] Nay
Rep. Peter Sessions [R, TX-32] Aye
Rep. Terri Sewell [D, AL-7] Aye
Rep. Brad Sherman [D, CA-27] Aye
Rep. John Shimkus [R, IL-19] Aye
Rep. Heath Shuler [D, NC-11] Aye
Rep. William Shuster [R, PA-9] Aye
Rep. Michael Simpson [R, ID-2] Nay
Rep. Albio Sires [D, NJ-13] Aye
Rep. Louise Slaughter [D, NY-28] Nay
Rep. Christopher Smith [R, NJ-4] Aye
Rep. Adrian Smith [R, NE-3] Aye
Rep. Adam Smith [D, WA-9] Aye
Rep. Lamar Smith [R, TX-21] Aye
Rep. Steve Southerland [R, FL-2] Aye
Rep. Jackie Speier [D, CA-12] Nay
Rep. Fortney Stark [D, CA-13] Nay
Rep. Clifford Stearns [R, FL-6] Aye
Rep. Steve Stivers [R, OH-15] Aye
Rep. Marlin Stutzman [R, IN-3] Nay
Rep. John Sullivan [R, OK-1] Aye
Rep. Betty Sutton [D, OH-13] Aye
Rep. Lee Terry [R, NE-2] Aye
Rep. Bennie Thompson [D, MS-2] Nay
Rep. Glenn Thompson [R, PA-5] Aye
Rep. Michael Thompson [D, CA-1] Nay
Rep. William Thornberry [R, TX-13] Aye
Rep. Patrick Tiberi [R, OH-12] Aye
Rep. John Tierney [D, MA-6] Nay
Rep. Scott Tipton [R, CO-3] Nay
Rep. Paul Tonko [D, NY-21] Nay
Rep. Edolphus Towns [D, NY-10] Nay
Rep. Niki Tsongas [D, MA-5] Aye
Rep. Robert Turner [R, NY-9] Aye
Rep. Michael Turner [R, OH-3] Aye
Rep. Frederick Upton [R, MI-6] Aye
Rep. Christopher Van Hollen [D, MD-8] Nay
Rep. Nydia Velázquez [D, NY-12] Nay
Rep. Peter Visclosky [D, IN-1] Aye
Rep. Timothy Walberg [R, MI-7] Nay
Rep. Greg Walden [R, OR-2] Aye
Rep. Joe Walsh [R, IL-8] Nay
Rep. Timothy Walz [D, MN-1] Aye
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D, FL-20] Aye
Rep. Maxine Waters [D, CA-35] Nay
Rep. Melvin Watt [D, NC-12] Nay
Rep. Henry Waxman [D, CA-30] Aye
Rep. Daniel Webster [R, FL-8] Aye
Rep. Peter Welch [D, VT-0] Nay
Rep. Allen West [R, FL-22] Aye
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R, GA-3] Aye
Rep. Edward Whitfield [R, KY-1] Aye
Rep. Frederica Wilson [D, FL-17] Aye
Rep. Addison Wilson [R, SC-2] Aye
Rep. Rob Wittman [R, VA-1] Aye
Rep. Frank Wolf [R, VA-10] Aye
Rep. Steve Womack [R, AR-3] Aye
Rep. Rob Woodall [R, GA-7] Nay
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D, CA-6] Nay
Rep. John Yarmuth [D, KY-3] Nay
Rep. Kevin Yoder [R, KS-3] Aye
Rep. Bill Young [R, FL-10] Abstain
Rep. Donald Young [R, AK-0] Aye
Rep. Todd Young [R, IN-9]

I am writing you to express my dismay at your vote concerning The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012.  Your main purpose in Congress, as stated by your Oath of Office was to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of this nation.  Your AYE vote on this Bill is blatantly just the exact opposite.  While the poorly crafted language is seemingly aimed at persons inside the United States who are aiding identified terrorist organizations, the language is purposely vague so that it could be interpreted in very broad terms and conditions which can be “cherry picked” and used against the citizenry in most draconian ways.  This Bill effectively tears up the intent of The Bill of Rights as written by our Founding Fathers.  You know this and you still voted in favor of passage of this Constitution crushing legislation.  In my opinion, you are unfit to serve because you willingly violated your oath of office and violated the rights of the citizens of Washington State.  I will not in any way shape or form, support you in your upcoming election.  In fact I think you should be recalled immediately.  I anticipate that your response to this letter will include your rational for this betrayal to your oath and to the citizens you were supposed to represent.  In that light, it will be shallow and not acceptable as usual.



Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding military detention.  It is good to hear from you.  As you know, in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration devised a new detention system outside of established legal structures of the U.S. criminal justice system and military courts-martial. Through legislation and a series of high-profile Supreme Court rulings, both Congress and the federal judiciary took action to clarify and limit parts of the Bush administration’s detention programs.  Although President Obama has taken some important steps toward the fair and humane treatment of detainees, I believe much more work has yet to be done. I continue to support closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and the ability of the Administration to try terror suspects in the U.S. federal court system.  The federal courts are well-equipped to handle these complex and difficult cases—since 2006, federal courts have successfully tried over 300 terrorism suspects while military commissions have tried only three.  I strongly support giving our military and intelligence agencies the tools they need to protect our nation and our service members. I understand some evidence against detainees may be too sensitive to national security to be presented in civilian court or may be tainted due to harsh interrogation techniques.  Right now, the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General can decide whether to use a military tribunal or a federal court.  I believe the Obama administration should continue to have the flexibility to decide on a case-by-case basis, and I opposed Republican amendments during consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act that would strip the President of this authority.

Please be assured that I will keep your views on this important topic in mind during the 112th Congress. If you would like to know more about my work in the United States Senate, please feel free to sign up for my weekly updates at Thank you again for contacting me and please keep in touch.

Patty Murray
United States Senator

(my comment; You see, she does not care about the Bill of Rights)

UPDATED 121911

Lawmaker obtains commitment to revisit detainee language


February 14, 2012

Thank you for contacting me about Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  It is an honor to represent the people of Southwest Washington, and it is important for me to hear from folks in our region.

I certainly understand your concerns about Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA and how these sections impact our civil liberties and Constitutional rights.  I am a firm believer that your federal representative should take a proactive role in preserving your Constitutional rights.

I have not and will not support any legislation that would limit your Constitutional rights or allow American citizens to be detained under military authority and held without due process.  Please let me share with you why I believe the NDAA takes the proper steps to preserve your Constitutional rights and provide the President and our military with the tools they need to combat terrorism.

The NDAA reaffirms that the President may use “all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)” against al Qaeda and the Taliban.  The AUMF was authorized following the September 11th terrorist attacks and had not been updated since it was originally sanctioned in 2001.  It is important to provide the President and our military with the resources they need to combat al Qaeda and the Taliban, and this bill accomplishes this goal by reaffirming current laws and without expanding presidential authority.

People had very valid and legitimate concerns about Section 1021 of the NDAA as it relates to the use of force.  Before voting for the NDAA I checked to make sure this legislation will not take away from or infringe upon your Constitutional rights.  The use of force does not apply to U.S. Citizens, in fact Section 1021, Subsection E which explicitly exempts U.S. citizens reads: (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Section 1022 of the NDAA clarifies procedures for how non-U.S. citizens linked to al Qaeda or the Taliban are to be detained.  Evidence must be presented that demonstrates a foreign national’s link to al Qaeda or the Taliban in order for the detainment to be legal. This section clarifies that terrorists apprehended by law enforcement agencies must be held under military custody.  However, Section 1022, Subsection B explicitly exempts U.S. citizens and legal residents.  It reads:(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT       ALIENS.—

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. 

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Our country continues to be under the very real threat of terrorism, and it is important to make sure our military is proper equipped to protect our citizens.  It is equally important for us to take steps to preserve and uphold our Constitutional rights.  The NDAA accomplish both of these goals.

Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue. I invite you to visit my website at for additional information or to sign up to be kept up to date on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance.


Jaime Herrera Beutler
Member of Congress

Leave a comment

Rep. Issa Gov Used Fast & Furious To Limit 2nd Amendment Rights

Leave a comment



Yup, you read that right…., a mainstream media outlet is reporting that “F&F” data was to be used as evidence that more gun laws should be enacted.  This just goes to show how deep the sedition against the Constitution and Bill of Rights really is.  It is these very people in the Federal Government that must be weeded out and fired, never again to have any responsibility or avenues of influence in ANY government function.  Of course the problem is, many in Congress share that ideal.  Click the pic for the details. It sickens me…….

Leave a comment


They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775

I am asking all voting Americans to contact your Senators and demand that they not vote in favor of this legislation, “S.1867 – Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012”.  As much as I despise  the ACLU, they are right on this issue and we must not stand for this latest assault on the American Public.  You take the DHS publication on Extremism, and couple it with this legislation and  you will see that the forces inside the Federal Government that want to put us all in jail are still at work and is alive and well.  This could be the final shot across our bow that seals our fate.  If this language is left in this legislation and passes both the House and Senate and is signed into law, (which I have no doubt the current occupier of the WH will do) the great experiment called Democracy, that our Founding Fathers established, will be dead.  This is not an exaggeration or doom and gloom stuff.  If you don’t think so, you’re simply ignorant or not paying attention.  In either case, we’re all in trouble.    Click here and here for the details.

There is another issue with this legislation because it also covers the Tri-Care medical program that military retirees use.  It states;


(a) In General- Section 1097a of title 10, United States Code, is amended–

(1) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f) as subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection (c):

`(c) Cost-of-living Adjustment in Enrollment Fee- (1) Whenever after September 30, 2012, the Secretary of Defense increases the retired pay of members and former members of the armed forces pursuant to section 1401a of this title, the Secretary shall increase the amount of the fee payable for enrollment in TRICARE Prime by an amount equal to the percentage of such fee payable on the day before the date of the increase of such fee that is equal to the percentage increase in such retired pay. In determining the amount of the increase in such retired pay for purposes of this subsection, the Secretary shall use the amount computed pursuant to section 1401a(b)(2) of this title. The increase in such fee shall be effective as of January 1 following the date of the increase in such retired pay.

`(2) The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register the amount of the fee payable for enrollment in TRICARE Prime whenever increased pursuant to this subsection.’.

So what it saying is, if retirees get a COLA increase in their retirement checks,they will use Tri-Care to get it back…… This is the kind of back door, back stabbing legislation we Vets and Americans are sick of.  Those in congress who push this type of legislation must be voted out of office as we reform our REPRESENTATIVE form of government.


I am writing as your constituent in the 3rd Congressional district of Washington. I oppose S.1867 – Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, and am tracking it using, the free public resource website for government transparency and accountability. This legislation is a direct assault on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and if you vote in favor of this Bill in its present form, you will be in violation of your oath of office and that will not go unnoticed. As Benjamin Franklin said on Feb 17th, 1775, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” This struggle we find ourselves in now is not to be used as justification to tear our democracy asunder. We citizens are relying on you to protect our inviolate foundational tenets and GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. We demand you do so or you will most definitely find yourself voted out of office come your next election cycle. As this letter is being sent to all three of my Representatives in Congress, this legislation will not go before the House unless the Senate gives it an up vote. If it is passed in the Senate and goes to the House, my Representative in the House will be held to the same standard as my Senators. Our Democracy is in danger, do the right thing and vote no on this democracy killing legislation.


Thank you for contacting me regarding the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. I appreciate hearing from you on this matter.

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) introduced the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 on May 5, 2011.  This legislation was passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee by a vote of 26-0 on November 15, 2011.  The National Defense Authorization Act is enacted each fiscal year to specify the budget and expenditures of the U.S. Department of Defense.  The National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 includes numerous provisions that relate to the treatment of terrorism detainees.  One such provision requires that any detainee caught on U.S. soil must be remanded to the U.S. military for custody.  This provision is strongly opposed by the White House and the Department of Defense; both entities have stated that it will limit current options available to our counter-terrorism officials. However, the legislation also allows the Administration to waive the mandatory custody requirement.  The bill also provides for an exemption for any mandatory custody transfer that would interfere with ongoing civilian law enforcement surveillance or interrogation efforts.  Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts should I have the opportunity to vote on these or similar provisions. I am profoundly grateful for the service of our brave men and women in the armed services and for the sacrifices they have made to defend and preserve our great nation.  As such, we have an important responsibility to ensure that they have the tools and resources they need to successfully complete their mission and return home safe.  Please be assured that I will continue to work with my colleagues on behalf of the many soldiers in the state of Washington.

Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter.  You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents.  If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at  Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Maria Cantwell
United States Senator

My Comment;


SENATE SAYS NO TO UDALL AMENDMENT that would have taken the worst out of this Bill.

UPDATED 120111

Vote on 1 Dec 11



UPDATED 120811


Leave a comment


IT WON'T STOP HERE......Click the pic for the story.

As I have been reporting since I started this website, the Lib/Progressives are hell-bent on doing everything they can to restrict your gun rights in one way or another.  In this case, through regulations, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will severely restrict access to public land for the purpose of any shooting activity, to include hunting.  In the proposed regulation, this paragraph is the Coup de grâce to the shooting public; “When the authorized officer determines that a site or area on BLM-managed lands used on a regular basis for recreational shooting is creating public disturbance, or is creating risk to other persons on public lands; is contributing to the defacement, removal or destruction of natural features, native plants, cultural resources, historic structures or government and/or private property; is facilitating or creating a condition of littering, refuse accumulation and abandoned personal property is violating existing use restrictions, closure and restriction orders, or supplementary rules notices, and reasonable attempts to reduce or eliminate the violations by the BLM have been unsuccessful, the authorized officer will close the affected area to recreational shooting.”  In reading this, it is very evident that whomever authored it was trying very hard to tie up every situation they could think of that could be used as justification to shut down recreational shooting or even hunting.  At this point, I don’t have any information that would indicate what type of violations these would be, if any.  But be warned, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Feds didn’t make it at least a class c felony, which in turn would make you a felon and take away your gun rights.  Remember, these people are after you and your guns.  They will take and make every advantage they can.   The National Wildlife Foundation, Cabela’s and the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council are trying to fight this issue but so far it has not received much attention.  Click HERE for their paper on this.

UPDATED 111711

Did the BLM back down?  Maybe……  Click HERE for info

Leave a comment


ERIC HOLDER, Click the pic for the story

Here’s the situation as I see it; Eric Holder and his group actively send guns into Mexico and then blame John Q. Public for it and then use that premise to push for new gun laws…..Hmmm, anybody else see anything wrong with this?  This is the type of back door dirty dealings that I expect from the Left, but to hear some members of the GOP say that they will delve into this after their “Fast and Furious” investigation is over is alarming.  That is why we all must NEVER turn our back on ANY Politician, Left or Right.  None can be trusted and we all need to run rough-shod” over each and every one of them to keep them in line.

Leave a comment

(UPDATED 111711 – 010612) H.R.822 – National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011


As I read this Bill, on the surface it seems fairly benign and well intentioned, but as I apply a few brain cells of thought to this, I find a few problems with it.  First off, and the most obvious problem, is the very real possibility that this legislation could be “modified” in the future in such a way that it actually becomes detrimental to our rights under the 2nd Amendment.  If you read the text, the 2nd is specifically and conspicuously mentioned, however, this means nothing as this legislation, as with all others is subject to change and there is no reason why we should believe that it wouldn’t be changed in ways that it wasn’t originally planned.  Everyone should know as well as I do that once the Feds get their grubby hands on ANYTHING, it gets screwed up in ways that always flow in the direction of the prevailing political winds.  This legislation is no different.  Realistically, it comes down to a level of trust, and right now I have ZERO faith and trust in the Federal Government, in its current state.  This could prove to be the “Trojan Horse” the anti-gunners are looking for.  Secondly, there will be an issue of standards of training because each state has established their own level of competency each applicant must meet in order to be issued a CWP (Concealed Weapon Permit).  For example, say one state does not require anything but a clean background in order to be issued a CWP, but another state requires a minimum level of training in order to be permitted to carry concealed in their state.  How is the Federal Government going to reconcile this disparity?  If I was in a State Legislature that requires a higher level of competency, I would not be happy about having a bunch of people walking around packing that may or may not be competent to carry.  As a citizen of that state I would be concerned for the same reasons.  Does this mean that this function would no longer be the responsibility of the states?  What about states rights?  This Legislation walks all over that issue.  And thirdly, how would this law, if enacted play into the UN Inter-American Arms Treaty being negotiated right now by the Secretary of State in the Obama Administration? With the Feds in control of these permits, there could be provisions in this treaty, if ratified, that would have serious effects and require the government to enact draconian conditions on the issuance of these permits, thusly putting foreign governments in control of our 2nd Amendment.  In conclusion, I am opposed to this legislation for the reasons outlined above.


I sent this as a letter to my Reps on this subject.  So should you.


Thank you for contacting me with your comments regarding concealed carry laws and reciprocity agreements. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
Under existing law, the authority to issue concealed carry permits falls within state jurisdiction. Washington State is a “shall-issue” state meaning that residents who meet the necessary criteria (e.g. at least 21 years of age) shall be issued a concealed carry permit upon request. Currently, each state decides which out-of-state permits they will honor. This is done via reciprocity and recognition agreements. In Washington State, the concealed carry permits of other states receive reciprocity only if the licensing state: (1) does not issue permits to individuals under the age of 21, and (2) requires mandatory fingerprint-based background checks of criminal and mental health history (RCW 9.41.073).
As you know, Senator John Thune (SD) introduced Senate Amendment 1618 (S.Amdt. 1618) to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (S. 1390) on July 17, 2009. This amendment would have preempted reciprocity agreements, including those of Washington State. In effect, it would have created a nationalized concealed carry permit set at the lowest issuance standard. Washington State would be forced to grant reciprocity to any permit holder, even if the issuing state did not meet the basic safety and suitability requirements of Washington State law. I opposed this amendment which was not agreed to by the Senate on July 20, 2009.
As your Senator, you can be assured that I will work to protect the legitimate rights of law-abiding American gun-owners, while continuing to support responsible gun control legislation to reduce crime and make our communities safer. I believe both of these goals are important and can be simultaneously accomplished through common-sense gun laws and stricter enforcement of existing laws. Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator

For future correspondence with my office, please visit my website at

MY NOTE:  She did not address my concerns adequately and did not mention the UN Inter-American Arms Treaty


010612   (OUT OF ORDER)

Reply from Maria Cantwell

Thank you for contacting me with your comments regarding concealed carry laws and reciprocity agreements. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
Under existing law, the authority to issue concealed carry permits for firearms falls within state jurisdiction. Washington State is a
“shall-issue” state, meaning that residents who meet the necessary criteria (e.g. at least 21 years of age) shall be issued a concealed
carry permit upon request. Currently, each state decides what out-of-state permits it will honor. This is done via reciprocity and
recognition agreements. In Washington State, the concealed carry permits of other states receive reciprocity only if the licensing state: (1) does not issue permits to individuals under the age of 21, and (2) requires mandatory fingerprint-based background checks of criminal and mental health history (RCW 9.41.073).  On February 18, 2011, Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL) introduced the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (H.R. 822) in the U.S. House of Representatives. This proposed legislation was passed out of the House of Representatives and has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, where it is awaiting further review. If enacted, this legislation would amend the federal criminal code to authorize a person with a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm issued by one state to carry a concealed handgun in another state in accordance with that state’s restrictions. The legislation would not apply to those prohibited from possessing, transporting, or receiving firearms under federal law.  As your Senator, you can be assured that I will work to protect the legitimate rights of law-abiding American gun-owners, while continuing
to support responsible gun control legislation to reduce crime and make our communities safer. I believe both of these goals are important and can be simultaneously accomplished through common-sense gun laws and stricter enforcement of existing laws.
Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator

For future correspondence with my office, please visit my website at


UPDATED 102611



I was right to be concerned.Not only was H.R. 822 — the Trojan horse gun control bill — passed out of the House of Representatives this evening, it was passed with an amendment that would open the door to federal biometric requirements for concealed firearms permits and a federally-administered database of all permit holders.

Only 7 Republican Members of Congress stood against federal overreach in the concealed carry process by opposing this bill (you can see how your Representative voted here:

The bill was amended this afternoon by ostensibly “pro-gun” Republicans to require a study be done on the ability of law enforcement officers to verify the validity of out-of-state concealed firearm permits.

You and I both know what this means. A year from now, the study will come back stating that the only way to “verify” out-of-state permits is through federally-mandated biometric requirements for concealed firearm permits and Congress “must” create a nationally administered database of all concealed weapon permit holders.

One of my biggest concerns about this bill — the lists of gun owners a permit process creates — should send shivers down your spine: Imagine Eric Holder and the BATFE with a national database of concealed carry permit holders.

It’s bad enough to have those lists exist at a state level. Once Eric Holder and his cronies find a way to request that list from a state, they’ll do it — all the in the name of “implementing H.R. 822.”

The legislation now moves to the Harry Reid-run Senate, where companion legislation is expected to be introduced in the coming days. I have no doubt that the anti-gunners in the Senate will use this as an opportunity to make H.R. 822 even worse.

What troubles me most about this battle is the institutional gun lobby has been leading the charge for this legislation. In fact, they’ve been brow-beating Members of Congress who dare to question the consequences of passing such a broad, overreaching piece of legislation.

Republican Congressman Justin Amash (MI-03) fought back against the institutional gun lobby for its support of H.R. 822:

“It’s remarkably bold of the National Rifle Association to send out false and misleading messages regarding H R 822, an unconstitutional bill that improperly applies the Commerce Clause to concealed carry licensing. I would support legislation that gets the federal government out of the way of states that want to recognize other states’ concealed carry permits. In contrast, H R 822 will hurt gun rights by conceding broad new authority to the federal government to override state sovereignty.

Gun rights advocates have fought hard to prevent liberal abuse of the Commerce Clause that would restrict gun rights… I am disappointed that the NRA has decided to put its own interests ahead of the interests of gun owners. Fortunately, many other gun rights groups rightly oppose H R 822.”

Please call your Senator at (202) 224-3121 and tell them you want to keep the government’s hands off your permit and that you oppose federal intrusion into the concealed weapons permit process.

Thank you for taking action to keep the federal government out of the concealed firearms permit system.

For Freedom,

   Dudley Brown
   Executive Director

The National Association for Gun Rights is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, single-purpose citizens’ organization dedicated to preserving and protecting the Constitutionally protected right-to-keep-and-bear-arms through an aggressive program designed to mobilize public opposition to anti-gun legislation. The National Association for Gun Rights’ mailing address is P.O. 7002, Fredericksburg, VA 22404. They can be contacted toll-free at 1-877-405-4570. Its web address is

You can read our privacy policy here.

Not produced or e-mailed at taxpayer expense.

To help the National Association for Gun Rights grow, pleaseforward this to a friend.

To view this email as a web page, please click this link: view online.

Help fight gun control. Donate to the National Association for Gun Rights!

1 Comment


This is serious......

This article from Chuck Norris explains the new gun control scheme by Obama and his cronies.  As reported in POLITICO, Obama met with the Brady anti-gunners planning the UN Arms Trade Treaty.  This is serious and our 2nd amend. rights are under full assault.  Click HERE for an explanation of the treaty ratification process.  This is serious and patriots need to stand up on this!

Leave a comment

Letter to Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA-R 3rd Dist) Regarding the DHS Extremism Report and Social Site Monitoring


I am writing you in the hopes that you will look into what I believe is a huge insurgency against the civil liberties being perpetrated by The Department of Homeland Security, against the law abiding citizens of this country.  I am referring to two items in particular, that put together, creates a situation that is very chilling.  What I am referring to is “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” Report dated 7 April 2009 that was published by the DHS.  This report very effectively categorizes anyone who has traditional conservative values as a “Rightwing Extremist”.  Reading through the report, I dare say, every conservative, or for that matter, anyone who has traditional American values, is being effectively categorized as a “Rightwing Extremist”.  If this was not bad enough, the DHS just came out and stated that they will be monitoring all the “social sites” for signs of “Extremism”.  What I am sure of, is that the DHS is going to use this report as a roadmap and the justification in order to intrude into the normal, law abiding citizens lives and business.  This monitoring, I feel is meant to quell the dissenting voices of those who oppose the current administration, using “Security” as the ruse and justification for doing so.  And because of this “Extremism” Report, the DHS can use it as justification for investigations even if nothing illegal or threatening was ever uttered or written on any particular web site.   Simple opinions would be enough justification for the DHS to initiate investigations on law abiding citizens.

I am asking you to look into this important matter.  I will be publishing this correspondence on my web site  for my readers.  I will be waiting for your reply, which in-turn, I will also post.






Leave a comment

U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms

IS THIS THE FACE OF DOOM? Both Hillary and Barrack want your guns. Obama has always been and anti-gunner and remember the Clinton so called "Assault Gun Ban"?

The anti-gunners on the left are still at it.  If this UN agreement is allowed to pass, it will mean the end of the United States as a sovereign nation.  The UN and all our enemies want to see the US citizens disarmed.  This act will weaken the US to such a degree, we will cease to exist as a free nation.  I urge all to watch your Representatives and Senators closely.  Tell them what you think of this situation.  DO IT or LOSE IT! Click the pic for the story.

Leave a comment



Obama has been busy.  He is working hard at violating the 2nd Amendment with the help of the ATF.  This action does not surprise me, but it does concern me.  Look what Clinton did.  Even though he “banned” assault guns, it did almost nothing to stem gun violence.  Obama, I believe on the other hand, doesn’t really have simple gun violence as his impetus for his actions.   I believe he intends to do everything he can to disarm Americans to favor the will of the international community who is pressuring the USA institute draconian, anti 2nd Amendment laws and policies.  He will make your home defense gun illegal!  I urge all to write your Representatives and Senators and tell them not to go down the gun control road.  That subject has historically been the “3rd rail” of political issues and we need to make sure it stays that way.  Click the pic for the story.

Leave a comment


Click this pic for the story

This article says it all.  We cannot allow this to happen.  Make sure you hold your Reps feet to the fire and watch them closely, especially the Lib Democrats.  Their stated goal is to get rid of the guns and they will never give up, neither should we.  Be vigilant and never take your eye off the ball.  Click the pic for the story.

Leave a comment



Please Contact Your Legislators Today!

The National Rifle Association has learned that the Washington State Patrol (WSP) has sent a letter, apparently to every firearms dealer in the state of Washington, as part of an investigation into “a missing/stolen AR-15.”  The WSP has requested an incredible amount of information regarding dealer’s sales and acquisitions of AR-15’s and lower receivers over the last nine months.  They want names, dates of births, addresses and more… from the past nine months!  A statewide search through a mountain of information for ONE missing/stolen AR-15?

It seems preposterous to the NRA that the WSP would conceivably request this massive amount of sensitive data, in a search for ONE AR-15!  It is the NRA’s view that there must be more to this story, a lot more.  The NRA has placed two phone calls into the WSP today in search of clarifying information but has yet to receive any response on the matter.  The NRA has also followed up with a letter of inquiry which notes that dealers are under no obligation to comply with the request.

We will keep our members apprised of any information that is forthcoming from the WSP.  In the meantime, NRA suggests that you contact your State Legislators and let them know about this far-reaching and overly-broad request of firearm dealers by the state law enforcement agency.  Ask your legislators to contact the WSP in an effort to find out what is going on in this case.  You may contact your state Representative or state Senator by clicking here

. If you don’t know who your elected officials are you may look them up here


Also, please contact Governor Chris Gregoire, let her know about the requests currently being asked of Washington’s firearms dealers by the WSP and urge her to find out what is going on in this case. You can contact the Governor by clicking here



Leave a comment