News, Video and Commentary Without the Censorship

Archive for the ‘2nd amendment’ Category

Says Many Gang Members Were Coming After His Family

source: CBS 2

UNIONDALE, N.Y. (CBS 2) — He was arrested for protecting his property and family.

But it’s how the Long Island man did it that police say crossed the line.

He got an AK-47 assault rifle, pulled the trigger and he ended up in jail, reports CBS 2’s Pablo Guzman.

George Grier said he had to use his rifle on Sunday night to stop what he thought was going to be an invasion of his Uniondale home by a gang he thought might have been the vicious “MS-13.” He said the whole deal happened as he was about to drive his cousin home.

“I went around and went into the house, ran upstairs and told my wife to call the police. I get the gun and I go outside and I come into the doorway and now, by this time, they are in the driveway, back here near the house. I tell them, you know, ‘Can you please leave?’ Grier said.

Grier said the five men dared him to use the gun; and that their shouts brought another larger group of gang members in front of his house.

“He starts threatening my family, my life. ‘Oh you’re dead. I’m gonna kill your family and your babies. You’re dead.’ So when he says that, 20 others guys come rushing around the corner. And so I fired four warning shots into the grass,” Grier said.

Grier was later arrested. John Lewis is Grier’s attorney.

“What he’s initially charged with – A D felony reckless endangerment — requires a depraved indifference to human life, creating a risk that someone’s going to die. Shooting into a lawn doesn’t create a risk of anybody dying,” Lewis said.

Grier said he knew Nassau County Police employ the hi-tech “ShotSpotter” technology in his area and that the shooting would bring police in minutes. Cops told Guzman he was very cooperative.

Grier also said he was afraid the gang outside his house was the dreaded MS-13. And Nassau County Police Lt. Andrew Mulraine, head of the gang unit, said MS-13 has 2,000 members in the county.

“They’re probably the most organized. They almost have a military hierarchy within the gang, so they are the most organized gang we encounter on a daily basis,” Mulraine said.

You may think a person has the right to defend their home. But the law says you can only use physical force to deter physical force. Grier said he never saw anyone pull out a gun, so a court would have to decide on firing the gun.

Police determined Grier had the gun legally. He has no criminal record. And so he was not charged for the weapon.

That ShotSpotter technology pinpoints where a gun has been fired within 35 feet. Police said it also detected two other shootings in nearby Roosevelt that night.

source: Nanny State Liberation Front

S.F. approves this depiction of firearms, but the city still prohibits guns from being displayed in ads appearing on MTA venues.

Perhaps the fascists running San Francisco discovered the U.S. Constitution and its amendments protecting free speech and citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms. Stranger things have happened in the Left Coast city in recent months.

According to WorldNetDaily.com, city buses are now displaying an ad for an upcoming gun rights conference that shows a woman holding a shotgun and looking through a curtain while protecting her home against a violent criminal lurking outside. In August, the city’s Metro Transit Authority banned similar ads displaying movie actors wielding firearms, leaving 2nd Amendment supporters baffled by the city’s sudden change of heart.

“We suspect the MTA is allowing our ads in San Francisco despite their policy because they believed we were prepared to file a lawsuit on First and Second Amendment grounds if, for any reason, the city didn’t take them,” said Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, which is running the conference promoted by the ads. “Knowing we were responsible for the McDonald victory over Chicago and the defeat of their own 2005 gun ban proposition, and probably aware of our litigation in New York, Maryland, North Carolina, Illinois and California, they did not want to lock horns with us again,” Gottlieb told WND.
City officials demanded guns appearing in this ad be removed and replaced with pepper spray and police badges.

City officials demanded guns appearing in this ad be removed and replaced with pepper spray and police badges.

Just last month, city officials were singing a different tune with regards to firearms appearing on mass transit advertising venues. When the MTA decided to prohibit firearms from appearing in the hands on actors in promotional ad for “The Other Guys” movie, spokesman Paul Rose said the organization “does have an advertising policy that states ads should not appear to promote the use of firearms or advocate any violent action.”

In wake of the upcoming gun rights conference and a recent Supreme Court ruling stating that Americans’ 2nd Amendment right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, Rose said, “We want to take another look at our policy.”

Just goes to prove what can happen when you fight city hall with facts and the Constitution on your side.

Contact the MTA if you’d like to see advertising restrictions on firearms permanently removed from the city’s list of items prohibited from being featured in ads appearing on public transportation venues:

MTA spokesman Paul Rose: 415.701.4582

and/or

Heather McGuire
SVP/General Manager
Titan Worldwide
233 Post Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
415.773.0355

E-mail:
Heather.McGuire@titanoutdoor.com

source: RawStory

Group: Former President Carter could be prosecuted for monitoring fair elections in Lebanon

The US Supreme Court endorsed Monday a broad reading of the law criminalizing “material support” to terrorism, a statute that critics argue targets legitimate free speech.
video thanks to 91177info

In a six to three vote, the highest US court sided with the government and found that an NGO could face prosecution for providing non-terror-related support, including rights training, to US-designated terror groups.

The case involved the Humanitarian Law Project, a human rights group, which the court ruled could face prosecution under the material support statute for providing human rights or conflict resolution training to groups including the Kurdish PKK or the Tamil Tigers.

“The material-support statute is constitutional as applied to the particular activities plaintiffs have told us they wish to pursue,” the court ruling said.

In a press release sent to RAW STORY, the Center for Constitutional Rights argues that the ruling “criminalizes” free speech, and that even former President Jimmy Carter could face potential prosecution.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to criminalize speech in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the first case to challenge the Patriot Act before the highest court in the land, and the first post-9/11 case to pit free speech guarantees against national security claims. Attorneys say that under the Court’s ruling, many groups and individuals providing peaceful advocacy could be prosecuted, including President Carter for training all parties in fair election practices in Lebanon. President Carter submitted an amicus brief in the case.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding the case back to the lower court for review; Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. The Court held that the statute’s prohibitions on “expert advice,” “training,” “service,” and “personnel” were not vague, and did not violate speech or associational rights as applied to plaintiffs’ intended activities. Plaintiffs sought to provide assistance and education on human rights advocacy and peacemaking to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party in Turkey, a designated terrorist organization. Multiple lower court rulings had found the statute unconstitutionally vague.

Created in 1996, the “material support” language was strengthened under the Patriot Act, which Congress passed in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks and reauthorized with some changes in 2004.

It has usually been used to prosecute individuals who have helped organize or finance terrorist attacks.

The law has become a popular tool for prosecutors, who have prosecuted some 150 people under the statute in the United States, obtaining convictions in around 60 cases, and sentences ranging up to life in prison.

The Associated Press adds,

In his dissent, Breyer recognized the importance of denying money and other resources to terror groups. “I do not dispute the importance of this interest,” he said. “But I do dispute whether the interest can justify the statute’s criminal prohibition.”

Breyer said the aid groups’ mission is entirely peaceful and consists only of political speech, including how to petition the U.N.

“Not even the ’serious and deadly problem’ of international terrorism can require automatic forfeiture of First Amendment rights,” he said.

The CCR statement adds:

Said CCR Cooperating Attorney David Cole, “We are deeply disappointed. The Supreme Court has ruled that human rights advocates, providing training and assistance in the nonviolent resolution of disputes, can be prosecuted as terrorists. In the name of fighting terrorism, the Court has said that the First Amendment permits Congress to make human rights advocacy and peacemaking a crime. That is wrong.”

Originally brought in 1998, the case challenges the constitutionality of laws that make it a crime to provide “material support” to groups the administration has designated as “terrorist.” CCR’s clients sought to engage in speech advocating only nonviolent, lawful ends, but the government took the position that any such speech, including even filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, would be a crime if done in support of a designated “terrorist group.”

Said CCR Senior Attorney Shayana Kadidal, “The Court’s decision confirms the extraordinary scope of the material support statute’s criminalization of speech. But it also notes that the scope of the prohibitions may not be clear in every application, and that remains the case for the many difficult questions raised at argument but dodged by today’s opinion, including whether publishing an op-ed or submitting an amicus brief in court arguing that a group does not belong on the list is a criminal act. The onus is now on Congress and the Obama administration to ensure that humanitarian groups may engage in human rights advocacy, training in non-violent conflict resolution, and humanitarian assistance in crisis zones without fearing criminal prosecution.”

The Court rejected the government’s argument that the statute, when applied to plaintiffs’ proposed speech, regulated not speech but conduct, and therefore needed to meet only a low standard – “intermediate scrutiny” – to survive. Instead, the Court found that the statute did criminalize speech on the basis of its content, but then found that the government’s interest in delegitimizing groups on the designated “terrorist organization” list was sufficiently great to overcome the heightened level of scrutiny. This is one of a very few times that the Supreme Court has upheld a criminal prohibition of speech under strict scrutiny, and the first time it has permitted the government to make it a crime to advocate lawful, nonviolent activity.

The Constitution Project also blasted the court’s decision in a press release sent to RAW STORY:

Today, the Supreme Court, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, upheld the extremely broad application of federal laws that prohibit material support for designated terrorist groups. The lawsuit challenged the application of the “material support” laws to organizations and individuals who seek to provide peacebuilding and human rights training to groups designated as terrorist organizations. Writing for a total of six justices, Chief Justice Roberts today rejected this challenge, finding that the application of the material support statutes to punish these groups’ pure speech that seeks to further lawful, non-violent ends does not run afoul of the Constitution. Although the Court agreed that the statute’s regulation of speech must be subject to a demanding level of scrutiny, the Court found that these sweeping restrictions were justified by the Government’s interests in combating terrorism.

“The Constitution Project is thoroughly dismayed by today’s Supreme Court’s decision, which will allow for the prosecution of individuals for constitutionally protected, peaceful, speech and association activities,” said Sharon Bradford Franklin, Constitution Project Senior Counsel. “As much as our government must have the tools needed to punish those who work to enable acts of terrorism, it is essential that these laws respect constitutional freedoms. We regret that the Court refused to rein in the overbroad sweep of the material support statutes to ensure that terrorist activities are prohibited but that free speech and association are still safeguarded by the First Amendment. Training groups to pursue peaceful resolution of their disputes should be encouraged, not made criminal.”

Last November, the Constitution Project, together with The Rutherford Institute, filed an amicus brief in the case, urging the Supreme Court to strike down the provisions of the material support laws that conflict with First Amendment protections for free speech and freedom of association. Also in November, the Constitution Project’s Liberty and Security Committee released Reforming the Material Support Laws: Constitutional Concerns Presented by Prohibitions on Material Support to “Terrorist Organizations,” which proposed eight reforms to remedy serious First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment concerns created by existing material support laws.

To view the Constitution Project’s amicus brief in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, go to: http://www.constitutionproject.org/manage/file/357.pdf.

A statement sent to RAW STORY by the ACLU adds,

The following can be attributed to former President Jimmy Carter, founder of the Carter Center:

“We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that inhibits the work of human rights and conflict resolution groups. The ‘material support law’ – which is aimed at putting an end to terrorism – actually threatens our work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence. The vague language of the law leaves us wondering if we will be prosecuted for our work to promote peace and freedom.”

The following can be attributed to Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project:

“Today’s decision is disappointing and inconsistent with our First Amendment position. The government should not be in the business of criminalizing speech meant to promote peace and human rights.”

by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

source: SHTFPlan

by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USM C (Ret)

The greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

Remember only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

source:Appeal-Democrat
A 67-year-old Yuba City woman was shot and killed by officers when she pointed a shotgun at them and refused to put it down, Yuba City police said Friday.

Victoria Helen Roger-Vasselin was pronounced dead late Thursday at her home at 764 Mariner Loop in an affluent neighborhood on the city’s far south side.

An autopsy Friday showed she died of “multiple gunshot wounds,” said Sutter County Sheriff’s Department spokeswoman Brenda Baker.

A neighbor reported hearing five or six shots.

Roger-Vasselin was the sister of the late Thomas E. Mathews, a Yuba County judge and district attorney who died in 2005.

“They shot her dead,” Roger-Vasselin’s distraught son, Christian Biscotti, said outside the house Friday morning.

“I think she was just startled” by late visits to her home, he said.

Before Biscotti could say more, a relative or family friend took him by the arm and led him inside, shutting the door.

Officers went to the Mariner Loop home after receiving a call at 9:04 p.m. about weapons being brandished, according to a police incident log. In a press release, police did not say exactly when the shooting happened.

Police scanner traffic indicated the shooting happened about 10:20 p.m.

A U.S. Census worker “had been confronted by residents who pointed a firearm at the worker and said they would not answer any questions and closed the door,” said police spokeswoman Shawna Pavey.

When two male officers arrived, 51-year-old Lionel Craig Patterson answered the door, armed with a handgun, police said. “As officers were dealing with the male, a female approached the door with a shotgun and ignored officers’ orders to release the weapon. As the female advanced on officers, she continued to point the shotgun at officers in a threatening manner and the two officers fired their service weapons, hitting the female,” the police report said.

Both officers fired their guns, said Pavey, adding she didn’t believe Roger-Vasselin or Patterson fired.

Both officers were uniformed and clearly identifiable as police, Pavey said.

Toxicology tests will determine if alcohol or drugs were a factor in the incident, Pavey said.

Sonny Le, regional spokesman for the U.S. Census Bureau, offered a different version of events. The female census taker knocked on the door at 7:45 p.m. about 25 minutes before sunset when workers are supposed to quit. The Roger-Vasselin home was the last one on her list before she went home, he said.

Patterson answered the door and first talked with the census taker, Le said.

“The visit was quite routine” until Roger-Vasselin approached with a gun, he said.

The census taker immediately left and called her supervisor. It was 9:04 p.m. when police were called, after news of the incident traveled up the Census Bureau’s chain of command, Le said.

Le called the incident especially tragic because the census taker, like Roger-Vasselin, is a Yuba City resident.

Patterson was arrested on suspicion of assault with a weapon on a police officer and was being held without bail Friday in Sutter County Jail.

The officers have been placed on routine administrative leave while the Sutter County District Attorney’s Office determines if the shooting was justified. District Attorney Carl Adams said he did not yet have all the facts.

A neighbor, Bob Dhaliwal, said he was in bed when he heard people, including one woman, shouting and yelling, followed by five or six shots. When he came outside, officers with guns drawn had the male suspect on the ground, then took him away in a patrol car, he said.

“All I saw was him being arrested. I assumed he shot somebody,” Dhaliwal said.

Patterson lives at the same address. Pavey and neighbors said it wasn’t clear what the relationship was between him and Roger-Vasselin.

Dhaliwal and other neighbors said they didn’t know Roger-Vasselin well.

“She kept to herself,” Dhaliwal said.

One neighbor, who declined to give her name, described Roger-Vasselin as “pleasant but reserved,” almost reclusive.

“She was much more social when she first moved in. The economy was better then,” the neighbor said.

Neighbors said they had also received nighttime visits from a female census worker.

Roger-Vasselin owned the house for about three years, but rented it for about six months while she worked in Hawaii, returning to Yuba City six to nine months ago, the neighbor said.

When her mother, Lillian Mathews-Crumrine, died in 1998, Roger-Vasselin lived in Kauai, Hawaii.

When Roger-Vasselin’s brother died in 2005, she was living in San Francisco. Then 63 and a regional membership executive at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, she was one four employees involved in an age-discrimination lawsuit against the Marriott Corp.

I received this in an e-mail today. Although the link referenced below was posted in October, 2009, it is something we all need to bear in mind.
Southern Patriot/NMC

On Wednesday [Wednesday Oct. 14, 2009] Obama Took the First Major Step in Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States

On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States . The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms. The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened.

Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment. This has happened in other countries, past and present!

THIS IS NOT A JOKE NOR A FALSE WARNING.

As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control. Read the Article U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush’s administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

source: AssociatedPress — May 05, 2010 — New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was in Washington Wednesday, calling on Congress to close the so called ‘terror gap’ in the nation’s gun laws. He told the Senate hearing that he was pleased with the response to the Times Square car bomb. (May 5)

source: Raw Story

A few miles from the White House, anti-government protesters will be brandishing guns, rifles, and cartridges of ammunition.

Civil war? Nope. Just an anti-government militia protest in a national park, where activists will be able to legally carry multiple weapons in open sight.

The gun-backers’ “Restore the Constitution” rally is set to be the first armed protest in a US national park, held at Fort Hunt and Gravelly Point, Virginia, locales run by the National Park Service. Their target? President Barack Obama and his agenda, health-care reform, climate control and bank bailouts.

It turns out, however, that it’s President Obama who actually made their rally possible. In May 2009, he signed a measure allowing Americans to carry guns in national parks into law.

The National Rifle Association, in a press release at the time, wrote:
Story continues below…

On Wednesday, NRA-backed legislation to restore the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in national parks and wildlife refuges passed in the U.S. House of Representatives by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 279-147. Today, the measure was signed into law and, as specified in the legislation, will take effect in nine months, on February 22, 2010. This was a major repudiation of the gun control community’s anti self-defense agenda.

The current Department of Interior (DOI) regulations were amended by the Bush Administration in 2008, allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves by carrying a concealed firearm in national parks and wildlife refuges. However, early this year, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. granted anti-gun plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against implementation of the new rule. NRA has been working for the past several years in the regulatory, legal, and legislative arenas to achieve this policy change.

“It has been an NRA priority to change the old, outdated rule, and we are pleased that Congress passed this critical legislation,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. “This step brings clarity and uniformity for law-abiding gun owners visiting our national parks and wildlife refuges. NRA will continue to pursue every avenue to defend the American people’s right of self-defense.”

The National Park Service’s recent report revealed that 11 murders, 35 rapes, 61 robberies and 261 aggravated assaults occurred on parklands in 2006. Our parks also contain hidden methamphetamine labs, marijuana fields and illegal drug and illegal alien smuggling routes. In addition to these dangers and potential attacks from human predators, park visitors have to consider attacks from animal predators. Between April and December 2007 there were at least a dozen grizzly bear attacks reported by park visitors. Today, 31 states allow the carrying of firearms in state parks–all with safe and satisfactory results.

The national park carry law took effect in February.

The rally, to be held today, comes on the fifteenth anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombings. But a spokesman says the date was chosen to honor the 1775 battles in Lexington and Concord during the Revolutionary War.

According to The Washington Post, which reported on the protest Monday, those in attendance at the rally will include: “Mike Vanderboegh, who advocated throwing bricks through the windows of Democrats who voted for the health-care bill; Tom Fernandez, who has established a nationwide call tree to mobilize an armed resistance to any government order to seize firearms; and former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack, who refused to enforce the Brady law and then won a Supreme Court verdict that weakened its background-check provisions.”

The Post noted that activists have “full support of the federal government they fear.”

Approval for them to carry weapons is “carefully detailed in the 26-page event permit, complete with the gun regulations of both Virginia and the Interior Department and a commitment to provide fencing, barricades and bike racks for the event.”

“We handle tens of thousands of demonstrations of a First Amendment nature annually,” a spokesman for the U.S. Park Police told the reporter. “We are handling this event no differently than any of the others. We assess what their needs are to allow us to facilitate a safe and successful demonstration so they can exercise their rights to free speech and free assembly without interference.”

source: The Raw Story
The date April 19 seems to have a strange echo in American history.

According to the media, a pro-gun group planning a rally in Washington, D.C. on that day is doing so because it is the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. While technically correct, that’s not half the story.

The controversy surrounds two groups: Oath Keepers and Second Amendment March; one, a rapidly growing association of current and former military and law enforcement personnel who’ve sworn an oath to uphold the constitution, even if ordered otherwise; and the other, a pro-gun group organizing rallies across the country.

While Oath Keepers forbids its members from ever ushering U.S. citizens into a military tribunal or a detention camp, its promotional materials tend to focus on resisting the Obama administration — even though their items of concern are artifacts from the Bush administration. They were the subject of a recent profile in Mother Jones magazine, which characterized them as deeply resentful of President Obama.
Story continues below…

Even as they damn the Democratic administration for wanting to take their guns, it was President Obama who made open carry of firearms in national parks legal again. The National Rifle Association seemed pleased by the reforms, but instead of being thankful for the president’s signature, they congratulated Republican Senators for the achievement. The law took effect on Feb. 22 of this year.

In an ironic twist, one of the groups plans to hold their open carry rally on national park land, though the caveat will likely be lost on most participants.

In a video promoting the group’s fundraising efforts (under the term “money bomb,” first coined by the Ron Paul campaign), a narrator claims that the 2008 election was “a wake up call” for Americans, and the footage showcases tea party rallies set to epic music.

Of course, they had to pick April 19 for their rally. Not only is it the same day as the Second Amendment march, it is the anniversary of the Oklahoma City federal building bombing.

However, it is also the anniversary of the Waco Branch Davidian massacre ; an event which inspired Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh’s brash and violent act of terrorism. This little discussed fact was explored by American iconoclastic writer and historian Gore Vidal in a feature for Vanity Fair, published in 2001.

A third significant event in American history took place on April 19, one which Oath Keepers claims to be honoring with their rally date. According to the Library of Congress:

On April 19, 1775, British and American soldiers exchanged fire in the Massachusetts towns of Lexington and Concord. On the night of April 18, the royal governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, commanded by King George III to suppress the rebellious Americans, had ordered 700 British soldiers, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith and Marine Major John Pitcairn, to seize the colonists’ military stores in Concord, some 20 miles west of Boston.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow noted the date and noted that the groups claim they are not honoring McVeigh, yet reiterated that April 19 had become known “in recent memory” as the Oklahoma City anniversary.

The Oath Keepers’ Web site seethed with venom over her reporting.

“Apparently Rachel Maddow only respects the Bill of Rights when leftists are using it,” wrote Stewart Rhodes, the group’s founder. “When those she hates (anyone she considers to be on the political right) want to simply exercise their constitutionally protected freedom of speech, assembly, and also their constitutionally protected individual right to keep and bear arms (while in full compliance with current Virginia laws), she screeches so loud you’d think they were going to conduct human sacrifices.

“And God forbid you ever do anything on April 19! According to Rachel Maddow, because the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 was on that date, you can no longer dare to meet or congregate on April 19 to celebrate your heritage or to honor those who fought for liberty back on April 19, 1775, or to do anything else, lest she and her fellow travelers equate you with Timothy McVeigh.”

“A political climate that’s already more overheated than any time in a generation. Plans for a large-scale rally of firearms enthusiasts in the nation’s capital,” wrote Will Bunch at Philly.com. “A fast-growing group of (mostly ex-) military and cops that pledges to disobey ‘unconstitutional orders’ from the president, and an ‘urgent’ call from the group’s leader to flood Washington to ’shout your oaths in the tyrant’s face’ — on the 15th anniversary of the worst home-grown terror incident in U.S. history, the Oklahoma City bombing.

“What could possibly go wrong?”

“Unfortunately, though they tried to get famous rock star and gun lover Ted Nugent to speak, organizers have lamented on their Web site that they couldn’t afford to pay for Mr. Nugent,” Maddow concluded. “So, no Ted Nugent, but a member of Congress will be there.”

This video is from The Rachel Maddow Show, published to YouTube on March 31, 2010.

The image, placed by Google AdSense, tied to keywords in RAW STORY’s report, making the marriage of our content and their advocacy possible. RAW STORY in no way endorses this group’s message. Their ad linked to a page hosted by the National Association for Gun Rights, featuring Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), the only member of Congress who has announced plans to attend the April 19 pro-gun rallies in Washington, D.C.

The Georgia Republican is guilty of numerous hair-raising exaggerations in his rhetoric, including a claim that Democratic leadership intends to declare martial law in the United States and establish a totalitarian state under their sole authority, which would be ushered in by a pandemic or natural disaster.

He also believes President Obama has established a private army at his personal command, has usurped complete control of the American media and is in the final stages of making guns illegal. Broun was also an enthusiastic supporter of the Republican meme that making health care available as a public service would result in mass casualties