UPDATE: Sen. Stevens Caught in Lie

1 Comment

We must contact Senator Stevens and politely let him know you are disappointed that he caved to pressure and voted NO on SB 250 and you expect him to help bring it back up in the committee and vote YES this time.  And tell him you don’t want to hear the Supremacy Clause stuff, because it doesn’t apply to unconstitutional laws out of Washington. If Stevens doesn’t repair this damage to himself , he may be a one term Senator.

Phone: (615) 741-4576, email: sen.john.stevens@capitol.tn.gov

Senator John Stevens
Evidence is emerging that Tennessee State Senator John Stevens lied in statements made during a hearing last week.  Just before a vote was held on SB250, a bill that would make it a criminal offense for federal agents to enforce unconstitutional gun laws, Sen. Stevens said that he had spoken to 5 out of 6 Sheriffs in his district, and that they all opposed the bill as written.

In a statement he made on his Facebook page Sen. Stevens said:

“As I said in committee, I spoke with five out of the six sheriffs in my district before the vote, and spoke to the sixth after the vote. Six out of the six sheriffs told me that they would not enforce this bill as written because it was unconstitutional.”

This statement is absolutely fabricated.

TN Fully Exposed has been in contact with four of the six sheriffs and received word through a third party of the position of the fifth.

Sheriff Chuck Arnold in response to our request for clarification said:

“At no time have I discussed SB 250 with Senator Stevens…I say again sir, I never spoke with the Senator. I did receive a voice mail apology from the Senator saying there was some confusion between him and his staff. He stated he would remove the post but as of Monday it has not been removed.”

He went on to say he was a devout defender of the constitution and that he welcomed legislation that aids the Sheriff in that capacity.

Weakely County Sheriff Mike Wilson acknowledge by phone that he had spoken with Senator Stevens’ office about the bill, but he had not had the chance to read the text.  He continued that based on what he was told, the bill sounded political since he already had a duty to protect second amendment rights and he would absolutely enforce SB250 if it passed. He did express concerns that the bill as expressed to him would apply to hand grenades and explosives since it didn’t specifically define what was an unconstitutional gun law.

Finally Sheriff Tony King of Benton County confirmed to a source that he too was contacted by Senator Stevens’.  He, like Sheriff Wilson, had not read the text of the bill and did not want to state a position. When Senator Stevens indicated that he would simply say that Sheriff King would not support sb250 because it was unconstitutional the sheriff objected and told the Senator he was not prepared to make that statement.

Sheriff Jerry Vastbinder confirmed that he opposed the bill. “I did speak with Senator Stevens last Wednesday and advised him I was opposed to SB250. I feel the bill is a knee jerk reaction to the rumors spreading that the government is going to take away a citizens right to bear arms.”

That being said, he continues,  “Agents can only enforce laws related to interstate commerce, so they have no jurisdiction on items made in Tennessee and remain in Tennessee. As a Sheriff in the State of Tennessee I take an oath to enforce the laws of the State of Tennessee and hold the US Constitution. I do and will enforce any Tennessee state law…”

In a phone conversation with Sheriff Monte Belew likewise said he was opposed to the bill and he could not imagine a scenario where he would arrest a federal agent performing his duty. However when given the scenario of the house to house gun confiscation that took place during Katrina he responded, “Not in Henry county. My department isn’t going to do that [mass confiscation] and if anyone else tries it then that’s when we’ll have problems.”

During a podcast recorded today, Lou Ann Zelenik, Executive Director of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition and founder of the Rutherford County Tea Party said she was aware of four Sheriffs denouncing the Stevens’ statement.

The Facebook statement is not the only lie told by Senator Stevens last week.  According to Zelenik, who has been in contact with Senator Beavers and was present during last week’s hearing, Senator Stevens had expressed to Beavers that he was going to support the measure.

He had even reiterated this support on the evening before the hearing.  However, he reportedly caved to pressure from party leaders on the morning of the hearing and reversed his position.

As a newly elected senator, Stevens has time to repair the damage to his reputation. Zelenik expressed that he was genuinely nice and a bright man.  The fact that he reached out to the Sheriffs demonstrates there is potential. Nevertheless, the next election will determined whether the exaggerations are remembered by the voters.

Read article

Powerful NRA Ad: Stand & Fight, Politicians Work for Us

Comments Off

Holder defends Obama gun-control measures to state attorneys general

Comments Off

As you read this, bear this in mind as to whether you can trust what Eric Holder is saying or not…Department of Justice Memo Uncovered calls for Gun Registration & then Confiscation

The nation’s top cop vehemently defended President Obama’s gun-control proposals to a room full of state attorneys general on Tuesday and said the measures would not infringe on the rights of lawful gun owners.

Attorney General Eric Holder laid out the executive actions Obama has taken to strengthen the country’s gun laws while vowing not to stop until tighter regulations are in place that will help prevent mass shootings like the one that killed 20 children and six adults in Connecticut last December.

“We will not rest until we’ve done everything in our power to prevent future tragedies like the one that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School,” said Holder at the annual National Association of Attorneys General conference at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington, D.C.

The administration has been encouraging private gun sellers throughout the country to use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that licensed firearm dealers have access to, according to Holder.

The Justice Department (DOJ) is also fine-tuning the federal database to make sure all the information contained within it is accurate, he said, while other agencies are finalizing regulations to increase access to mental-health services. The Centers for Disease Control has also jump started its research on gun violence again and administration officials are working with schools and houses of worship to develop better safety plans, Holder said.

“Contrary to what a few have said, all of these actions are consistent with the historical use of executive power,” the attorney general said.

“No one will infringe upon the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens and gun owners,” he added. “And all are essential parts of any serious, comprehensive effort to combat gun violence — and to prevent dangerous people from acquiring, and wreaking havoc with, deadly weapons.”

Earlier this year Holder and Vice President Biden helped Obama put together a series of 23 gun-control proposals, while urging Congress to require background checks on private gun sales, limit the number of bullets a firearm’s magazine can hold and ban future sales of assault-style weapons.

Many of the proposals have a difficult road ahead, with Senate and House Republicans opposing measures they say would infringe on the personal liberties of Americans.

With such a broad range of gun-related regulations being proposed, gun-control supporters have begun to focus their attention on expanding the criminal background check system for firearm purchases.

On Tuesday, Holder urged the state attorneys general to encourage local and state law enforcement officers to use the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) — a central federal database of crime statistics with more than 11 million records, including a list of people who failed a background check under NICS — saying that “state records are the lifeblood of the system.”

Gun Grab: Obama Justice Department Ends Due Process

Comments Off

The Obama administration is making it easier for bureaucrats to take away guns without offering the accused any realistic due process. In a final rule published last week, the Justice Department granted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) authority to “seize and administratively forfeit property involved in controlled-substance abuses.” That means government can grab firearms and other property from someone who has never been convicted or even charged with any crime.

It’s a dangerous extension of the civil-forfeiture doctrine, a surreal legal fiction in which the seized property — not a person — is put on trial. This allows prosecutors to dispense with pesky constitutional rights, which conveniently don’t apply to inanimate objects. In this looking-glass world, the owner is effectively guilty until proved innocent and has the burden of proving otherwise. Anyone falsely accused will never see his property again unless he succeeds in an expensive uphill legal battle.

Such seizures are common in drug cases, which sometimes can ensnare people who have done nothing wrong. James Lieto found out about civil forfeiture the hard way when the FBI seized $392,000 from his business because the money was being carried by an armored-car firm he had hired that had fallen under a federal investigation. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Mr. Lieto was never accused of any crime, yet he spent thousands in legal fees to get his money back.

Law enforcement agencies love civil forfeiture because it’s extremely lucrative. The Department of Justice’s Assets Forfeiture Fund had $2.8 billion in booty in 2011, according to a January audit. Seizing guns from purported criminals is nothing new; Justice destroyed or kept 11,355 guns last year, returning just 396 to innocent owners. The new ATF rule undoubtedly is designed to ramp up the gun-grabbing because, as the rule justification claims, “The nexus between drug trafficking and firearm violence is well established.”

The main problem is that civil forfeiture creates a perverse profit motive, leaving bureaucrats with strong incentives to abuse a process that doesn’t sufficiently protect those who may be wrongly accused. Criminal forfeiture is more appropriate because it’s tied to a conviction in a court with the option of a jury trial and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocents like Mr. Lieto have to fight against the might of the U.S. government with a watered-down standard that stacks the legal deck so prosecutors can get a quick win.

Poll: Views on gun laws unchanged after Aurora theater massacre

Comments Off

Of course it is about the same…..we want to be able to defend ourselves…..the answer is more concealed carry, yes, even in theaters. Not more gun control and errosion of the 2nd amendment.

The movie theater massacre in Aurora, Colo., has had no significant impact on public views on the issue of gun control and gun rights, according to a new poll released Monday.

The poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that 47 percent of respondents say it’s more important to control gun ownership, while 46 percent say it’s more important to protect the rights of Americans who own guns. That is virtually unchanged from a survey in April, when 45 percent prioritized gun control and 49 percent gun rights.

Dhavan Shah, a communications and political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said the results show that despite tragedies like the July 20 massacre in Aurora, which left 12 dead and scores wounded, public opinion on guns is deep-seated and rigid.

“News events and disruptions in the media don’t do a lot to shift those opinions,” Shah told NBC News. “Those shifts tend to be more gradual.”

Other recent major shootings also had little effect on public opinion about gun laws. According to Pew surveys, there was no significant change in the balance of opinion about gun rights and gun control after the January 2011 shooting in Tucson, Ariz., in which U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was injured. Nor was there a spike in support for gun control following the shooting at Virginia Tech University in April 2007.

The latest Pew survey, conducted July 26-29 among 1,010 adults in the U.S., also showed that relatively few Americans view the shooting in Aurora as part of a broader social problem. Rather, 67 percent said that shootings like this are isolated acts perpetrated by troubled individuals.

This is similar to public reaction after the Tucson and Virginia Tech shootings, when 58 percent and 47 percent of poll respondents, respectively, viewed them as isolated act by troubled individuals.

(So the shootings are not having the effect on the American public that the elite wanted….too bad)

Continue reading

Here are a few comments:

Lt Scrounge-4042308

Either George Washington or Thomas Jefferson wrote that the main reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to allow them the protect themselves from those who would impose tyranny upon them, including their own government. The history of “gun control” is filled with one country after another wherein the citizenry was disarmed and then exterminated. Why is it that you think that people are pushing to arm the Syrian rebels so that the government troops won’t be able to massacre them at will?

As for taking on the US military, if a few thousand semi illiterate Afghanis can give them the kind of trouble that they’ve been having in Afghanistan, what will a few MILLION well trained and PO’d American veterans (thousands of whom are retired Special Ops guys) are going to do?


Wit our current failure in the White House, the necessity of owning fire arms has increased at least threefold. Gun laws are enforceable only for those who respect the law.


“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow out lead into the future.”

Quote from ADOLF HITLER, 1935

First they have you register them so they know where they are when they want to confiscate them. If only 10 out of every 100 Jews in Europe were armed then out of the 6,000,000 murdered there would have been 600,000 armed individuals to stand up to the Gestapo and SS. The Holocaust wold never have happened.

Obama Will ‘Evaluate’ Bill Limiting Online Ammunition Sales, White House Says

Comments Off

Well of course the Democrats introduced this bill. Folks they are using this shooting in Aurora Colorado to severely restrict our 2nd amendment. While the government buys millions of rounds of 40 cal. hollow points, they are limiting us. Is something wrong with this picture? I going to add that I think this shooting was staged in order to attack the 2nd amendment. That’s just mine and many other’s opinon from looking at the facts.Holmes was under the “care of a psychiatrist”, a Ex-US Air Force Doctor, how did he pass the background checks to get the weapons that he bought “legally”? Gun sales are still booming and probably will continue. Thank you founding fathers.

The Democratic-led Senate has not voted on any gun legislation in three years, since defeating a 2009 GOP measure that would have required states to recognize each other’s gun laws.

Two Democratic lawmakers on Monday will announce new legislation to regulate the online and mail-order sale of ammunition.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (N.Y.) said the new law would make the sale of ammunition “safer for law-abiding Americans who are sick and tired of the ease with which criminals can now anonymously stockpile for mass murder,” in a statement released Saturday.

The lawmakers cite the recent movie massacre in Aurora, Colo. for spurring their bill.

Lautenberg and McCarthy, who will unveil their new proposal at New York’s City Hall say they intend to “make it harder for criminals to anonymously stockpile ammunition through the Internet.”

Lautenberg and McCarthy are two high profile advocates of gun control legislation, but they face an uphill struggle in Congress.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said last week that he does not intend to bring gun control legislation to the floor and President Obama has been reluctant to press lawmakers to act on the issue in an election year.

(So people, this tells you if Obama gets a 2nd term it’s Katie bar the door on all kinds of legislation (especially the 2nd amendment), unconstitutional legisilation I would imagine. But that hasn’t stopped him so far, )unconstitutional or not.)

Democratic senators though have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity magazines by some consumers. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) defended it last Thursday as a “reasonable” gun control measure.

Read more

Why Are Republicans Calling To Disarm The American People?

Comments Off

Yes why are the Republicans doing this, you expect the Democrats to do it but Republicans?

The recent deluge of attacks against the second amendment were completely predictable in the aftermath of the Colorado massacre, but what perhaps wasn’t so expected was the fact that a lot of them have come from so-called Republicans.

The most recent rhetorical assault on gun rights came yesterday courtesy of Reagan appointee and so-called intellectual anchor of the Supreme Court’s conservative wing, Justice Antonin Scalia.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Scalia said that the second amendment leaves rooms for certain types of weapons to be regulated.

“It will have to be decided in future cases,” Scalia told host Chris Wallace, adding that “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne,” when the Constitution was signed.

Scalia’s remarks prompted outrage from conservatives, who accused him of selling out to the political left.

Other luminaries on the political right did not wait long before joining their contemporaries on the left to call for gun rights to be restricted.

Within 48 hours of the ‘Batman’ shooting, media mogul Rupert Murdoch, labeled a “GOP kingmaker” in the United States, voiced his support for restricting the second amendment, tweeting, “We have to do something about gun controls.”

Similarly, in several shows broadcast in the days following the Colorado massacre, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly has repeatedly advocated the creation of a national database of gun owners, currently prohibited by federal law, joining the likes of Piers Morgan, Michael Moore and Michael Bloomberg in savaging the second amendment.

Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol also reacted to the Aurora shooting by calling for a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban. He was joined by talk radio host Michael Savage, who despite modeling himself as one of the Obama administration’s most ardent critics also advocated reintroducing the ban.

With so-called “conservatives” like this, who needs liberals?

Given the fact that virtually all of the names mentioned above are ardent supporters of Mitt Romney, who signed into law an assault weapons ban while Governor of Massachussets, in addition to making repeated public statementsabout supporting strict gun control laws in order to “provide for our safety,” whoever wins the presidential election, the next four years are going to be a battle for gun rights activists.

It’s ironic that while many conservative and Republican icons have joined the political left in exploiting the Colorado massacre to rhetorically ambush the second amendment, the federal government under the Obama administration is simultaneously arming itself to the teeth as part of preparations to deal with unruly Americans in the event of civil unrest.

While the Department of Homeland Security puts out requests for ”riot gear” to deal with civil unrest during the upcoming RNC, DNC and presidential inauguration, the federal agency also recently awarded defense contractor ATK a deal to provide the DHS with 450 million rounds of bullets over a five year period.

The DHS has also recently purchased a number of bullet-proof checkpoint booths that include ‘stop and go’ lights.

Leading conservatives don’t seem too fussed at the fact that the federal government is gearing up for violence as it targets politically active conservatives as domestic extremists.

However, when it comes to calling for Americans to be disarmed and the second amendment to be eviscerated, the Republican establishment shows equal if not greater zeal than the left in rushing to blame tragedies such as the Aurora shooting on God-given rights enshrined in the very same Constitution that conservatives are supposed to uphold and cherish.

Read more

United Nations Small Arms Treaty Not Dead, Just Postponed

Comments Off

So they do want to disarm US Citizens, but not until after elections to give Obama a better chance to win.

Opponents arrayed against the United Nations’ anti-gun effort prematurely celebrated on Friday as the treaty stalled due to member states failing to reach an agreement on revised language in the text. The treaty went into limbo after the United States, Russia and China called for more time to consider revisions.

NGOs and gun-grabber groups portrayed the stall as “stunning cowardice” and a “staggering abdication of leadership” and attributed the supposed failure to the Obama administration. A nameless diplomat went so far as to claim the U.S. had “derailed the process” and complained that there is little hope the treaty will be revived after the U.S. election.

The U.S. State Department, however, said in a statement released at the conclusion of the negotiating conference that the effort will indeed be revived after the election in November. “While we sought to conclude the month’s negotiations with a treaty, more time is a reasonable request for such a complex and critical issue,” said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

The extended timeframe will give Second Amendment opponents time to ramp up their propaganda campaign in favor of gun control following the suspiciously timed mass shooting in Colorado.

A number of establishment intellectuals – with CFR member Joe Klein leading the pack at Time Magazine – are now pushing “sensible” and “moderate” approaches to disarming the American people. Klein’s Time article, set to roll out on August 6, features a photo of a 100-round ammo drum of the sort James Holmes supposedly used in Aurora. Gun-grabbers in Congress have set their sites on extended round clips and other firearm accessories.

Although Bloomberg in New York and Chuck Schumer in the Senate and others are talking up outlawing armor-piercing ammunition and semi-automatic weapons, the establishment has responded to the bureaucratic snafu at the United Nations by playing possum or playing dead.

After the election finale in November and the installation of Romney or the re-installation of Obama as chief teleprompter reader in January, not only will there be a push for a new round of restrictive gun laws in America, but the stalled United Nations treaty will be dusted off and the bickering between nations will finally end with a gun-grabbing consensus.

As Al Benson, Jr., notes, careerist politicians are reluctant to press forward on legislation for fear of their cushy jobs. “As for the Senators, this is, after all, an election year and if they antagonize their gun-owning constituency many of them will be in big trouble, so they have to try to placate us, at least for now, until they get back into office. Then all bets are off, especially if Comrade Obama gets a second term (notice I didn’t say “wins” a second term),” he writes.

The corporate media has portrayed those of us concerned about a United Nations treaty outlawing our guns as conspiracy kooks and paranoids. They insist the Constitution trumps any internationalist treaty and there is nothing to worry about, so we need to relax.

But as CFR minion Joe Klein knows, the one-world government crowd has no respect for the Constitution and works relentlessly to undermine it.

Continue reading

Let’s be honest about guns


Folks, you are starting to see the beginning of the  coming for our guns, which I predict could start a civil war. Which is probably what they want, but I know I don’t..

This post was written by Richard Schrade, an attorney from Georgia and member of the Libertarian National Committee, and gun rights proponent.

The problem with all of the Second Amendment discussion is that very few people are willing to address this issue directly and accurately. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the right to and ability to conduct an armed revol…ution. The Second Amendment was to protect the ability of the people to violently overthrow the government.

Even if one agrees with the “Militia limitation” on the Second Amendment, the Militias to which the Amendment refers were State Militias which would have been used to fight the federal government.

When viewed in this light, it is apparent that a limitation on automatic weapons would be an infrigment on the purposes of the Second Amendment. If we want to have an honest discussion about the issue of gun control, then let’s frame the discussion correctly, “Should the people have the right to keep and bear arms that could be used to violently overthrown the central government”.

Let’s remember that this country was formed in a violent revolution. Let’s remember that at Lexington and Concord citizen fired on and killed government solidiers sent by the central government to confiscate their weapons and arms.

If we are going to have gun control then let’s not dicker around the fringes. Let those who would limit the law-abiding citizen’s access to arms first repeal the Second Amendment. That would be the intellectually honest way to address the issue.

United Liberty

Justice Antonin Scalia-Guns May be Regulated

Comments Off

The 2nd amendment is the next in their sights as all the rest of the Bill of Rights has been trashed while the people just sit around and watch.  But I predict another Civil War before that is accomplished. Most Americans know what is next after our guns are gone.

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court’s most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.

“It will have to be decided in future cases,” Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also “locational limitations” on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

When asked if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Scalia declined to speculate. “We’ll see,” he said. ‘”It will have to be decided.”

As an originalist scholar, Scalia looks to the text of the Constitution—which confirms the right to bear arms—but also the context of 18th-century history. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne,” he told host Chris Wallace.

In a wide-ranging interview, Scalia also stuck by his criticism of Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority opinion in the ruling that upheld the Affordable Care Act this summer. “You don’t interpret a penalty to be a pig. It can’t be a pig,” said Scalia, of the court’s decision to call the penalty for not obtaining health insurance a tax. “There is no way to regard this penalty as a tax.”

Scalia, a septuagenarian, said he had given no thought to retiring. “My wife doesn’t want me hanging around the house,” he joked. But he did say he would try to time his retirement from the court so that a justice of similar conservative sentiments would take his place, presumably as the appointee of a Republican president. “Of course I would not like to be replaced by somebody who sets out immediately to undo” what he has spent decades trying to achieve, the justice said.

National Journal

Older Entries


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 396 other followers