~~~*Cracking the Eggs of All Known / Unknown Transformations Throughout All Creation*~~~
####Finding and Discussing Breaking Headlines, Theories, Philosophies, & Discoveries#### ^As Well As Expositing Lost or Obscure Paradigms of Ancient Timelines. Namaste Starseeds^
The current anti-gun president and his allies are moving forward with an apparent multi-pronged attack on gun owners as they seek to ban online ammo purchases, ban gun-related online internet communications, and to mandate firearms insurance.
Here’s more information about what your government is doing in this regard:
Online Ammo Purchase Ban
Barack Obama’s anti-gun allies in Congress are moving right now to effectively OUTLAW your freedom to purchase ammunition online.
The “Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2015″ was recently introduced and it already has cosponsors.
This crippling new law would:
FORCE you to submit a photo ID in-person every time you purchase any ammunition;
REPORT you to Obama’s anti-gun U.S. Attorney General if you purchase more than 1,000 rounds within a five day period;
REGISTER ammunition buyers like you in a database maintained by Obama’s bureaucrats at the Department of Justice.
According to the bill’s chief sponsor, this new law would give the Obama administration the power to “monitor” law-abiding gun owners and “flag them for law enforcement.”
Ban Gun-related Communication on the Internet
A State Department proposal may make information-sharing on guns illegal as part of the proposed regulations of the Arms
Export Control Act.
What these regulations would do is to define “export” to include potentially any gun-related communication on the Internet or social media. The regulation would apply to all private communications, so long as the “network” (e.g., the Internet) is, in general, publicly available.
With this in place, the Obama Administration would have the regulatory framework to comprehensively regulate gun-related speech in cyberspace, to whatever extent it desires. In the hands of an anti-gun administration such as Barack Obama’s, the regulations have the potential of granting the State Department an expanded ability to regulate and license gun-related speech on the electronic media.
Mandatory Firearms Insurance
Barack Obama’s gun-hating allies in Congress have just unveiled a new bill (H.R. 2546) that would force YOU to buy government-mandated liability insurance before you would be allowed to purchase a firearm.
And if you can’t afford this expensive new insurance mandate?
""Local governments now have the right to tell you how to store your guns thanks to the inaction of the US Supreme Court.
The court Monday refused to hear an appeal of a US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that upheld a San Francisco ordinance requiring owners in their own home either to store firearms in a locked container or disable them with trigger locks when not in use. Gun owners can wear the gun in a holster, but other than that, the gun must be put away.
As is usual, the Supreme Court did not explain why it didn’t hear the case, although two justices argued the court should have heard it.
“San Francisco’s law allows residents to use their handguns for the purpose of self-defense, but it prohibits them from keeping those handguns operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense when not carried on the person,” US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a six page dissent about the case,Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco.
Justice Antonin Scalia joined Thomas’ dissent.
“In an emergency situation, the delay imposed by this law could prevent San Francisco residents from using their handguns for the lawful purpose of self-defense,” Thomas stated. “And that delay could easily be the difference between life and death.”
Thomas added, “The law thus burdens their right to self-defense at the times they are most vulnerable – when they are sleeping, bathing, changing clothes, or otherwise indisposed. There is consequently no question that San Francisco’s law burdens the core of the Second Amendment right.”
According to the San Francisco ordinance, violators could face up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. Six San Francisco residents joined the NRA and the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association in 2009 in challenging the law in federal court.
Conflicts with Landmark Heller Ruling
Thomas contended that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Jackson conflicts with a landmark US Supreme Court ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller.
In that case, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment gives citizens a right to own firearms and possess them within the home for self-defense. Heller struck down a Washington, D.C. law that banned the possession of handguns.
The court’s ruling means that the San Francisco ordinance and similar laws in states and territories in the Ninth Circuit can be enforced. The Ninth Circuit covers Hawaii, Alaska, California, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington state.
But the law also gives a boost to gun control advocates outside of the Ninth Circuit who want to see other cities pass similar ordinances.""
""A 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities details what critics say is a troubling policy that envisions the Obama administration’s potential use of military force against Americans.
The directive contains noncontroversial provisions on support to civilian fire and emergency services, special events and the domestic use of the Army Corps of Engineers.
The troubling aspect of the directive outlines presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest.
“This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” said a defense official opposed to the directive.
Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”
“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states.
“In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.
The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”
“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states.
Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest.
A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters.
Mr. Bundy is engaged in a legal battle with the federal Bureau of Land Management over unpaid grazing fees. Along with a group of protesters, Mr. Bundy in April confronted federal and local authorities in a standoff that ended when the authorities backed down.
The Pentagon directive authorizes the secretary of defense to approve the use of unarmed drones in domestic unrest. But it bans the use of missile-firing unmanned aircraft.
“Use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” the directive says.
Defense analysts say there has been a buildup of military units within non-security-related federal agencies, notably the creation of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. The buildup has raised questions about whether the Obama administration is undermining civil liberties under the guise of counterterrorism and counternarcotics efforts.
Other agencies with SWAT teams reportedly include the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Education Department.
The militarization of federal agencies, under little-known statues that permit deputization of security officials, comes as the White House has launched verbal attacks on private citizens’ ownership of firearms despite the fact that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens.
A White House National Security Council spokeswoman declined to comment.
President Obama stated at the National Defense University a year ago: “I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen — with a drone or with a shotgun — without due process, nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.”
A Pentagon official who defended the directive said it was signed in December 2010 after four years of thorough consultations within the Pentagon and with other federal agencies The 2010 directive replaced several previously published directives in 1980, 1991, and 1993. The last time military forces were used to quell civil unrest was 1906 following the San Francisco earthquake to protect the federal mint and restore order in the city.
The official said: “I suppose that in a very extreme case, one can imagine a combination of natural and man-made disasters that result in the cascading failure of communication infrastructure, or some electro-magnetic pulse that shuts down all electronic communication.”
“In the event that it should happen in today’s day and age, we would want our senior military leaders in the field to do all they can to assist their fellow Americans to prevent significant loss of life or malicious destruction of property and to protect federal property or federal governmental functions,” the official said.
HOUSE HITS ONA DOWNGRADE
The House defense authorization bill passed last week calls for adding $10 million to the Pentagon’s future warfare think tank and for codifying the Office of Net Assessment (ONA) as a semi-independent unit.
The provision is being called the Andrew Marshall amendment after the ONA’s longtime director and reflects congressional support for the 92-year-old manager and his staying power through numerous administrations, Republican and Democratic.
Mr. Marshall’s opponents within the Pentagon and the Obama administration persuaded Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel this year to downgrade the ONA by cutting its budget and placing it under the control of the undersecretary of defense for policy. The ONA currently is a separate entity within the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Members of the House Committee on Armed Services objected and added the $10 million to the administration’s $8.9 million request, along with a legal provision that would codify ONA’s current status as separate from the policy undersecretary shop.
The committee was concerned Mr. Hagel’s downgrade would “limit the ability and flexibility of ONA to conduct long-range comparative assessments,” the report on the authorization bill states.
“The office has a long history of providing alternative analyses and strategies that challenge the ‘group think’ that can often pervade the Department of Defense,” the report says, noting an increasing demand for unconventional thinking about space warfare capabilities by China and Russia.""
""Commonly used and unregulated internet discussions and videos about guns and ammo could be closed down under rules proposed by the State Department, amounting to a "gag order on firearm-related speech," the National Rifle Association is warning.
In updating regulations governing international arms sales, State is demanding that anyone who puts technical details about arms and ammo on the web first get the OK from the federal government — or face a fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in jail.
According to the NRA, that would include blogs and web forums discussing technical details of common guns and ammunition, the type of info gun owners and ammo reloaders trade all the time.
"Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities," said the NRA in a blog posting.
"This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second," warned the NRA's lobbying shop. "Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published," it added.
At issue is the internet. State is updating International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The rules govern everything from guns to strategic bombers.
The NRA said that the rules predate the internet, and now the federal government wants to regulate technical arms discussions on on the internationally available web.
State's proposal is highly technical. It took 14 pages in the Federal Register to explain. But the NRA boiled it down for gun owners with this warning:
"In their current form, the ITAR do not (as a rule) regulate technical data that are in what the regulations call the 'public domain.' Essentially, this means data 'which is published and which is generally accessible or available to the public' through a variety of specified means. These include 'at libraries open to the public or from which the public can obtain documents.' Many have read this provision to include material that is posted on publicly available websites, since most public libraries these days make Internet access available to their patrons.
"The ITAR, however, were originally promulgated in the days before the Internet. Some State Department officials now insist that anything published online in a generally-accessible location has essentially been 'exported,' as it would be accessible to foreign nationals both in the U.S. and overseas.
"With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be 'clarifying' the rules concerning 'technical data' posted online or otherwise 'released' into the 'public domain.' To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the 'authorization' of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.""
ACTION: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Orrin Hatch may soon give the President authority to write gun control restrictions into a “trade agreement.” So click here to contact your Senators –- whether they are liberal or conservative. Urge them to vote against the anti-gun “fast track” bill (S. 995).
Will UN-style gun control be rammed down our throats?
""Gun import bans ... Microstamping of firearms ... Ammunition bans ... The full implementation of the anti-gun UN Arms Trade Treaty ... Illegal amnesty which locks in millions of new, anti-gun voters.
This anti-gun wish list could be part of the secret trade agreement that President Obama is getting ready to spring on the Congress.
This trade pact is called “fast track,” and what it means is that Obama can write any form of gun control he chooses into a trade agreement -- import bans, amnesty, etc.
And this agreement DOESN’T need two-thirds vote in the Senate, as a treaty would. When completed, the agreement is merely subject to a majority vote in both Houses ... it can't be filibustered ... it can't be amended ... and the GOP can't refuse to consider it.
Top Secret TPP means you won’t know what’s in the bill
Reports have already surfaced that the TOP SECRET draft contains a whole chapter with a European Union-style provision allowing unlimited migration from Mexico into the United States. This would fulfill Obama’s dream -- which he begun with Executive Amnesty -- to import millions of new anti-gun (liberal) voters into the country.
Of course, we can't quote for you any of the language in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement because the document is TOP SECRET. Obama won't reveal it, even to most congressmen, until Congress has given it its imprimatur by allowing it to pass under fast track procedures.
On Monday, Politico reported:
If you want to hear the details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal the Obama administration is hoping to pass, you’ve got to be a member of Congress, and you’ve got to go to classified briefings and leave your staff and cellphone at the door.
If you’re a [congressional] member who wants to read the text, you’ve got to go to a room in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center and be handed it one section at a time, watched over as you read, and forced to hand over any notes you make before leaving.
And no matter what, you can’t discuss the details of what you’ve read.
Truly, even more than with ObamaCare, this is a case of "You have to pass it to find out what's in it."
Some Republicans are being duped
But that's not all: The fast track authority being granted to Obama and his successor for the next six years applies to whatever type of trade negotiation Obama chooses to enter into.
So, if he can write the UN Arms Trade Treaty into a trade agreement, then it can't be filibustered or amended or prevented from consideration.""
