Bank manager, fired after carrying gun into work, files suit (http://tbo.com/news/crime/bank-manager-fired-after-carrying-gun-into-work-files-suit-20140221/)

Here's someone who wants to carry their 2nd Amendment rights too far. As an employee, did she not sign an employment agreement where she promised to follow company policy, including the one about handguns? If your WRITTEN word is no good, why bother?

Is the example being set by the leadership of our country picking and choosing which laws it wants to follow on which day starting to permeate society?

I personally feel no individual or business should have the right to deny ANYONE their constitutional rights.

She knew the rules before she got hired and she chose to disobey them so she got fired. Good luck in court. And the next job.

chaos, pure chaos, it isn't a matter of constitutional rights bank employees are provided with fire arms when the management thinks they should have them as a bank employee in my youth I carried a fire arm when on cash escort duty but it is rediculous that every employee should be armed, it puts the customers in jeopardy. where I come from bank tellers are behind bullet proof shields, this is the appropriate way to protect them

the policy in a hold up is don't risk your life give it to them and leave it to the police

The problem with your society is everyone is a constitutional lawyer, shouting rights rather than common sense

I personally feel no individual or business should have the right to deny ANYONE their constitutional rights.

it's not a violation of rights . it's a term of employment . Either comply with them or work some place else.

I personally feel no individual or business should have the right to deny ANYONE their constitutional rights.

The Bank has no rights?

The Bank has no rights?

a bank is an entity, admittently an artifical one, and an entity not necessarily forseen by the constitution. It can be argued that a corporation has rights

Yep, that's a no-brainer, she violated the terms of employment and you don't have the right to carry a gun into anyone's business you want.

Hello cats:

Is the example being set by the leadership of our country picking and choosing which laws it wants to follow on which day starting to permeate society?Been living in a cave??? It's called DISCRETION.

Lemme ask you this... Does the cop on the street have the "discretion" to write a ticket or NOT write a ticket depending on certain circumstances???? He DOES.... So, if the lowly cop on the street has DISCRETION to "pick and choose" which law he wants to enforce, why would you think the president doesn't have it???

excon

I personally feel no individual or business should have the right to deny ANYONE their constitutional rights.

Sorry, but constitutional rights are constraints on the government, not private individuals or organizations. Just as I have the right to not permit guns in my home, a corporation can prohibit them in the workplace. If the employment agreement did not specify, that would be different. But since the policy was specific, then she knew she was violating the policy. It doesn't matter HOW she violated the policy, simply that she did. If I were Wells Fargo attorneys I would argue that this is not a constitutional issue but a matter of a corporation being able to exercise its rights. And they should win.

Hello cats:
Been living in a cave??? It's called DISCRETION.

Lemme ask you this... Does the cop on the street have the "discretion" to write a ticket or NOT write a ticket depending on certain circumstances???? He DOES.... So, if the lowly cop on the street has DISCRETION to "pick and choose" which law he wants to enforce, why would you think the president doesn't have it???


excon

The president does not have the discretion to thwart the express will of Congress n the laws they pass. Again, be careful what you wish for, I'm sure you're tune will change if a right winger gets the office.

P.S. The officer is not rewriting the law.

Hello again, Steve:

P.S. The officer is not rewriting the law.Uhhh, yes he is...

Who, pray tell, passed the laws against speeding??? The Boy Scouts??? If the cop on the street lets a speeder go, he ABSOLUTELY IS thwarting the express will of congress..

The President DOES have at least as much authority as the cop on the street...


excon

Discretion as to how the law is applied has always been the bottom line. Be it a cop, or president, congress or ceo. They could have told the teller to take her gun home and never bring it back. They didn't. She got fired because that was their discretion.

Do you really think she has a right to carry a gun to work when she signed an agreement to follow the bank's rules, and not bring it to work? The only way her lawyer gets paid if they settle out of court, and why should they do that? The real issue is how much they want to pay their legal team to fight her, which is what she is probably counting on. Money may trump principle on this one so rights are moot.

The manager had a constitutional right to choose not to work for an organization whose policies she disagreed with. She did NOT have a right, once she agreed to employment, to violate the organizations policies.

Again, the right to bear arms does NOT enter into this. It's the same as the rules of this site. We require civility, refraining from personalities, etc. Posts that violate those rules are edited or removed. If you don't like those rules you have the option to not participate.

Except that the President Does NOT have the constitution power of prosecutorial discretion ,nor does the President have the power to disregard statutory obligations . Show me where in the Constitution is the President granted such powers . Here's a hint ;Article 1 Sec 8 gives Congress the power to make law. If an executive decision violates that law ,then the executive is violating that law. (ie dates that mandates in Obamacare become active ...ie deciding not to enforce immigration law) .Here is a guideline ..... When a law is passed that allows such discretion ,the President may feel free to act accordingly . Other than that ,he is bound by oath to the 'Take Care "Clause of Article II .

I have already sent you the links of the discretionary powers to implement the ACA written into the law so that ship has sailed. But here is a good an article explaining it as any.

Delaying Parts of Obamacare: 'Blatantly Illegal' or Routine Adjustment? - Simon Lazarus - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/delaying-parts-of-obamacare-blatantly-illegal-or-routine-adjustment/277873/)

As to rights of the people under the constitution, it can be regulated by congress. Yet the congress is subject to the NRA, more than the will of the people it seems where the people overwhelmingly favor some type of restrictions. So congress does nothing. Wells Fargo acted in it's own interest and made its own rules, and enforced them at their discretion.

Now we see how the fired party fares in court. Taking bets who prevails?

Let's look at it from your side. Executive discretion frees Congress of responsibility for the laws they pass. It encourages them to make the laws vague and overbroad ,which in turn gives the President even more power to act (or not ) .This is very dangerous . It sets precedence for future executive over reach (and you may not like who's making the call the next time ) .What the emperor is doing is rewriting the law .You know it and I know it .

Hello again, tom:

What the emperor is doing is rewriting the law .You know it and I know it .What I KNOW is that congress has oversight. If the "emperor" is breaking the law, he's doing so WITH the APPROVAL of the Republican lead House of Representatives. That there's NO attempt whatsoever, to bring impeachment charges, or ANY charges on ANY administration official, tells me that you got NOTHING.



excon

Hello again, tom:
What I KNOW is that congress has oversight. If the "emperor" is breaking the law, he's doing so WITH the APPROVAL of the Republican lead House of Representatives. That there's NO attempt whatsoever, to bring impeachment charges, or ANY charges on ANY administration official, tells me that you got NOTHING.



excon

Your aim is off. Harry Reid has proven he will stymy any action by the House, so what's the point? Perhaps next year if the elections go the GOP's way.

Ok, this has gone too far afield. The issue here is the right of an employee to defy company policy. There is NO issue of selective prosecution here since no criminal act has been committed. The Manager is suing the bank claiming (falsely in my opinion) that her Constitutional rights were interfered with.

Cats, your comment about picking and choosing laws really doesn't apply to this. The bank has a right to enforce their policies. The manager doesn't understand that this isn't a constitutional issue.

it's not a violation of rights . it's a term of employment . Either comply with them or work some place else.

That's only my opinion... which has no bearing on the legality of it.

What is with all these Amendies (word I coined for certain people) who know how to quote the Constitution and the Amendments, and that's it? They don't seem to get that the Amendments are short for a reason - because they are designed to be interpreted in precendent cases that change as our society changes.

This gun case isn't exactly 'can't shout fire in a crowded theater' but there are plenty of situations where the right to carry is trumped by other law, such as on private property or more and more nowadays, in certain gov't buildings.

This gun case isn't exactly 'can't shout fire in a crowded theater' but there are plenty of situations where the right to carry is trumped by other law, such as on private property or more and more nowadays, in certain gov't buildings.

The English versus Legalese in the Bill of Rights is a topic for another thread. This gun case, as has been noted, is not about the right to carry but about the legality of an employment agreement violation being grounds for termination.

The way it is you comply with the reasonable directions of your employer or you seek employment elsewhere there is no case for doing your own thing just because you think you have a right to do so. I expect the termination occurred because the employer had formed the opinion the employee would not comply with the terms of the employment contract

The English versus Legalese in the Bill of Rights is a topic for another thread. This gun case, as has been noted, is not about the right to carry but about the legality of an employment agreement violation being grounds for termination. I think it is all bound up together. A person cannot sign a contract that allows a company to lock them away in a cell after work each night. This would be a violation of the natural right to liberty.

A court would support a legally binding contract. The argument on the part of the plaintiff seems to be that placing a restriction to carry a firearm to work is the denial of a natural right. Perhaps of the same type as being locked away at night thus depriving one of liberty.

SCOTUS has a history of not seeing it this way. They have a history of finding that provisos and restrictions are consistent with the 2nd Amendment. The bottom line I guess is that so long as the contract isn't in violation of the legislation in relation to the 2nd Amendment then the plaintiff doesn't seem to have a case. Anyway, that's how I read it.

edit. Added a line left out.

While its true that one cannot sign away certain rights in a contract. Its not that bound together. Courts have consistently ruled in the favor of legally entered contracts over most rights. The Bill of Rights are constraints against the government. They were a reaction to the tyranny of the English during the lead up to the evolution. The Founding Fathers wanted to prevent the newly established government from curtailing the rights of the citizenry. There was no consideration of applying those rights to private contracts. For example, Indentured Servitude continued into the 19th century.

So, again, there is no 2nd Amendment issue in this case.

The Bill of Rights are constraints against the government. exactly . The key point in 2 active op here.
The bank ownership did not give up their private property rights either ;and if they decide that there will be no guns on their property then there is nothing the employee can do to change that.

She can sue in court, which she is doing. That's her right to get redress, if not her job back.

She has no case . The bank can't prevent her from owning a gun ...having conceal and carry permit. But on their property ,the bank makes the rules . If I decide no on can be armed on my property ,there is nothing the government or courts can do to change it .

"For a man's house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium (and each man's home is his safest refuge)." [Sir Edward Coke ' The Institutes of the Laws of England', 1628]

She can sue in court, which she is doing. That's her right to get redress, if not her job back.

I agree, she can sue. But she won't win and she will be out thousands in attorney fees.

I agree with Scott that she isnt going to win. The one thing that hasnt been brought up so far is that a bank is a multifacited business. It is a private enterprise but also a federal institution. That being said Banks must adhere to federal rules and regulations. They are a defacto federal building even though held by private hands such as an individual or investment team. Laws for federal buildings are much different then those that are truely privately owned and operated.

Which insane country heavily restricts firearms on military bases?
Fort Hood Press Center (http://www.forthoodpresscenter.com/go/doc/3439/1992690/)

In a country where gun laws are insane it is hard to know where insanity begins and where it ends. What isn't recognised is death is so permanent whilst firing a gun is a momentary thing

Which insane country heavily restricts firearms on military bases?
Fort Hood Press Center (http://www.forthoodpresscenter.com/go/doc/3439/1992690/)

Keeping firearms in the armory has valid reasons, mostly maintenance. Not issuing them to security forces, particularly on that base, is naïve.

all you are really saying is you will never keep a gun out of the hands of someone who wants to use it, so don't try

Drugs come into the country by the ton, they haven't managed to stop them... Guns can as well.

What makes you think security forces at Fort Hood don't carry guns? How do you stop a nut from getting a gun is still the question.

What makes you think security forces at Fort Hood don't carry guns? How do you stop a nut from getting a gun is still the question.
Have you spent much time on lage government and military installations in recent years Tal?

Bill Clinton signed legislation that prevented anyone but MP's carrying a weapon on them. Know where most of the MP's tend to be? At the gates...

Ft Hood is one of the larger bases we have... thats a LOT of literally unprotected space inside where some loon bent on murder will know he is free to do what they want knowing nobody but a scarce few MP's will have weapons to defend themselves.

I have been to Fort Hood several times and nobody walks in without being ID, not even the soldiers, so cut the crap and they have armed security, and a police force. All guns must be registered. When a sudden event breaks out they are as helpless as anybody when a NUT with a gun explodes. He probably bought a gun right down the road like that other nut before him.

Isn't that the risk of granting rights to bear arms to citizens with mental issues? We have already proved they can't be stopped until after they have done their deed. Go ahead make this about not enough guns. There are plenty of guns, some get into the wrong hands. I can PROVE that!!

I have been to Fort Hood several times and nobody walks in without being ID, not even the soldiers, so cut the crap and they have armed security, and a police force. All guns must be registered. When a sudden event breaks out they are as helpless as anybody when a NUT with a gun explodes. He probably bought a gun right down the road like that other nut before him.

Isn't that the risk of granting rights to bear arms to citizens with mental issues? We have already proved they can't be stopped until after they have done their deed. Go ahead make this about not enough guns. There are plenty of guns, some get into the wrong hands. I can PROVE that!!

Tal... "cut the crap" as you say... BOTH cases of mass shootings on Ft. Hood were done by ID card holders... who basically drive right in without a vehicle check that non-ID card holders would be subjected to...

Neither of them had any prohibitions from owning guns... both of them were prohibited from carrying them onto the base.

Everyone else was basically unarmed and the shooters knew it.

Both knew full well they would have plenty of time to kill as many as they could before MP's would be called and have time to arrive and find them.

None of them could have pulled the same stunt outside the base were there are a LOT of conciel carry permit holders with guns.

WRONG! A nut can shoot up schools, movie theaters, and beauty salons, federal buildings, museums, and political rallies in supermarket parking lots suddenly, and with impunity.

All those conceal and carry permits have stopped NOTHING yet.

WRONG! A nut can shoot up schools, movie theaters, and beauty salons, federal buildings, museums, and political rallies in supermarket parking lots suddenly, and with impunity.

All those conceal and carry permits have stopped NOTHING yet.

FACT... most recent mass shootings have all been in "gun free zones".

Gun free zones protect the criminal element from being shot by legal gun owners. THey offer no protection to the general public in them.

As is abundently clear over the course of history... the criminal elemnet isn't deterred by what any law might say.

YOU can't prove your claim that no single crime has ever NOT been prevented by a concielded carry permit holder. In fact I challenge you to try.

There are thousands of recorded cases where they have... some of them on video. I'd link some right now but unfortunately the corporate firewall blocks the searchs on that topic from the office.

Is that why some places are making guns legal in bars, churches, and schools, and you can shoot first and ask questions later if you FEEL threatened or afraid?

Funny how everyplace that has relaxed gun restrictions a significantdrop in crime has resulted.

And yet places where the opposite applies... Like Chicago... remain with sky high violent crime rates.

Lot of good those anti-gun laws do there... huh?

Everyone else was basically unarmed and the shooters knew it.


15 minutes before assistance arrived . There is no argument against that fact . When seconds count the police are minutes away.

All those conceal and carry permits have stopped NOTHING yet.

GUN WATCH: Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens (http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html)

what is missing here is that the population hasn't got the message that using guns isn't an acceptable solution to solve your problems and it will only get that message if the right to own a firearm is restricted. So whileever the status quo remains you will have these incidents and large number of people will loose their lives because of gun violence. Sometimes you have to give up "rights" so everyone can be safe

what is missing here is that the population hasn't got the message that using guns isn't an acceptable solution to solve your problems and it will only get that message if the right to own a firearm is restricted. So whileever the status quo remains you will have these incidents and large number of people will loose their lives because of gun violence. Sometimes you have to give up "rights" so everyone can be safe

The last few decades here we've been trying that approach, which is a total reversal from one that was effective. The effective approach was called "education." At one point in America nearly every sixth grade (13 year olds, plus/minus) class had a Firearms safety and Marksmanship program presented by NRA certified instructors. (Cue argument about Benjamin Spock, Teachers' Unions, and the NRA) If we get back to that, where going to the range is viewed by kids the same way taking out the garbage or cleaning their room is, firearms will lose their patina of "cool" and we can then do something about the overuse of Ritalin and Ambien that turn soldiers and students into maniacs.

yes you could do a lot of things to keep you philosopy going or you could reverse the philosopy and do what others have found to be successful. You see your philosopy was created by a frontier society of a few million people, but now you are an urban society of many millions. If you started again today, you would not allow free access to weapons, that right would need to be earned and justified

You see I was trained to use firearms in an environment you speak of, military cadets, but that didn't stop me from doing stupid things with guns before I matured. I have not felt the need to own a weapon for many years because I don't have a use for one, the society I live in is peaceful with a low level of gun violence. I also no longer find the urge to kill something for sport

what is missing here is that the population hasn't got the message that using guns isn't an acceptable solution to solve your problems and it will only get that message if the right to own a firearm is restricted. So whileever the status quo remains you will have these incidents and large number of people will loose their lives because of gun violence. Sometimes you have to give up "rights" so everyone can be safe

I'm not giving up MY rights... nor are the majority of Americans going to... not to the group of people that think we don't have a right to guns (which we do in the constitution) but do think we do have a right to unlimited use of illegal illicit drugs (which we DON'T under federal law).

You see your philosopy was created by a frontier society of a few million people, but now you are an urban society of many millions.

I was talking about 1970, when the population was over 213,000,000. That qualifies as the "many millions," I should think.

Our "philosophy" was created in response to the abuses of YOUR (at the time) government. To this day a good many Americans regard all governments as somewhat illegitimate.

your sense of history is a little out, our nation came into being after you had that little fracass over there so we didn't have a government at the time but the aboriginees, a primative society in charge at that time, all carried weapons for hunting. Right from the start the carrying of weapons was not the norm in this nation with the result that a peaceful society developed, this was a response to what had happened in your nation.

I understand your long history of violence and war on that continent in the early days, you are a victim of history and paranoid thinking

your sense of history is a little out,

My mistake. I had thought the colony was established in 1758, not '88. Still George III, though.

My mistake. I had thought the colony was established in 1758, not '88. Still George III, though.

Yes mad George had a lot of problems in those days and was fighting a world wide war of which the theatres of action in the americas was only part. He sought to solve some of his problems by starting a new colony, something akin in those days to colonising Mars. The people who were sent here didn't expect to come back and being mainly of a criminal class were not permitted to have arms. This meant that when rebellion came as it inevietably did, it was quickly put down, you see the English had learned from their mistakes and there were no French and Spanish to cheer on the revolt. Also we didn't need to conquer the continent as the natives quickly surrcumbed to grog and disease. In fact what had to conquered was the terrian

It is interesting that a youth resorted to using a knife in an attack on fellow students. It seems this might not have been premeditated but it was good that someone carrying a gun didn't shoot him.

We can assume that the carrying of knives was banned at that high school, however for the young, rules are made to be broken. The comment I want to make is very obvious. Despite many injuries no one died, had the fellow possessed a gun undoubtedly many would have died. This is truly the other side of the gun, when guns aren't present fewer people die

I used to do some electronic Engineering work in that town for a while... a couple decades ago. I know that area fairly well.

and.. ... is there some insight on this incident you want to share?

Nope... not really... I blame it on the politically coprrect movement and the people who don't believe in punishing kids who misbehave.

We used to be allowed to have knives when I was in school.., you was almost obligated by the guy code to make at least one hunting knife as a metalshop project, and nobody ever thought of doing that to anyone else... you could have two guys with knife have a fight... and they would never come out of their pockets... it was mano a mano... if you got your butt whipped you were a man and accepted it.

Yes not many men around these days, we could come up with some reasons but there might be objections. It is the result of living in a matriachal society

time to ban assault knives .

Yeah, lets go back to throwing rock, and using sticks to solve our problems, and deal with the nuts who have BIG issues.

deal with the nuts

Hey, there's an idea! Dealing with people and their problems would seem a better approach than regulating what tools they use when they go off. Or we could ban guns, then knives, then fertilizer and fuel, then bleach and baking soda, then peaches, then... ad infinitum.

This all started going downhill when they emptied out the insane assylums and turned the loons loose on the public. After all they have a right to be free to do this sort of thing to us... but we don't have a right to be protected from them doing it.

we don't have a right to be protected from them doing it.

You have the rights you can defend. There have always been and will always be wannabe rulers that know better than you what's best for you.

You have the rights you can defend. There have always been and will always be wannabe rulers that know better than you what's best for you.
Yes , and that we do... unless you live in Chicago, or NYC. But they are working hard to take away that ability and right. They don't believe there should be any law abiding citizens owning weapons... much less having the right to carry them, except the goons and thugs loyal to their party.

Hey, there's an idea! Dealing with people and their problems would seem a better approach than regulating what tools they use when they go off. Or we could ban guns, then knives, then fertilizer and fuel, then bleach and baking soda, then peaches, then... ad infinitum.

That's a continuum error.

continuum, yes an appropriate term for a never ending problum

Yeah, lets go back to throwing rock, and using sticks to solve our problems, and deal with the nuts who have BIG issues.

I suggest it is an infinitely better solution to allowing the use of firearms, as soon as someone picks up a rock you can arrest him whereas if someone picks up a gun you cannot, afterall there is no right to possess "rocks". Of course a rather stupid body would quickly define the possession of rocks as arms indicating just how many rocks they have in their head. It will never catch on since rocks are freely available to all

I suggest it is an infinitely better solution to allowing the use of firearms, as soon as someone picks up a rock you can arrest him whereas if someone picks up a gun you cannot, afterall there is no right to possess "rocks". Of course a rather stupid body would quickly define the possession of rocks as arms indicating just how many rocks they have in their head. It will never catch on since rocks are freely available to all

No background checks either.

yep rocks can be freely sold or exchanged

And quite a few polititians seem to have been born with them rattling around in their heads.

several gun web sites are reporting that Eric Holder ,in testimony about the fiscal budget made this statement about increaded spending on a program that in his words would “ ...will double the capacity of the existing
NICS [National Instant Check System] system. These expansions are vital in ensuring that the NICS system can support a Universal Background Check requirement, which is expected to double gross NICS transactions.”

These sites also say that he requested $51 million and 255 agents for the purpose of copying 4473 forms. I can't find the transcripts of the hearing ,or any other independent reporting on this. We already know that Congress (including the Dem led Senate ) has rejected legislation that would create universal registry . But that has never stopped the emperor before. It appears if these reports are true ,that Holder is laying the infrastructure ground work for some future legislation....or executive fiat.

It's fact that people cross state lines to buy guns. I think the 50 states should be on the same page and instantly know when a gun is being purchased by anyone before being allowed to buy it.

Don't you think Texas should know the fool from New York is trying to buy a gun?

I think EVERY state should be forced to recognise and accept the Conciealed carry permits issued by another state.

Nobody from NY is allowed to buy guns in Texas or any other state now. All deliveries have to happen through a FFL holder in the home state of the buyer. And has to follow all legal requirements, federal and local.

THis fantasy people have of walking into any gunshop in another state and walking out with 50 guns is complete bunk... unless that's a gun shop run buy Eric Holder and the Department of inJustice.

I think EVERY state should be forced to recognise and accept the Conciealed carry permits issued by another state.

Nobody from NY is allowed to buy guns in Texas or any other state now. All deliveries have to happen through a FFL holder in the home state of the buyer. And has to follow all legal requirements, federal and local.

THis fantasy people have of walking into any gunshop in another state and walking out with 50 guns is complete bunk... unless that's a gun shop run buy Eric Holder and the Department of inJustice.

Start with the truth. States that have recipricol rights have made agreements where in neighboring states it IS legal to buy a gun. That type of purchase only applies to long guns not hand guns. There can not be a private sale in another state of any kind of long gun nor hand gun. The only restrictions would be that set by the state as to the amount of guns you can buy.

Start with the truth. States that have recipricol rights have made agreements where in neighboring states it IS legal to buy a gun. That type of purchase only applies to long guns not hand guns. There can not be a private sale in another state of any kind of long gun nor hand gun. The only restrictions would be that set by the state as to the amount of guns you can buy.
I did speak the truth... you can not go into a state you do not reside.. purchase and carry out a gun... either a long gun or a hand gun.

They have to ship it to a licensed dealer in your home state where they complete the paperwork.

I've bought three riflles that way over the years where the shops selling the guns were actually closer than the shop I had to ship them to in my state to take delivery of them..


And thats been over the last 20 years....its not something new.

I did speak the truth... you can not go into a state you do not reside.. purchase and carry out a gun... either a long gun or a hand gun.

They have to ship it to a licensed dealer in your home state where they complete the paperwork.

I've bought three riflles that way over the years where the shops selling the guns were actually closer than the shop I had to ship them to in my state to take delivery of them..


And thats been over the last 20 years....its not something new.


Wow you are behind the time. You can buy long guns from out of state dealers (ffl).
Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

Firearms - Frequently Asked Questions - Unlicensed Persons | ATF (http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons#gca-unlicensed-acquire)

Wow you are behind the time. You can buy long guns from out of state dealers (ffl).
Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?A person may only acquire a firearm within the person's own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

Firearms - Frequently Asked Questions - Unlicensed Persons | ATF (http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons#gca-unlicensed-acquire)


Then a lot of dealers are refusing to follow that because I wasn't allowed to take delivery on any them outside of my home state, I had to pay to ship them, and pay the other dealer to deal with the paperwork...(the lower prices I got on them justified the cost however), they were not bought at the same dealer or on the same date.. And none of the dealers around here will sell anything but ammunition to out of state purchacers. Unless the dealer they are shipping it to another dealer in that persons state.

And thats in Virginia....the state that the gun grabbing lobby is so fond of singling out. But also in Pennsylvania and Maryland (before the recent draconian law)

I'd pull up some links backing that up... if the corporate firewall didn't flash I violation for a category of weapons... meaning I can't do it until later tonight.


I'd rather do private purchaces however because the only reason Big Brother needs to know who has what...is so they have a list of what to take when they start grabbing guns.

I'd rather do private purchaces

The wisest choice

today billionaire ,former Mayor Nanny Bloomy pledged $50 million to fight the NRA in the political arena . Let's hear the left condemn money in politics now .

today billionaire ,former Mayor Nanny Bloomy pledged $50 million to fight the NRA in the political arena . Let's hear the left condemn money in politics now .

Tom, I don't think you get it. Condemnation should be aimed at both sides.

Why ? I don't condemn it at all . Nanny Bloomy has the right to political speech too.

today billionaire ,former Mayor Nanny Bloomy pledged $50 million to fight the NRA in the political arena . Let's hear the left condemn money in politics now .

Is that what he needs to write off?

no I think Bloomy is genuinely committed to keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens .

I think it is good someone has the conviction to fight a rabid lobby like the NRA, the question isn't whether law abiding citizens should own guns but whether there should be sufficient regulation to minimise the unlawful possession and use of these weapons. The debate should rest on how to minimise harm not maximise access

I think it is good someone has the conviction to fight a rabid lobby like the NRA, the question isn't whether law abiding citizens should own guns but whether there should be sufficient regulation to minimise the unlawful possession and use of these weapons. The debate should rest on how to minimise harm not maximise access

It should be noted here that the April 19th, 1775 raid on the Concord, Mass. Armory was to seize CANNON the government had declared illegal.

Why ? I don't condemn it at all . Nanny Bloomy has the right to political speech too.

Yes, but not 50 million dollars worth.

It should be noted here that the April 19th, 1775 raid on the Concord, Mass. Armory was to seize CANNON the government had declared illegal.

you really do need to stop living in the past, back in those days you had a very small criminal class who largely confined themselves to petty crime, today you have a very large criminal class who think murder and mayhem is fun

you really do need to stop living in the past, back in those days you had a very small criminal class who largely confined themselves to petty crime, today you have a very large criminal class who think murder and mayhem is fun

Those who forget the past... are condemned to repeat it.

Which part of the past are you avoiding, violent revolution? bloody conquest? Slavery? civil war? with your attitude to firearms you sow the seeds for all of these

Sorry... we are proud of our violent revolution... it got us away from British oppression.

And as far as slavery... it was hardly OUR doing... it existed millennia before the white man set foot on our shores (in fact it existed in certain native American tribes as well)... and if the slave trade... which incidentally was run by blacks... not whites didn't exist in Africa... it wouldn't have here either.

Never mind the lions share of the slave trade...even back then....existed outside of North America.....something people convieniently choose to ignore every day.

And thats its still alive and well in Africa and the Middle east......not to mention many other parts of the world yet today. Thats a Human issue...not an American one.

You cannot conflate the revolution for independence with the war that ended slavery because after the bloodshed came the terrorism of the former slaves and the tricks and traps that were designed to keep them from the same options and opportunities that even a poor white guy had. You may have been proud of the dark side of the American way, but the struggles of everyone but white guys is still evident today as the whips and chains were replaced with economic ones.

You haven't learned from the past, you are trying to preserve the past through policy and rules that allows you to be a volunteer slave and claim your dominance a superiority. That's why you can justify the freedom to own a gun, carry it anywhere, and shoot first if you get scared. That's why rich guys can rape and plunder and steal while you fill new jails with minorities and poor people. Poor people and minorities that have to have food stamps and programs to survive because HUGE companies pay slave wages.

Keep your lessons learned from the past, because you still hold on to them, and want them back in the worse way.

As opposed to Obama and the Democrats brand of Fascism today..

The "dark old past" was a huge improvement over what's going on right now.

Nixon didn't do anything compared to whats been happening the last 6 years under Obama.

Documents: IRS Leadership Colluded with Holder Justice Department to JAIL Political Opponents of Obama | (http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04/17/documents-irs-leadership-colluded-holder-justice-department-jail-political-opponents-obama/)

No it wasn't and using the government as an excuse for the end of the world is a scam to justify the good old boy norms you are use to. Calling names and kicking butt make YOU feel better, but offers no fair solutions to modern problems. You may as well go back to strapping your side arms on your hip, and slinging your rifle on your back when you leave the house, whether it's a watering hole, or a church if your that scared of the rest of the world.

Solving problems with a show of force only hides the fear from yourself. You fool NO ONE!

Yes, but not 50 million dollars worth.

you won't find the lefties complaining about George Soros $billions and you won't find me complaining about it either . You prefer that the government control the political message and access to it . I don't . Only someone who is ignorant about the way political speech is dispensed to the nation would complain that it takes money to take out a political ad. Even in the early days ,the pamphleteers needed the resources to dispense 'Common Sense' to the people . It didn't just happen ;and it certainly did not happen because the standing government permitted it .

you won't find the lefties complaining about George Soros $billions and you won't find me complaining about it eitherYou should. Otherwise you get a government controlled by the elites... which is basically what you have now.

who pays for political ads in Canada ?

Why? Do you think we'll be comparing amounts like $50 million from a single person/org?

I guess there is now an excuse and an explanation for the "Elite" class... incest.

UNIVERSITIES NOW BREED INTELLECTUAL IMBECILES | (http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04/17/universities-now-breed-intellectual-imbeciles/)

That's the second time you use that horrible source. Check it out: hover over all of those underlinked words and tell me where their sources are.
It's a horrible place to go for "news".

Maybe we could learn a better way if you tell us how you do it in Canada.

Federal political financing in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_Canada#The_corrupti ng_influence_of_fundraising)

Political donations in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_donations_in_Australia)

Looks like we are all a works in progress and the elites have the inside track of influence.

Why? Do you think we'll be comparing amounts like $50 million from a single person/org?
I already know the answer . Your governement decides how much each political party can spend .... (and it's not equal across the board.) So what you have is an incumbency protection plan. Your heavy regulation of political broadcast time also serves as incumbency protection.

serves as incumbency protection.Your theory falls flat since the political party in charge changes continuously. The amounts is part of the Elections Act and is not written by one party (of course).

New Yorkers tell the Fascists in charge what to do with their anti-American gun grab attempts.

Mass Civil Disobedience in New York Against ‘Safe Act’ | (http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04/17/mass-civil-disobedience-new-york-safe-act/)

I guess there is now an excuse and an explanation for the "Elite" class... incest.

UNIVERSITIES NOW BREED INTELLECTUAL IMBECILES | (http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04/17/universities-now-breed-intellectual-imbeciles/)


No, he was talking about ruling elites.

No, he was talking about ruling elites.

Not really much different... most of them are part of the same crowd. And they behave in the very same way...

Not really much different... most of them are part of the same crowd. And they behave in the very same way...

One important difference is that the ruling classes actually do, and have the capacity, to buy favours. The majority of the intelligentsia don't actually have the capacity to buy the favours needed to support their political ideology.

universities have been breeding intellectual imbeciles for a long time and the more university graduates you have the more imbeciles you will get. I wonder who has the most imbeciles? Higher education doesn't necessarily mean higher intelligence

The few governing the many is the current case. An imbecile with money has power and influence. A politician who knows a few rich imbeciles is likely to succeed.

Exactly... Martha Stewart does it... she goes to jail... Nancy Pelosi, HArry Reid Barabar Feinstien do it... they get rich and have a free pass to continue doing it.

Its not what you know... its who you know... sometimes who you know that knows what.

More total insanity from the Obama administration... one of the infinately imbicilic White House "ADVISORS" Lisa Monaco

White House Counterterror Chief: “Confrontational� Children Could be Terrorists | (http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04/18/white-house-counterterror-chief-confrontational-children-terrorists/)

The Public school system largely responsible the last several generations of juivenile delinquents... have now become TERRORISTS.

The few governing the many is the current case. An imbecile with money has power and influence. A politician who knows a few rich imbeciles is likely to succeed.

You nailed that one precisely:

Study: The U.S. Is an Oligarchy (http://gawker.com/study-the-u-s-is-an-oligarchy-1563363760)

You nailed that one precisely:

Study: The U.S. Is an Oligarchy (http://gawker.com/study-the-u-s-is-an-oligarchy-1563363760)

And lack of political will goes a long way to ensure hat the status quo will continue well into the future.

no comment

no comment

There is still a way.

Wolf PAC (http://www.wolf-pac.com)

ironic.... a political action committee created to solicit donations for the purpose of influencing the governance of the nation. Guess you support their free speech rights .

ironic.... a political action committee created to solicit donations for the purpose of influencing the governance of the nation. Guess you support their free speech rights .

No irony. How much of your money is contributing to free speech at the moment?

As a North Carolina State fan, I think they have some name issues

NC State University Official Athletic Site (http://www.gopack.com/)

As a North Carolina State fan, I think they have some name issues

NC State University Official Athletic Site (http://www.gopack.com/)

I think the difference is in the word, "pac"

How much of your money
is contributing to free speech at the moment?
as much as I choose. That's why I support the Citizen's United and the McCutcheon v FEC decisions.

I think the difference is in the word, "pac"

That's my point. In these days of illiterate smartphone users, homonyms are dangerous. (He used 'homonym,' somebody call GLAAD!)

That's my point. In these days of illiterate smartphone users, homonyms are dangerous. (He used 'homonym,' somebody call GLAAD!)
lol and don't use oxymoron

How much of your money
as much as I choose. That's why I support the Citizen's United and the McCutcheon v FEC decisions.


And that's why you are doomed to remain an oligarchy.

And that's why you are doomed to remain an oligarchy.

not if I get my way with term limits.

not if I get my way with term limits.
(a) you won't
(b) it in no way affects the inequity in financial leverage for laws and policy between an individual and corporations/special interest groups

you mean like Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmental extremist who has pledged to give $100 million to Democratic candidates who do his bidding ,and has been instrumental in the blocking of the Keystone pipeline? I don't care about inequity . That exists and always will . What you libs fail to appreciate is that only limits to the size and power of the government will acheive your desired result.

you mean like Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmental extremist who has pledged to give $100 million to Democratic candidates who do his bidding ,and has been instrumental in the blocking of the Keystone pipeline? I don't care about inequity . That exists and always will . What you libs fail to appreciate is that only limits to the size and power of the government will acheive your desired result.


Come on Tom, you know the system cuts both ways here. There are examples on both sides of politics where this type of thing will become rife. The means the McCutcheon decision means you can donate unlimited amounts to political parties and you can also give a stated maximum contribution to any and every candidate. No one can stop you contributing to every representative on both sides of politics. Good idea eh, that way you can lessen any disparity between parties.

As NK points out limited terms won't solve anything. All that will be required is more money.

Come on Tom, you know the system cuts both ways here. There are examples on both sides of politics where this type of thing will become rife. The means the McCutcheon decision means you can donate unlimited amounts to political parties and you can also give a stated maximum contribution to any and every candidate. No one can stop you contributing to every representative on both sides of politics. Good idea eh, that way you can lessen any disparity between parties.

As NK points out limited terms won't solve anything. All that will be required is more money.


No one can stop you contributing to every representative on both sides of politics. Good idea eh,
yes as a matter of fact it is a good idea. If the libs don't like it ;repeal the 1st Amendment.

We are already slaves of the rich guys whims so why should our politicians be any different? Term limits won't change that, just make it worse. You think more first time candidates won't need the money to run for office?

The more blood in the water, the more sharks you get. The weaker the central government to govern the nation, the more powerful the oligarchs are. The real solution is voter participation, and some intelligent voters.

yes as a matter of fact it is a good idea. If the libs don't like it ;repeal the 1st Amendment.

That's the spirit Tom. Instead of having one political party in your back pocket you can now have two.

We are already slaves of the rich guys whims so why should our politicians be any different? Term limits won't change that, just make it worse. You think more first time candidates won't need the money to run for office?

The more blood in the water, the more sharks you get. The weaker the central government to govern the nation, the more powerful the oligarchs are. The real solution is voter participation, and some intelligent voters.

The central government is far, FAR too strong now... and that's why we have the problems we have, its one step away from becoming a dictatorship now. The constitution was set up to prevent precisely that, because that was one of the problems that lead us to form this nation.

We are already slaves of the rich guys whims so why should our politicians be any different? Term limits won't change that, just make it worse. You think more first time candidates won't need the money to run for office?


Yes that's correct Tom's solution won't work. As you point out it will make first timers even more susceptible to doing political favours.

Tal you are wrong . The biggest obstacles to 1st time candidates is the incumbency advantage. Every one of the incumbents get to use tax payer money to send out thousands upon thousands of what is essentially campaign fliers under the guise of constituency services. Every one of them add pork at tax payer expence to court constituencies . Why aren't you concerned about that "inequity " ?

The powerful grabbing more power, and passing the responsibility onto ordinary peoples backs. The numbers don't lie. The rich have prospered greatly, the rest, not so much. Close the country down for one day of voting with an biometric Social Security Card, with a picture on it* and let the people have their voice as laid out in the Constitution.

*Optional.

besides ;the corporations would still be influencing government policy if they couldn't spend a dime on a candidate's election. All your bleating doesn't do a thing to prevent earmarking .Corporations, unions, and special interests already use government in this way. What you need to do is reign in elected officials . But you won't find bills restricting that get any attention except from the tea party members. The special interests love them old time lifers because they are the ones that head committees that push through legislation.

The powerful grabbing more power, and passing the responsibility onto ordinary peoples backs. The numbers don't lie. The rich have prospered greatly, the rest, not so much. Close the country down for one day of voting with an biometric Social Security Card, with a picture on it* and let the people have their voice as laid out in the Constitution.

*Optional.


Biometric card? No thanks. Do you really want this corrupt government to have your DNA on file?

Money corrupts, eliminate the money, you eliminate the corruption. At least some of it. If money is the root of all evil, why do we patronize it?

Most of corruption has nothing to do with money... but about the devient NEED and desire to control and push around others... Harry Reid and Nacy Pelosi are the standard bearers for that crowd.

THey will just parlay that power and influence while in office into cash when they get out of it as thousands have done over the decades.

Both parties have done that and if you hang Harry, and Nancy, you have to get them all. Party affiliation is but a distraction to divide and hide money, and its many forms of power through costs and control. POWER=MONEY.

Your notion of they are bad, but you are good, while doing the same thing, is erroneous, and illogical, and self serving. Do better you flawed human.

Both parties have done that and if you hang Harry, and Nancy, you have to get them all.

Did you just agree with mandated term limits here?

Money corrupts, eliminate the money, you eliminate the corruption. At least some of it. If money is the root of all evil, why do we patronize it?

how many cliches can you fit in one paragraph? Money is not the root of all evil . The proper quote is “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” 1 Tim 6:10
Money is neutral ,neither evil or good. It is an instrument ,and if there is evil done with it ,it is the user that is the problem.

Money doesn't corrupt .. power does.

Not at this time when new candidates can be cherry picked and influenced by powerful self interests that may not represent the citizens. Plus the learning curve of process, policy, and procedures makes compromise and consensus prohibitive.

In a perfect world experience is an asset that can serve the people, not just govern them. The world isn't perfect I know, but you have to keep striving to get better and not just be told what's good for you or where your interest lies. It's the lack of dialog that breeds conflict and contention, and the vacuum that's created by division lends itself to stagnation and exploitation.

Extremism grows on both sides and drowns out the consensus the people want. It's the lack of government that gives rise to the despotism we are faced with. There is no asset in letting a newbie develop policy and procedure so to hell with term limits, let make sure we have some experience in the mix. Stop the money and let the incumbents run on the record of their accomplishments.

The internet is free stop the mailing and save a tree.

how many cliches can you fit in one paragraph? Money is not the root of all evil . The proper quote is “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” 1 Tim 6:10
Money is neutral ,neither evil or good. It is an instrument ,and if there is evil done with it ,it is the user that is the problem.

Money doesn't corrupt .. power does.

POWER=MONEY. Do the math.

? there is nothing more powerful in this country and perhaps the world than the US Government .

Both parties have done that and if you hang Harry, and Nancy, you have to get them all.

We have a couple on our side that could stand to go to the old folks home as well. HARRY and NANCY are just the two worst offenders. Not the only two.

didn't say experience doesn't count . I'm not proposing one and done. But they grow moss quickly on Capitol Hill . If it's good enough for the Presidency ,it should be good enough for the other law makers.

We have a couple on our side that could stand to go to the old folks home as well. HARRY and NANCY are just the two worst offenders. Not the only two.

so you don't respect experience

so you don't respect experience

Experience is one thing... but when it morphs into senility and arrogance... then no I don't.

so term limits and a review of age criteria then

so term limits and a review of age criteria then

Many have discussed a figure of 12 years as a term limit. The reasoning goes something like: that's long enough to get your personal agenda acted on but not long enough to become 'entrenched' in the D.C. culture.

yes for a representative you would have faced the electorate an sufficient number of times and for a Senator you would have approached the point at which arrogance cuts in but there should be age limits say 70 or 75 you want someone sharp in these positions I've noticed some of our top politicians step out at about 10 years while others appear to be cemented in place

More proof the Obama government is planning to violate everyone's second amendment rights...

Department of Energy wants bulk explosives for nuclear weapons transport | (http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04/25/department-energy-wants-bulk-explosives-nuclear-weapons-transport/)

The Government (http://www.dcclothesline.com/tag/government/) buying explosives is not new. But when they do something new – that's why we should pay attention.
In a new solicitation (https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=18779a988ebd9133348206bc2b4c8f60&tab=core&_cview=0) posted 22 April 2014, the Department of Energy (http://www.dcclothesline.com/tag/department-of-energy/)'s (DOE) National Nuclear (http://www.prepperpodcast.com/disaster-preparedness/nuclear/) Security Administration (NNSA) Contracts and Procurement Division (CPD) is searching for a source capable of providing Integral Firing Devices and Breacher Strip Assemblies (https://www.prepperpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/SF-1449-2_2012.pdf) that meet specific characteristics (https://www.prepperpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Integral-Firing-Devices-Breacher-Strip-Assemblies-Sources-Sought-Synopsis.docx) in support of the NNSA's Office of Secure Transportation (OST). The mission of OST is the safe and secure transportation of nuclear (http://www.prepperpodcast.com/disaster-preparedness/nuclear/) weapons, special nuclear materials, selected non-nuclear weapons (http://www.dcclothesline.com/tag/nuclear-weapons/) components, limited-life components, and various other materials.

continued next post.........

Why use explosives for breaching?Breaching using explosives is primarily an operation performed by highly trained experts, such as combat engineers. Breaching can be performed with a specially formed breaching charge placed in contact with the door, or with various standoff breaching devices, such as specialized rifle grenades like the SIMON breach grenade. Explosive breaching charges can range from highly focused methods, such as detcord, plastic explosives, or strip shaped charges that explosively cut through doors or latches, to large satchel charges, containing 20 pounds (9 kg) of C-4, that can breach even reinforced concrete bunkers. – Source (http://www.ask.com/wiki/Door_breaching#Explosive_breaching)
In this era of belt-tightening by tax payers, this solicitation is specious for many reasons.


The Department of Energy has never solicited for Integral Firing Devices and Breacher Strip Assemblies in the past 10 years
As the image above shows, they are requesting 9,000 units. If used once a day, this amount would last the DOE over 24 years
Breaching strips are used for BREAKING into a secure building or room. If the DOE is only moving nuclear weapons/materials, they should already have the keys. No?

The DOE was very specific on the breaching materials.


Shall contain (Primasheet 1000) with detection agent (TAGGANT).
Shall comply with the ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT of 1996 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_Death_Penalty_Act_of_1 996).
Shall be 100% lead (http://www.luckygunner.com/#rid=PPRN) free.
Strips shall be sealed in weatherproof wrap.
Size: ¾ inch width by 86 inch length by 0.0836 (C2)
Shall contain ¼ of a MK140 Booster rolled and secured with Primasheet 1000.
Shall use a 12 inch 54-grain Detonation Cord and Slip-on Booster (EBCO).
Charge shall not exceed Net Explosive Weight (NEW) of 0.3382 lbs.
Each Charge shall be individually wrapped in a vacuum-sealed bag and placed into a fiberboard case.
Must be pre-packaged in an integrated package strip.

The material being requested, Primasheet, was ordered by the Department of Homeland Security (http://www.dcclothesline.com/tag/department-of-homeland-security/) (DHS) in August of 2012, whereupon DHS “hid” the solicitation (http://prepperpodcast.com/dhs-requests-plastic-explosives-hides-request/). Primasheet is also used in the railroad industry and for general demolition.
This solicitation is senseless.
We are broke as a country, nuclear weapons or material should not be anywhere near demolition explosives, and 9,000 units of anything is an excessive amount for training. This is more about breaching into the homes or storage units of honest citizens than it is about moving nuclear material.
And like always, Congress (http://www.dcclothesline.com/tag/congress/) will be silent while the Executive Branch stocks up supplies against the citizens that pay for the weapons (http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04/16/going-postal-usps-stocks-guns-ammo-doesnt-make-whole-lot-sense/).
Contributed by James Smith of Prepper Podcast Radio Network (http://prepperpodcast.com/department-of-energy-wants-bulk-explosives-for-nuclear-weapons-transport/).
James is a father of four and grandfather to four cute little bugs. He and his wife Beautiful Gorgeous, of almost 30 years, have been prepping (http://www.dcclothesline.com/tag/prepping/) since 2003. They live in a small town, with neighbors as close as 10 feet away and have raised chickens for 3 years covertly on less than 1/5 of an acre. When his wife discovered he had chickens (about 2 weeks after he bought them) she nearly left him! However, his charm won her over to them, although she does not interact with them.
He is the host of The Covert Prepper (http://www.dcclothesline.com/tag/prepper/) Show heard on Saturday evenings. All shows can be heard and downloaded from the Prepper Podcast Radio Network (http://prepperpodcast.com/department-of-energy-wants-bulk-explosives-for-nuclear-weapons-transport/).

paranoia

Not parnoia , its reality... and was backed up by actual documented requests gotten under the freedom of information act.

I only copied the test part of the article the original has photos of those items.

Nothing paranoid about preppers is there.

Not when you got Tyranical maniacs like Obama bent on destroying the country... and the productive class there isn't.

Prepping for another civil war by those that deny results of the last one is paranoid. If minorities engaged in the same words, thoughts, and actions, you would be outraged. That kind of paranoid makes one a closed mind isolationist, separated from rational and the real.

Defending their lunacy doesn't help.

When you have the assults on the American Public by DHS, Ewic Holder, Obama.. ETC... ETC... ETC...

WHy are they buying up so much ammunition its causing prices to double and triple in the market, then you have that last one where they are being dishonest about why they are requesting those explosives... then Obamacare where half the people will be gettign almost free health case that the productive halve will be forced to pay for.. along with their own.

There is every legitimate reason in the world to be prepping.

The real lunacy is what today's Democrat party has become... John F Kennedy would be called a radical conservative if he suddenly arose from his grave today.

If the loony fringe is stockpiling guns and weapons like the terrorists are shouldn't the government do the same? The NRA loves the business the gun industry gets. Lawful reasonable people have no fear of their doors getting kicked in, and I am sure you want the government to be able to kick a door in of a terrorist plotting to kill people don't you?

Its not like we can depend on the militia types to protect us from lone wolf terrorists and violent subversives because they are to busy locked away in their own bunkers waiting to be breached by the government. Useless and dangerous and well armed.

We fought wars in the past without the Government sucking up so much of the ammunition produced that it created spot shortages and tripled prices in just the last few years.

WHY... they claim training... but how could we actually fight wars and not need so much... and training is a lie... because the Military AND the police always trained on a regular basis before... and they never needed so much. Not in Korea, not in Vietnam, Not in Iraq... and not in Afghanistan.

THe criminal actions of the Department if inJustce under Ewic holder arning mexican drug dealers, The IRS being used to deprive the rights of Americans for Obamas politician aims, The DHS whoes sole purpose is to opress the American population, THe refusal to actually protect our borders, etc... etc...

It's the American public that has perfect reason to fear its government these days... not the other way around.

Nice try elevating the loony fringe right as legit. You need a million bullets, pay for them. Tell the bullet manufacturers to add another shift. Blaming government for the scarcity of bullets or the costs of them is lunatic. I mean what the hell have you done with the millions you have been buying for decades?

Practicing on Obama targets is expensive. Call the NRA and tell them of your dilemma.

Depite the US government buying up ammuntion to keep it out of the deserving hands of the American Citizen... they are destroying a BILLION dollars worth of ammunition. Link to the Stars and Stripes article.

Report: Pentagon to destroy $1B in ammunition - Stripes (http://www.stripes.com/report-pentagon-to-destroy-1b-in-ammunition-1.280372)

Depite the US government buying up ammuntion to keep it out of the deserving hands of the American Citizen... they are destroying a BILLION dollars worth of ammunition. Link to the Stars and Stripes article.

Report: Pentagon to destroy $1B in ammunition - Stripes (http://www.stripes.com/report-pentagon-to-destroy-1b-in-ammunition-1.280372)

So you want to tell us the pentagon can't manage ammunition stocks, why are we not surprised? Instead of doing witchhunts your senators should be asking some vital questions in their kangaroo court examinations of expenditure, process, etc. There should be a tendering process managed by a central coordinated office and what's wrong with each service tendering to supply the other from their surplus. By the way annumition has a shelf life so I'm not surprised there would be some disposals. whatever happened to the QM and logistics management. one final thought, we don't want war materials managed by the same software development that featured in the ACA debacle