The New Jersey 2nd Modification Modern society, together with a local ... after having warmth from Second Amendment supporters in his condition.
from
Tuesday, March 31, 2020
Will COVID-19 get rid of the Constitution?
Australia Halts All Firearm Sales amid Coronavirus Buying Surge
Watch: Executive Director of NRA-ILA, Jason Ouimet, Discusses Importance of Second ...
San Diego 2nd Amendment Group Hails Memo on Gun Shops Being 'Essential'
Gun sales spike in Riverside County as confusion over gun store closures roils LA
What They Introduced: The Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act
United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Senator Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign fizzled, and for that, Second Amendment supporters should be very grateful. As we noted when we covered her platform, her intention was to inflict massive injustices upon law-abiding gun owners in the form of restrictions on our Second Amendment rights for crimes and acts of madness they did not commit.
Worse, she vowed to sic the Internal Revenue Service on perhaps the most prominent organization defending those law-abiding owners from that injustice. Talk about a tin ear when it comes to constitutional rights – you don’t get much worse than using the IRS to punish people – or groups – for exercising their First Amendment rights.
Warren’s dirty political pool, not much different than the political targeting that will earn Andrew Cuomo a reaming from the courts based on recently discovered evidence, is not the major focus of this piece. Instead, we’re dealing with the legislation that she introduced recently, S 3254, the Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act. A companion bill, HR 5717, has been introduced by Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA).
As is the case with legislation introduced by Cory Booker and Eric Swalwell, we get a detailed look at just how our rights will be infringed over crimes and acts of madness that loyal Ammoland readers (not to mention any American seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights) did not commit. Booker, as an aside, has co-sponsored Warren’s legislation.
Warren’s bill is a sweeping assault on our rights. It has licensing, a semi-auto ban, “red flag” provisions, and “safe storage” requirements. The licensing scheme is not as onerous as what Sheila Jackson Lee is proposing (it lasts for ten years), but that isn’t saying much, given that it still turns our Second Amendment rights into a privilege that some bureaucrat can revoke.
That being said, the usual provisions aren’t the worst of this bill. The three real nasty surprises in this legislation will not be the usual attacks Second Amendment supporters sorry about, but which can be just as devastating to our rights.
In her bill, Warren hits Federal Firearms Licensees with major red tape. More inspections, background checks for employees, record-keeping requirements, and lost and stolen reporting requirements. Lots of ways to trip up gun dealers, many of whom are small businesses for whom meeting her requirements would be very difficult.
Bad as that is, the next two are much worse – because Warren has set things up to bypass the grassroots efforts of Second Amendment supporters. This one-two punch represents a massive transfer of power away from the people to powerful special interests and bureaucrats.
The first “punch” is the repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In other words, Warren will unleash the same unholy alliance of big-city mayors and trial lawyers that threatened to bankrupt the gun industry in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Second, and worst of all, she now places firearms under the Consumer Product Safety Commission. This, in essence, would allow government bureaucrats to inhibit not just innovation, but to ban guns via administrative edict. And what happens if they were to recall a gun, and you didn’t turn it in? We bet the license renewal might have problems.
Second Amendment supporters should contact their Senators and Representatives and politely urge them to oppose this bill. As a solution for the misuse of firearms, this bill is phonier than a three-dollar bill.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
The post What They Introduced: The Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/2w2BEjc
via IFTTT
Jeremy Renner Divorce Complaint Raises Red Flag, Restraining Order Questions
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Jeremy Renner says the novel coronavirus has landed him in an unexpected financial tight spot—and as a result, he has asked a Los Angeles judge to lower his child support payments,” The Daily Beast reports. “According to court documents obtained by TMZ and Us Weekly, the Marvel actor has asked to lower payments to his ex-wife, Sonni Pacheco, for their daughter, Ava, from $30,000 per month to something that more closely matches her ‘reasonable needs'—which he estimates amount to $11,201 per month.”
To paraphrase Bill Clinton perjuring himself in order to deny a woman claiming job-related sexual harassment her day in court, that depends upon what the meaning of the term “reasonable needs” is. Most of us manage to reasonably raise whole families and pay all living expenses and taxes on considerably less than Renner’s low-end “estimate.” Then again, we’re talking about a guy whose reported net worth is $50 million – not bad for uttering scripted and directed lines with stuntmen and CGI taking over when things get really tough.
Then again, it’s hard not to wonder if the ex-wife, whose prior claim to fame includes bit parts in B-grade movies, including portraying a character called “Splendid Wet T-Shirt Girl,” might not be calculatedly milking things for all they are worth. But that’s not a very “progressive” attitude, is it?
No, the new demand is that we #BelieveWomen. Unless you’re Hillary Clinton, and you try to discredit and disparage accusers like Paula Jones or Juanita Broaddrick using blackmail tactics and terms like “bimbo eruptions.” Or unless you’re a Joe Biden supporter, and now instead of showing the same rabid furor demanding unquestioning support for Christine Blasey Ford, you want everyone to look the other way, or to try to discredit and destroy the woman now fingering Joe Biden.
It’s instructive how many so-called Women’s March supporters, without knowing anything about the accuser other than what they’ve read from the leftwing sources they frequent, are adamantly opposed to investigating her claims and furious that it’s even being brought up. That, of course, is because they’re hypocrites.
But let’s return to Renner’s former soulmate and assume she’s really the injured party – since he’s not someone who can give Democrats more political power, it’s what we’re supposed to do, right? Her other accusations certainly should raise some eyebrows among the “commonsense gun safety” crowd.
In addition to allegations that he bit his six-year-old daughter, accusations of life-threatening conduct – with a gun – have been made:
“[N]ew court documents revealed that the model and actress is accusing Renner of threatening to kill her and himself. As detailed in the docs, Pacheco maintains that after a night of hard partying last November, including drinking and cocaine use, Renner returned home where he allegedly threatened her with a gun and put the gun in his mouth. He reportedly said at the time that he ‘could not deal with her anymore, and he just wanted to be gone.’ In another instance, Pacheco says, a nanny overheard Renner say he planned to kill her and himself because ‘it was better that Ava had no parents than to have [Pacheco] as a mother.’”
“The nanny filed a declaration in Sonni's petition, saying Jeremy told her he fired a gun into the ceiling of their house ‘because of you [the nanny]. You're the reason I pulled the trigger. Do you think if my blood and brains are all over my bedroom floor, do you think you would be living this lifestyle in this mansion.’”
What’s left unsaid in media reports is if a restraining order has been issued demanding Renner surrender any guns he owns. Fox News reported Pacheco “is asking the court to provide safe conditions for her and their nanny as they prepare to give depositions about the case [and] is asking the judge to set aside a room at a courthouse where she and her nanny’s deposition can take place under more secure circumstances. She notes that people can’t bring firearms or weapons into a courthouse.”
An article on “Divorce, Restraining Orders & California Gun Laws” from GunLaw.com notes:
“[R]estraining orders based on a claim of actual or threatened violence or harassment prohibit the subject individual from buying, possessing or receiving firearms. There are criminal penalties for disobeying such court orders which range up to a felony conviction with three years in state prison plus a $1,000 fine; even a misdemeanor conviction for violation of such an order can result in a ten-year prohibition against firearms ownership in California. Finally, under Federal law, if a qualified restraining order was obtained by an intimate partner, after the order is served, and while it remains in effect, the subject individual is prohibited from possessing, purchasing, or receiving firearms and ammunition. Violation of such an order is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in Federal prison and/or a $250,000 fine.”
Not that we can assume anything. Page Six reported after making her claims, Pacheco “never sought a restraining order or never withheld Mr. Renner’s 50% custody time.”
It’s not known at this writing (at least I couldn’t find anything) if such an order has been issued against Renner, but what is known is that such allegations would be more than enough for the State of California to enforce its Red Flag Law and against someone accused of doing a lot less — and not just by the spouse or partner.
So why make Renner an example? Isn’t the poor guy going through enough, particularly if it turns out the ex is not a delicate victim and brave feminist survivor of toxic masculinity, but a calculating gold-digger out to do him wrong?
Because he, with other privileged celebrities, came out in full support of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence/Bloomberg Mayors Against Illegal Guns agenda to “Demand a Plan.” That means he is enabling their efforts to disarm you, including their support for due process-denying, guilty until proven innocent Red Flag Laws. That’s what his overly racist Moms Demand Action and Women’s March allies want, so how could he object?
Because he's proud to “rock” with Snoop Dogg, another gun-grabber with a “gun criminal” past who settled out of court for luring underage girls with drugs and who partnered with a producer convicted of falsely imprisoning and assaulting women.
But mostly because it’s a lot more problematic for the average American to defend himself and his rights in court than it is for some virtue-signaling, anti-gun (except for the ones he owns) “lucky star” with a net worth of $50 million.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
The post Jeremy Renner Divorce Complaint Raises Red Flag, Restraining Order Questions appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/2yrj6dv
via IFTTT
Biden Has No Wish To Preserve The Nation’s Armed Citizenry
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- Joe Biden is the Establishment Democrats’ choice for U.S. President. The American people should have no illusion about that or about what that means and whom it would be that Biden would serve were he to become U.S. President.
Biden pays homage to the inordinately wealthy, highly secretive, abjectly ruthless, extremely powerful and well-organized Neoliberal Corporatist Globalist Collectivist Establishment “Elite-Elect.” That was true when Biden served as Barack Obama’s Vice President. Neither Biden nor Obama has truly defended the U.S. Constitution; and neither has served the interests of this Nation and its people. Both Biden and Obama have served foreign masters and a foreign Globalist agenda. And Biden would continue to do so were he to become U.S. President.
Biden would never truly defend the U.S. Constitution; nor would he serve the best interests of this Nation; nor would he serve the best interests of the American people. He cannot serve two masters: Either the Nation and its Constitution or the Neoliberal Corporatist Globalist Collectivist Establishment Elite-Elect: one or the other but not both.
Biden would be a false leader, delegating policy and decision-making functions to the “Establishment” bosses: the secretive, powerful insider Globalists, the Establishment Collectivist Elite-Elect Globalists, along with their Bureaucratic underlings that demand to pull the strings and that would pull the strings.
Our Nation would backslide into the path Bill Clinton, the Bushes, and Barack Obama had obediently set for us:destruction of the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people, and the destruction of a free Constitutional Republic. Biden would not make policy. Rather, he would dutifully carry out policy as dictated to him by the Oligarchic Elite-Elect, the Shadow Government that pulls the strings behind the scenes, taking his orders dutifully from them, kowtowing to their dictates, allowing the bloated to the federal Bureaucracy, that, itself takes its orders from the Elite-Elect, to set and implement domestic and foreign policy: the secretive wielders of financial and corporate power. Biden would exist as a mere puppet, a figurehead, a standard-bearer for the Elite-Elect.
And, can we forget that Biden even mentioned that he would only serve one term? What Candidate would make such a statement. If he had a policy agenda for the public would he not seek eight years to fulfill it? No President has ever made such a statement or intimated as much. Even the Left-Wing Politico has admitted that Biden claims to step down even before he has been elected to one term in Office. If so, why campaign at all for even one term? What would motivate a man to merely run for one term in Office? If he his not prepared to serve two terms because he might think himself incapable of doing so, why should the public feel Biden is physically equipped or, for that matter, mentally equipped to serve even one term? This must have befuddled the Leftist website Politico that reported it:
“Former Vice President Joe Biden’s top advisers and prominent Democrats outside the Biden campaign have recently revived a long-running debate whether Biden should publicly pledge to serve only one term, with Biden himself signaling to aides that he would serve only a single term.
While the option of making a public pledge remains available, Biden has for now settled on an alternative strategy: quietly indicating that he will almost certainly not run for a second term while declining to make a promise that he and his advisers fear could turn him into a lame duck and sap him of his political capital.
According to four people who regularly talk to Biden, all of whom asked for anonymity to discuss internal campaign matters, it is virtually inconceivable that he will run for reelection in 2024, when he would be the first octogenarian president.”
Sanders would be an octogenarian, too, but he, certainly, hasn’t signaled a desire to step down after a first term in Office. It seems that Biden’s heart isn’t in this job. So, why run at all?
And, then, we must consider Biden’s policy prescriptions.
If one can forgive Biden’s multiple personal failings, still, one cannot and must not forgive Biden’s his policy prescriptions for our Country.
It is on his policy prescriptions that Biden, and every other Democrat nominee for U.S. President, fails this Country and its people, and fails miserably, since neither Biden nor any of these also-ran nominees would truly defend the U.S. Constitution. Not one of them accepts the fact that the sovereignty of the Nation rests—must rest—on the American people, not Government. None of these candidates, then, can or should seriously be considered a political moderate.
A couple of synonyms for ‘moderate’ are, one, ‘conservative’ and, two, ‘reasonable.’ There is nothing about these Democrats that is either conservative qua reasonable in their political outlook. Each of them desires, indeed demands, radical change to our free Constitutional Republic.
The first order of business for Joe Biden, were he to be elected to the Office of Chief Executive of the Nation, would be to place more and more restrictions on the sacred, inviolate right of the people to keep and bear arms. How harmful that action would be to the preservation of a free Republic is apparent when one recognizes that the Second Amendment is a necessary condition upon which both a free Constitutional Republic and the sovereignty of the American people over Government rests. But Democrats would make the exercise of this sacred Right extremely difficult, and eventually impossible.
As reported by the National Review: “Here’s Joe’s combination of fantasy, braggadocio, and rodomontade on guns:
‘We increased that background check when — when — during the Obama-Biden administration. I’m also the only guy that got assault weapons banned, banned, and the number of clips in a gun banned. And so, folks, look, and I would buy back those weapons. We already started talking about that. We tried to get it done. I think it can be done. And it should be demanded that we do it, and that’s a good expenditure of money. And lastly, we should have smart guns. No gun should be able to be sold unless your biometric measure could pull that trigger.’”
Really? The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively about smart guns. Back in 2016, we explained in detail why smart guns are not a smart idea.
As with Barack Obama and the Clintons and, yes, the Bushes, too, Joe Biden doesn’t want to take away everyone’s firearms. He merely wants to take away the firearms of some Americans’ firearms. He wants to take away YOUR firearms; those of the Hoi Polloi, those whom these Globalist Neoliberal Establishment Collectivists consider the Preterite of American society; those firearms belonging to tens of millions of average rational, responsible, law-abiding Americans. Biden doesn’t want or expect the especial, wealthy, powerful, Elite-Elect of society to surrender their firearms or surrender those firearms of their personal bodyguards.
If Biden—the presumptive Democrat Party nominee—stands by his pronouncements and his record, attacking the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and if, as is clear from his boastful remarks, he is truly proud of his record, you would think he would at least have the courtesy and common human decency to address the concerns of those Americans who might disagree with him and that he would do so in a calm, respectful, non-caustic, non-sanctimonious manner. After all, the right of the American citizen to own and possess firearms is a natural, God-given right that exists intrinsically in man. It isn’t a right bestowed on man by Government.
What Government cannot bestow on man Government cannot lawfully deny to man or sever from man.
If Biden wishes to trample on a God-given right, one would hope, indeed expect, that Biden would spend a little time, at least, setting out his arguments in support of curtailing a right that the framers of the Constitution felt important enough to include in the Constitution; and which has stood the test of time for well over 200 years. Yet, Biden cannot, apparently, be troubled with Americans who disagree with him.
“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” ~Matthew 6, King James Version
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.
The post Biden Has No Wish To Preserve The Nation’s Armed Citizenry appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/3dIWsNJ
via IFTTT
Trump Administration Includes Firearms Industry as Essential, Critical
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- The Trump administration, as part of the struggle to contain and slow the spread of the Wuhan Flu, has issued a list of “Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers”. The list has come from the Department of Homeland Security.
While the list is advisory, is not a directive, and has no penalties attached, it shows the thinking and priorities of the administration.
Producers, distributors, and retailers of firearms and ammunition are considered essential. In the excerpt below, the highlighting has been added. From cisa.gov:
There are many more categories listed beside the nine public safety categories above. The entire list includes 13 healthcare categories, the 9 public safety categories listed, 15 agriculture categories, 40 energy categories, 9 water and wastewater categories, 19 transportation categories, and 6 public works categories.
The inclusion of gun stores and shooting ranges may be taken as a warning to cities and states which have attempted to close those establishments by government fiat. Those attempts have met with strong resistance. The Los Angeles County Sheriff backed away from his attempt to close gun stores, then renewed his attempt to close them to all but state-sanctioned security forces. A lawsuit is in progress. From the latimes.com:
Villanueva sought to implement the closure earlier this week but was told by county lawyers that gun shops could be considered essential under county and state measures to encourage social distancing and cut the spread of the virus. The opinion forced the sheriff to backtrack and suspended the closure. But then Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office said sheriffs do have the authority to make such closures. The cities of Pasadena and Los Angeles have also closed their gun stores.
The closure of gun stores in California is especially egregious, as California has banned private sales. All gun sales are required to obtain government approval through a government licensed gun store.
A common marker that Second Amendment supporters see as an indicator of incipient tyranny, is the shutdown of gun and ammunition sales. Banning the sale of firearms and ammunition shows a government entity regards armed citizens as more of a threat than an asset.
The Trump administration is showing it regards armed citizens as an asset, and the ability to provide for self and community defense as critical.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
The post Trump Administration Includes Firearms Industry as Essential, Critical appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/3dISOU6
via IFTTT
SAF, Partners File Amended Complaint in CA Lawsuit, Adding Defendents
Bellevue, WA -(AmmoLand.com)- Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a federal civil rights lawsuit in California have filed a revised complaint, adding to the list of defendants to include the City of Los Angeles and Mayor Eric Garcetti, and the City of Burbank and City Manager Justin Hess.
The case is known as Brandy, et al v. Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva, et al.
SAF is joined by the National Rifle Association (NRA), California Gun Rights Foundation (CGF), and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), plus three retailers and several private citizens. They are represented by attorneys George M. Lee, San Francisco; John W. Dillon, Carlsbad, and Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, Southport, NC.
The lawsuit challenges closures of gun stores and shooting ranges, and states, “Shuttering access to arms, the ammunition required to use those arms, and the ranges and education facilities that individuals need to learn how to safely and competently use arms, necessarily closes off the Constitutional right to learn about, practice with, and keep and bear those arms. By forcing duly licensed, essential businesses to close or eliminate key services for the general public, government authorities are foreclosing the only lawful means to buy, sell, and transfer firearms and ammunition available to typical, law-abiding individuals in California. Such a prohibition on the right to keep and bear arms is categorically unconstitutional.”
“Thanks to new guidance detailing essential critical infrastructure workers that was released Saturday, we have amended our federal complaint,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The Coronavirus outbreak does not outrank the rights guaranteed and protected by the Second Amendment.” SAF and its partners are seeking a declaratory judgment that firearm and ammunition manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers, and shooting ranges are essential. They also ask for a preliminary and permanent restraining order.
Second Amendment Foundation
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
The post SAF, Partners File Amended Complaint in CA Lawsuit, Adding Defendents appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/2Uu9w1P
via IFTTT
VCDL Taking Action to Reopen Indoor Gun Ranges in VA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- An Executive Order from Governor Northam has shut down all indoor shooting ranges, classifying them as “entertainment.” Practicing a life-saving skill or learning how to safely shoot a firearm is NOT entertainment!
VCDL members have been contacting the Governor and asking him to take the indoor gun ranges off the entertainment list.
So far all we've had is crickets chirping.
On Friday, the William J. Olson law firm sent a letter to the Governor on VCDL's behalf. Click here to read the letter.
Over the weekend the Federal Department of Homeland Security sent out an advisory that gun ranges are to be considered critical infrastructure. This morning Olson sent another letter on VCDL's behalf with that new information. Click here to read that second letter.
Still nothing but crickets.
I have requested that the VCDL Board of Directors approve a lawsuit that would have a stay on the closing of indoor shooting ranges. If the Board approves, we will move forward quickly.
If you know the owners of any indoor shooting ranges and they are interested in participating in the lawsuit, have them contact me (president@vcdl.org). If you are a paying member of an indoor range, you might also consider contributing to the fight as soon as we announce that the lawsuit is in motion.
These ranges CANNOT afford to stay closed until June. Some of these ranges have millions of dollars invested in them. We HAVE to protect the indoor ranges or we will have very few places to shoot in the future, even after the ban is lifted.
For now, stay tuned…
Article on the DHS range classification HERE
About Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL):
Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.
For more information, visit: www.vcdl.org.
The post VCDL Taking Action to Reopen Indoor Gun Ranges in VA appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/2wP2n32
via IFTTT
Trump administration rules gun outlets 'essential' amid virus
NRA, Second Amendment Foundation Sue LA Mayor Over Gun Control
Kansas coronavirus update: Fear drives gun sales at Holton shop; outbreak hits nursing facility in ...
Everest Launches a Marketplace for the Shooting Sports and Outdoor Communities
Monday, March 30, 2020
South Dakota lawmakers debate emergency bills to address coronavirus during veto day
Firearms Retailers Allowed to Operate in NJ by Appointment Only, Says Murphy
Civil War Arms Collection Order Raises Historical and Contemporary Questions
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “You will see that I have been authorized to collect all military arms of Pennsylvania at my own expense for the purpose of remodeling, and then to be returned again to regular organized companies,” a June 12, 1861 letter from Maj. O.H. Wheeler to Maj. [unintelligible] Carothers ordered. You are deputized by me to demand and collect from whose hands the same may be found, all military arms both good and bad in the county of [Beaver]… and give receipts.”
A major had the authority to do that? What law or executive or martial law order was passed to allow for the military to compel civilians to surrender their arms? And noting the space where “Beaver” was filled in was a blank on a form letter, was the entire state subject to the order? What about other states in the Union? And people were OK with that?
These were questions I set out to find after being sent the original letter and a handwritten July 26 response (see below) by a reader who chooses to be identified as “a Tennessee supporter.” I am here to report my utter failure at getting answers to any of my questions.
It’s not like I didn’t try—it’s just that I’m not a historian, and if similar accounts appear on the internet, I don’t know how to find them. Case in point, I started with “O.H. Wheeler” and quickly found Google to be uncooperative, at least as it relates to this (I did find a Pennsylvania attorney by that name involved in a lawsuit in the 1870s and “irregular practices” disputes in the 1880s, but cannot state with certainty it is the same individual.) The closest I came was finding the Major “apparently held a position in the Adjutant General's Office from 1861 – 1862 and a box containing “23 items and 1 folder” concerning “personal and job applicants” information is identified by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Bureau of Archives and History, Pennsylvania State Archives.
Having come up empty on the internet, I ventured out to my local historical society (before it closed down due to the pandemic). They had a roster for Ohio but not a lot else of relevance and suggested a trip to the National Archives might be in order. Unfortunately, as fabulously lucrative as what I do is, there’s not a lot left over for a travel and expense account after the demands for my lavish lifestyle of paying bills and taxes take their toll. Similarly, when I saw the Historical Society of Pennsylvania wants a “basic research fee” of $60 per hour, I decided I'd rather eat that week. Add to that, travel isn't exactly encouraged in these days of Coronavirus precautions, and you can't visit closed document repositories.
The next step was to reach out to those I know who have some history street cred, and I am fortunate to have established an internet relationship over the years with Clayton Cramer. He’s the author of the landmark “The Racist Roots of Gun Control” and a principal debunker of Michael Bellesiles’ exercise in wishful historical fiction, Arming America, with the end result that the author’s Bancroft Prize was revoked and he was compelled to resign from Emory University.
Without access to relevant records obtainable only after unknown research requirements, Mr. Cramer didn’t have direct knowledge of this situation. He did, however, offer a tangentially related perspective.
“Clement Vallandigham was a Copperhead lawyer who protested these disarming orders (on 2nd Amendment grounds), largely directed at Democrats,” Cramer recalled. “He was eventually expelled from the Union. After the war, he was defending someone in a murder trial, pulled the trigger on the ‘unloaded gun,’ and died.”
For what it’s worth, the client was acquitted.
As mentioned above, along with the Wheeler letter was a handwritten missive I’m assuming was the reply. I have to assume because I can only make out every other word, and that really makes me wonder how these people transmitted orders to the field with lives hanging in the balance if communications weren’t crystal clear.
“18th century handwriting is often beautiful,” Cramer responded. “The decline in the 19th century is very obvious. Reading wills from that century is really painful … A distant ancestor's signature on his deed for what is now part of downtown New Haven was impossible for me to read.”
You can see what he’s talking about by looking at the Constitution. True, it still looks strange to the modern eye, but I can still read it. That reply letter, forget it, and I spent time with my son trying to decipher it and writing down words we could make out before giving up. And with that, here are the documents in question — feel free to download and enlarge them and see if you have better luck than I did:
Perhaps some of you are knowledgeable about this and can educate us in “comments,” or know someone you think can who you can send this to. Perhaps some of you will have no problem reading the handwriting that frustrated my poor deciphering skills. Perhaps there are Civil War buffs or historians who know all about such disarmament orders who will slap their foreheads and easily point us to resources that tell us more.
My primary interest in this is to determine where Wheeler got off ordering arms to be surrendered, and what would have happened had a gun owner told him to go pound sand. The antis are constantly trying to convince us that “gun control” in this country is a time-honored practice as their way of establishing, if not legal precedent, the perception that we’ve always been fine with it. To back that up they cite ordinances precluding the storage of powder in homes, edicts condemning concealed carry, and Wyatt Earp and his disarmament diktats in Tombstone…
My counter-argument is just because people went along with it and did not mount legal challenges does not mean those “laws” would have been upheld if they had been contested in court. Then again, seeing as how these letters are from the Civil War, we can’t forget that the Lincoln administration also got away with suspending habeas corpus, suppressing newspapers, and even, according to a disputed account, considered arresting the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. With that as background, it hardly seems a stretch that the order to collect private arms and turn them over to the troops would not have been considered “lawful” under the circumstances.
And that raises the real question that should concern us: Could that “precedent” still be applied today in a “national emergency”?
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
The post Civil War Arms Collection Order Raises Historical and Contemporary Questions appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/3bOrjH5
via IFTTT
Kansas coronavirus update: Fear drives gun sales at Holton shop; outbreak hits nursing facility in ...
Wake County NC Gun Stores and Ranges Open Following SAF Demands
Raleigh, NC -(AmmoLand.com)- Today, Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that Wake County, North Carolina County Attorney Scott Warren, has confirmed in writing that Wake County’s policies and enforcement rules will be revised to reflect updated federal guidance and to be consistent with Governor Roy Cooper’s Executive Order no. 121 and allow gun stores to continue operating. The County indicated that the changes will also be reflected in their COVID-19 FAQs before the end of the day.
Yesterday, FPC Director of Legal Strategy and attorney, Adam Kraut, sent County Board of Commissioners Chairman, Greg Ford, a demand letter, leading to the County’s review of and changes to its policies. “Should the County enforce its March 26 Proclamation and any other law, policy, practice, or custom that restricts firearm retailers and ranges from operating and/or infringes constitutionally guaranteed rights, FPC, SAF, and others are prepared to bring legal action against the County and its enforcement officials,” Kraut said in the letter. “It is my hope that you will take all appropriate actions to avoid litigation. Please contact me via email . . . before 3:00 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, March 30, 2020 to open a line of communication and confirm in writing that the County has taken the requested action.”FPC and SAF thank County leaders and Mr. Warren for immediately communicating with our counsel and revising their policies to ensure that firearm retailers can stay open and serve North Carolinians who seek to exercise their rights.
North Carolina E.O. no 121 expressly holds that “essential” businesses and workers include those in the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Guidance, the latest version (2.0) of which states that “Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers” include those “supporting the operation of firearm or ammunition product manufacturers, retailers, importers, distributors, and shooting ranges.”
SAF, FPC, and Grassroots North Carolina (GRNC) are continuing to seek a restraining order and judgment against Wake County Sheriff Gerald M. Baker’ for his recent unlawful and unconstitutional actions infringing on Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights. A copy of the lawsuit can be found at firearmspolicy.org/legal.
Individual arms applicants/purchasers and retailers affected by ‘stay-home’ or shutdown orders can report potential civil rights violations to FPC’s COVID-19 Issue Hotline at www.FPChotline.org.
Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom.
Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing, and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
Second Amendment Foundation
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
The post Wake County NC Gun Stores and Ranges Open Following SAF Demands appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/33VbRpy
via IFTTT
Gun Industry Gets Essential Designation, To Remain Open During Coronavirus Shutdowns
How Did Biden Emerge as the Democrat’s Front Runner?
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- Joe Biden, the most mediocre candidate in a bloated field of mediocre Democrat Party candidates for U.S. President had, just a few short weeks ago, looked like his campaign was dead; that he would pass, like the rest of the field, into obscurity, leaving the “Democratic Socialist,” Bernie Sanders—who is a much better orator—as the de facto Party nominee for President, going into the Democrat Party Convention in July 2020. Such, apparently, is not meant to be.
Instead, Joe Biden has mysteriously and miraculously become the frontrunner. James Clyburn (D-SC), “speaking to NPR on Tuesday night, Clyburn said, ‘I think when the night is over, Joe Biden will be the prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic nomination,’ adding, ‘If the night ends the way it has begun,’ then it's time to ‘shut this primary down,’ apparently meaning that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) should choose to cancel future debates.”
This is most curious. The DNC, has, of course, manipulated the 2016 Primary to ensure Hillary Clinton would get the Party’s nomination to take on Trump, explaining then, as now, that Sanders is unelectable. It is obvious the DNC is doing the same thing now. How and why is it that Biden has become the front runner?
The seditious Press has weaved a fairy tale around this man. Consider the inescapable facts. Biden is politically inept. He is boring and stale. He is ordinary in demeanor. He is bereft of charm and charisma. He is devoid of character. He is an inveterate liar and clearly corrupt. He is spiteful and quick to anger. And, he lacks even rudimentary oratorical skills.
One cannot choose but wonder how Biden has become the Democrats’ likely choice to represent our Country. But, on reflection, the reason manifests.
Joe Biden can be and would be controlled by the Globalist Establishment. Biden knows this, accepts this, probably even relishes this, as it saves him from actually doing the duties of a U.S. President: namely, setting the foreign and domestic policy objectives for the Nation. The other candidate, Bernie Sanders—still in the race but losing momentum with each passing day—would not accept control by the Globalist Establishment. And, of course, U.S. President Donald Trump isn’t subject to control by the Globalist Establishment either, which is one solid reason why Americans elected him to Office in the first place. This rankles the Globalist Establishment to no end and explains the intensity and virulence of the attack on Trump, never before seen in our Nation’s history.
It is odd to see the Establishment Press at once lauding foreign European EU leaders and excoriating Trump. If the Press doesn’t like Trump, you would think that it would at least respect the Office. But, then, the seditious Establishment Press doesn’t respect the Office either. It, too, owes its allegiance not to this Nation and its Constitution, but to foreign masters that have an agenda that calls for something else entirely: the dismantling of a free Constitutional Republic and the shredding of our Constitution.
The mainstream Establishment Press and the Global Neoliberal Establishment Collectivist elites’ have no desire to preserve a free Constitutional Republic, but, rather, seek to establish a new framework for our Nation, where the institutions, our culture, the rights and liberties of the Nation exist merely in form; hollowed out. Our Nation is to be inextricably linked to and entwined securely with the EU, losing its sovereignty and independence. The majority of Americans intuit this. They don’t want it. Trump doesn’t either. Americans elected Trump for a very specific purpose: to move our Nation back to its roots: as an independent sovereign Nation, unbeholden to and taking orders from no other transnational oligarchic power center. Our laws are to remain supreme; our rights and liberties strengthened; our history left intact.
Biden would be a false leader, delegating policy and decision-making functions to the “Establishment” bosses: the secretive, powerful insider Globalists and their Bureaucratic underlings that demand to pull the strings. Our Nation would backslide into the path Bill Clinton, the Bushes, and Barack Obama had obediently set for us: destruction of the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people, and the destruction of a free Constitutional Republic.
If one can forgive Biden’s multiple personal failings, still, one cannot and must not forgive Biden’s policy prescriptions for our Country.
It is on this score Biden and every other Democrat nominee for U.S. President fails, and fails miserably, since none of them would truly defend the U.S. Constitution. Not one of them accepts the fact that the sovereignty of the Nation rests—must rest—on the American people, not Government.
None of these candidates can or should seriously be considered a political moderate since not one of them accepts our Bill of Rights for what it truly is: a codification of fundamental, immutable, unalienable, natural rights. And, since any one of these candidates, if elected President, would place more and more restrictions on the sacred, inviolate right of the people to keep and bear arms—a necessary condition upon which both a free Constitutional Republic and the sovereignty of the American people over Government rests—none of them merits serious consideration as President of the United States. The expression, political ‘Radical,’ more accurately describes each of them; not the word, ‘moderate,’ nor even the word, ‘liberal.’
If Biden stands by this record, attacking the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and if, as is clear from his boastful remarks, he is truly proud of his record, you would think he would at least have the courtesy and common human decency to address the concerns of those Americans who might disagree with him and that he would do so in a calm, respectful, non-caustic, non-sanctimonious manner. After all, the right of the American citizen to own and possess firearms is a natural, God-given right that exists intrinsically in man. It isn’t a right bestowed on man by Government.
What Government cannot bestow on man Government cannot lawfully deny to or rend from man.
If Biden wishes to trample on a God-given right, one would hope, indeed expect, that Biden would spend a little time, at least, setting out his arguments in support of curtailing a right the framers of the Constitution felt important enough to include in the Constitution; and which has stood the test of time for well over 200 years. Yet, Biden cannot, apparently, be troubled with Americans who disagree with him. Of course, it may just be that Biden becomes visibly upset because he doesn’t have an answer for anyone who disagrees with him. He becomes flustered and attempts to cover up his discomposure and agitation with anger and resentment.
BIDEN’S CHARACTER FLAWS ARE SEEN IN ALL RADICAL LEFTISTS
Biden exhibits a disturbing character flaw common to all Anti-Constitutional Radical Left Collectivists. He is so smugly confident of the truth of his political, social, and ethical position that he feels it beneath his dignity to have to support his beliefs with cogent argument. If one persists in demanding a cogent, coherent, response, he becomes angry. Sometimes he rages. Recall his bizarre antics in Iowa, as reported in the Daily News.
Joe Biden angrily confronted a voter at an Iowa town hall who asked about the Ukraine scandal involving his son — and whether he is too old to take on President Trump.
When the voter questioned if Biden was “selling access” by letting Hunter Biden take a position on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma, Biden appeared to lose his cool.
“You’re a damn liar, man. That’s not true,” Biden said, walking up towards the man at the town hall in New Hampton.
WATCH: A tense exchange with a voter at @JoeBiden’s event in New Hampton, IA this morning, where a voter started out by telling Biden he had two problems with him: he was too old, and his son’s work in Ukraine pic.twitter.com/ok7m0ShFPd
— Molly Nagle (@MollyNagle3) December 5, 2019
The tense face-off came as Biden continues his “No Malarkey” bus tour of rural Iowa. Although Biden remains the Democratic front-runner in national polls, he is struggling mightily in the first-in-the-nation caucus state.
Biden forcefully told the man he was physically and mentally ready to face off against Trump.
“Let’s do push-ups together, man. Let’s do whatever you want to do,” Biden said. “Let’s take an IQ (test).”
Biden is of a kind with these peculiar people on the Radical Left of politics. He cannot be and will not be bothered with anyone who happens to disagree with him. He loses patience. He becomes spiteful, testy, indignant, even belligerent.
Biden, as U.S. President, would only be required to maintain composure. But, from what we have seen of him to date, even that would be a difficult task for Biden.
There is a takeaway from Biden’s apparent inability to effectively and successfully cope with criticism. From an emotional standpoint Biden obviously isn’t adept at responding honestly to or otherwise parrying tough questions, or abrasive comments. Instead Biden lashes out, like a petulant child. This suggests Biden lacks the will power to handle his emotions. This also suggests that Biden lacks the sharp mental acuity, capacity, and quick wit to proffer effective responses that one expects from a nation’s leader.
If Joe Biden does become the presumptive 2020 Democrat Party nominee for U.S. President, each American should honestly consider and ask him or herself this question: Is this truly a man whom you would wish to elect President of the United States, to place your faith in to effectively lead this powerful Nation and to protect it against all enemies, foreign and domestic? If your answer is “yes, then, are you willing to surrender your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms along with your other natural God-given rights?
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.
The post How Did Biden Emerge as the Democrat’s Front Runner? appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/2wMmTBm
via IFTTT
Gun dealers provide 'essential' service, Washington Republicans tell Inslee
There is No Emergency Shutdown of the Right to Bear Arms
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- Give someone power if you want to see their character. Unfortunately, the usual characters have revealed themselves during the Wuhan virus epidemic. Government officials asked citizens to limit their contact with others in order to slow the spread of the virus. Some government officials went well beyond that. They closed roads, released jail inmates, refused to arrest or prosecute suspects, closed gun stores, and refused to process firearms applications. It is precisely during such an emergency that we need government officials to stay within their authority.. and not one inch beyond.
Lots of us wanted a firearm after we saw criminals released from jail and law enforcement refuse to respond to calls. We increased the rate of firearms sales up to four-fold, and up to eightfold for sales of ammunition. The instant background check system run by the FBI was overwhelmed. State agencies added weeks of delays to complete a firearm transfer..if the state bothered to process the applications at all.
The sheriff of Los Angeles County, CA told stores to close. The mayor of LA said they would shut off water and power to stores that stayed open. The county council, the lawyer who advises LA county officials, told the sheriff not to close gun stores or he would face lawsuits. The sheriff rescinded and then reinstated his order to close stores. As predicted, he was sued by four human rights organizations within hours. Sheriffs in Pennsylvania and New York said they would not process concealed carry firearm applications. Officials in New Jersey and Illinois simply stopped processing the permits required to purchase a firearm.. and they were sued.
The order to close gun shops and the refusal to process state-required firearms paperwork is a significant confession on the part of government officials. They are saying that they are more important than you are, that they should have guns and you shouldn’t. Many of these government officials were quickly sued for violation of civil rights. Government officials don’t have the power to suspend the constitution and violate your civil rights. They exceeded their authority.
Some government officials were more reasonable. A city in Texas told firearms stores to close, but then the Texas Attorney General said that local officials did not have that authority. To their credit, some governors stood up and said civil rights have to be respected, particularly during a time of crisis. Perhaps these governors remembered what happened in Los Angeles when the police refused to respond to violence and civilians were left on their own to defend themselves from violent rioters.
Idaho took the Wuhan crisis to heart and expanded the segment of people who have a right to carry concealed without a permit. Called “permitless carry”, that right only applied to state residents. Soon in Idaho, permitless carry applies to all legal US residents who may legally possess a firearm. Sensible government officials also extended the expiration dates for concealed carry permits just as they had for existing drivers licenses that could not be renewed during the quarantine. If only all government officials were that smart.
The lesson is clear. If it is too dangerous for a government official too to sit quietly at their desk and process paperwork, then it is a state of emergency. The state has admitted that it can not fulfill its basic obligations to honest citizens. Under those emergency conditions, permits should not be required for citizens with a clean criminal record to own, transfer, or carry a firearm. We’ve used that same relief valve during hurricanes, wildfires and earthquakes when civil government ceases to exist. Your rights and your safety take precedence over the convenience of a bureaucrat.
That lesson sounds obvious, but some politicians are blinded by their bigotry against honest citizens protecting themselves with a firearm. Now we know the officials who don’t trust us, and in whom we should not place our trust. We gave them power, and they revealed the shortcomings in their character.
About Rob Morse
The original article with references is here. Rob Morse writes about gun rights at Ammoland, at Clash Daily, and on his SlowFacts blog. He hosts the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast and co-hosts the Polite Society Podcast. Rob was an NRA pistol instructor and combat handgun competitor.
The post There is No Emergency Shutdown of the Right to Bear Arms appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/2ykPvlO
via IFTTT
Governor Little Signs Bill to Improve Constitutional Carry in Idaho
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- On 25 March, 2020, Governor Little signed HB 516, the Idaho bill which improved Constitutional Carry in the state. It passed the Senate 27 to 5, on 18 March, with three absent and excused.
The five Senators who voted against it were: Buckner-Webb, Burgoyne, Nelson, Nye, and Ward-Engelking.
The bill passed the House 56 to 14 on the 27th of February.
The 14 representatives who voted against it were: Anderson, Berch, Chew, Davis, Ellis, Gannon, Green, Mason, McCrostie, Necochea, Rubel, Smith, Toone, and Wintrow.
Idaho was one of three states which had a peculiar twist to their Constitutional Carry law: It only applied to residents of the state. The other two states with this provision are North Dakota and Wyoming. Idaho's restrictions only applied inside of incorporated areas such as towns and cities, but those areas are where many people spend much of their time.
Such discrimination against non-residents would, very likely, be struck down in the courts, under the equal protection clause. It is not completely certain. While the federal courts have ruled against applying the law differently to residents and non-residents for some things; they have allowed it for others.
HB 516 removed that discrimination and restores the right of U.S. Citizens to carry weapons, concealed or openly, as existed at the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791 and for a generation afterward.
Idaho's law applies to all United States citizens and Idaho residents who are 18 years of age or older. The law appears to take effect immediately.
A robust body of academic literature has found that more people legally carrying weapons correlates with either reduced violent crime or no effect. By careful selection of start and stop dates, and complicated statistical methods, partisan researchers can, and do, create “studies” to claim increases in crime with an increased carry of firearms.
Here is an article that gives a synopsis of what is known.
Here is a link to John Lott's response to critiques of his academic work.
When you look carefully at the data, what you find is the effect of more concealed carry permits is relatively small.
Most of the evidence “leans” toward relatively small reductions in crime. There is a robust agreement that violent crime is not increased; there is a dogmatic opposition that there is a slight increase in some crimes, in some places, at some times. The evidence of decreases in crimes tends to be in large, detailed studies over long periods of time. The evidence of increases in crime tends to be in very small scale studies of particular places over short time scales.
I urge those who are interested to read the actual research. All of the controversial findings use complicated statistical methods which are difficult for those who are not trained statisticians to evaluate.
There are things to watch for which are easily understood.
Does the study use a proxy to determine the level of gun ownership or carry?
Proxies are easily subject to tweaking and abuse.
Does the study measure crime at the national, state, or local level?
International measurements are very difficult due to differences in definitions and crime reporting. National level effects are difficult due to extreme variations within states. Local effects are best when compared over long time frames.
Does the study focus only on “gun crime” or “gun violence”? Both are Orwellian phrases designed to obtain a particular result. It does not matter to a victim if they are killed with a gun or a bomb; the substitution of weapons is a major item of controversy in the debate.
Those who want a disarmed population want to see studies that show that laws restricting legal gun ownership result in less violent crime.
Those who are Second Amendment supporters want to see studies that show more legal gun ownership results in less violent crime.
There seems to be only a small effect at crime reduction with more armed people. Surveys clearly show that crimes against armed victims are less likely to be completed and that armed victims are less likely to be harmed during the attempted commission or a crime.
Idaho has reduced the number of Constitutional Carry states who discriminate against non-residents to North Dakota and Wyoming.
Tennessee is the state most likely to restore Constitutional Carry next. The more favored bill in Tennessee, at present, restricts Constitutional Carry to state residents.
When Tennessee joins the Constitutional Carry club, there will be 17 states that have restored the law concerning carry to approximately what it was when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
The post Governor Little Signs Bill to Improve Constitutional Carry in Idaho appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
from https://ift.tt/2WUt9Sd
via IFTTT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)