Breaking: First Gun Confiscation Killing Reported in Maryland (Nov. 5, 2018)

Police officers in Anne Arundel County, Maryland arrived at a man’s home to confiscate his guns under the state’s Red Flag law.

When he answered the door holding a gun, a fight ensued and they shot him dead.

 

For months, we have been warning you about the so-called “red flag” bills that are being passed in states around the country. These laws allow family members, friends, and even complete strangers to turn gun owners into police to have their firearms confiscated. It is then up to the gun owner to prove that he or she deserves the right to keep and bear arms. It completely turns the justice system on its head. Under these laws, gun owners are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

 

On Monday morning, police officers in Anne Arundel County, Maryland showed up confiscate 60-year-old Gary J Willis’ guns. A family member had called police and asked them to suspend Gary Willis’ gun rights, and the local police department was more than happy to oblige.

 

When the pounding on the door began at 5:17 am, Gary showed up to his door holding a firearm. When he saw it was police, he put the gun down to talk to them. But then, the officers informed him they were there to confiscate all of his weapons.

 

Imagine how you would feel. You wake up out of a sound sleep to pounding on your door. You grab a gun in case it is a criminal, but it turns out that the police are there to confiscate your guns without even accusing you of committing a crime…

 

Gary Willis refused to comply with the confiscation order. That is when the fight broke out. During the struggle, one of the weapons discharged. Police, fearing for their lives, opened fire on Gary Willis, killing the 60-year-old man in his own home.

 

Gary Willis was not charged or even accused of committing a crime. All of this happened because one extended family member told police she was worried that he was dangerous. No evidence, no proof… just one person’s word. And now, an innocent man is dead.

 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________---

 

Jewish Promotion of Gun Control – 1

 

Bay Area Jewish Moms Take Leading Role in Campaign Against Gun Violence
http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/67916/bay-area-jewish-moms-take-leading-role-in-campaign-against-gun-violence/

 

Dianne Feinstein “Mr. & Mrs. America Turn Them All In”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzDO86iSKWU

 

Feinstein to Introduce Assault Weapons Ban Bill
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/16/feinstein-to-introduce-assault-weapons-ban-bill/

 

Gun Control Plotted By Jews
http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=174

 

Jewish Groups and Lawmakers Seeking Gun Control Get Major Boost from Obama
http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-backs-california-senators-assault-weapons-ban-as-jewish-groups-work-toward-gun-control/

 

Jewish Groups Urge Senate to Pass Gun Control Legislation
http://www.jta.org/2013/04/11/news-opinion/united-states/jewish-groups-urge-senate-to-pass-gun-control-legislation

 

Jewish Gun Control Backers Plan New Push
http://forward.com/articles/175270/jewish-gun-control-backers-plan-new-push/?p=all

 

Jewish Politicians Lead Chorus Calling for Tighter Gun Laws
http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-politicians-join-chorus-calling-for-tighter-gun-laws/


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Jewish Promotion of Gun Control – 2

 

Jews and Jewish Organizations Lead the Gun Control Campaign
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/01/jews-and-jewish-organizations-lead-the-gun-control-campaign/

 

Jews Lead Gun Control Charge
http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=783

 

Major Hollywood Producer Vows to Make the NRA ‘Wish They Weren’t Alive’ With Upcoming ‘Big Movie’
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/15/major-hollywood-producer-vows-to-make-the-nra-wish-they-werent-alive-with-upcoming-big-movie/

 

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg Demands a Plan for Gun Control
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/17/new-york-mayor-michael-bloomberg-gun-control

 

Rabbi Michael Lerner: Banning Guns is Necessary But Not Sufficient
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-michael-lerner/banning-guns-is-necessary_b_2308272.html

 

Rahm Emanuel Calls for Nationwide Assault-Weapons Ban
http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/17/rahm-emanuel-calls-for-nationwide-assault-weapons-ban/

 

Senator Schumer Wants Your Guns!
http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=631

 

Who is Behind Gun Control?
http://thezog.wordpress.com/who-is-behind-gun-control/


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


 

Trump Opens Door For Gun Confiscation In America

By Chuck Baldwin 
March 8, 2018

 

Sagacious gun owners have always known that the ultimate goal of gun control extremists such as Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, et al., has always been gun confiscation. The plan is not to “control” the private ownership of firearms; it is to PROHIBIT the private ownership of firearms. Enacting ever-encroaching gun control laws is simply an incremental means to the ultimate end of gun confiscation and prohibition.

 

Donald Trump was elected on the promise of protecting the Second Amendment (among other things). Instead, he has become the poster boy for one of the most egregious gun control machinations of all: gun confiscation.

 

As I reported in this column last week, in a bipartisan meeting with congressmen and senators recently, President Trump “voiced support for confiscating guns from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, even if it violates due process rights.

 

“‘I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,’ Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.

 

“‘Take the guns first, go through due process second,’ Trump said.

 

“Trump was responding to comments from Vice President Pence that families and local law enforcement should have more tools to report potentially dangerous individuals with weapons.

 

“‘Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons,’ Pence said.

 

"‘Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court,’ Trump responded.”

 

See the column here:

 

Florida School Massacre Proves Police Are Worthless In Protecting Us

 

Well, Trump’s statements are now the rallying cry for gun grabbers all over America to enact gun confiscation laws.

 

So far, five states have passed "red flag" laws that allow police agencies to confiscate guns from someone deemed to be "dangerous" by either a law enforcement officer or a family member BEFORE the individual has committed any crime, and in one State (Rhode Island) the governor issued an executive order implementing a “red flag” law.

 

Here are the six states where the legislatures have already passed—or the governor has already issued an executive order implementing—“red flag" laws:

 

California
Connecticut
Indiana
Oregon
Washington
Rhode Island

 

And since Trump’s Stalinist statements, there are at least 24 additional states that are currently considering passing "red flag" laws. These are:

 

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa

Kansas
Kentucky
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
New Jersey

New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Utah
Vermont
Virginia

 

 

Doubtless, many other states are also considering passing "red flag" laws.

 

And it’s not taking long for law enforcement agencies in the above states to begin their Naziesque assault on gun owners. This report is from Seattle:

 

“The city’s police department became the first law enforcement agency in the state to force the surrender of a firearm under a new law known as an ‘extreme risk protection order.

“The incident involves a man who lives in Belltown, who neighbors said had been intimidating people for the past year - even staring-down customers through store-front windows with a gun holstered at his side.

 

“Mental illness is suspected, but that new law allowed police to legally disarm him.”

 

“The man, who we are not naming, is also well known to the bars and restaurants below his unit along Second Ave. The volume of complaints convinced Seattle police to seek an extreme risk protection order - or ‘erpo’ – which allows law enforcement to legally remove guns from people deemed a danger to themselves or others.

 

“In this case, the man refused to comply. Because of the new law, police were then able to return with a warrant and force the man to surrender the firearm.”

 

“A few dozen erpos have been served and executed around the state, but Seattle police said they are the only agency so far to seize a gun because the owner refused to hand it over.

 

“Law enforcement professionals said these specialized protection orders could be a common sense strategy to try and prevent mass shootings - such as what happened in Parkland, Florida.

 

“‘There's certainly a big concern of the connection between mental health and people exhibiting violent behavior and whether or not they should have access to firearms. The “erpos” give us that tool now as an option,’ said Sgt. Eric Pisconski, who leads the crisis response unit for the Seattle Police Department.

 

“The confiscations only last a year, although they can be renewed.”

 

See the report here:

Seattle Police First In State To Seize Gun Under Mental Health Law

 

 

A few observations are in order here:

 

First, the open carry of a firearm is LEGAL in the area where this took place. So, the fellow was violating NO gun laws whatsoever. Plus, he never removed the pistol from its holster or brandished it in any way.

 

Secondly, the man was “known” to nearby bars and restaurants near his place of residence. That means nothing. Known for what? The report doesn’t even say the man was known for acting weirdly or strangely. It just says he was “known.” And even if he did act weirdly or strangely, if we denied constitutional rights to everyone in that category, a majority of Americans would have no rights, and ALL of Congress would have no rights.

 

Thirdly, what does “volume of complaints” mean? How many complaints were received over a YEAR’S time? Two? Five? Ten? People complaining about other people happens all of the time. Plus, if complaints had been received over the course of an entire year and police just now decided to act, the man must not have been considered much of a threat.

 

Fourthly, there was NO report of the man “exhibiting violent behavior,” as the police sergeant claims. The report says “he had been intimidating people.” How? No specifics except to say he was “staring” at people. Wow! Run for your lives!

 

Fifthly, a U.S. citizen who has committed NO CRIME is denied his Natural right of self-defense for a whole year. And the media report says the confiscations “only” last a year, with the caveat that they may be extended. Indeed. They could and very likely will be extended indefinitely.

 

How many defenseless (unarmed) people are robbed, assaulted, accosted, beaten up, raped, wounded, paralyzed, or killed in a year’s time? It seems many politicians (and many police officers themselves) will not be content until every American citizen is totally defenseless and unable to protect him or herself.

 

I tell you this with all seriousness: At some point, the American people will be forced to view these governmental attacks against our Second Amendment liberties as a declaration of war.

 

Sixthly, the man quoted in the news story who had complained about the armed fellow did so because he said he didn’t like the sight of the man carrying a firearm, as it made him “afraid.”

 

SO WHAT?

 

That the mere sight of a law-abiding citizen openly carrying a sidearm would make someone “afraid” is not sufficient reason to deny the citizen his constitutional right to keep and “bear” arms. This “I’m offended” or “his gun scares me” complaint is nothing but cover for little Nazis to try and deny another person their Natural, God-given liberty.

 

But under this new “red flag” law in Washington State, police are now able to confiscate a person’s firearm without the person committing ANY crime—or even threatening to commit a crime. Even when police forced the man to surrender his firearm, the man made no threatening gesture toward the officers.

 

Gun confiscation has started in America—and President Trump’s Stalinist statements about taking guns first and worrying about due process later is the banner under which this is happening.

 

When Trump promised to add “mental health” regulations to gun purchases and ownership, he opened Pandora’s Box.

 

I go into the “mental health” trap in more detail in this column:

 

Trump Set To Enact More Gun Control

 

“Mental health” regulations for gun ownership is what extremist gun grabbers Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein, et al., have been trying to accomplish for decades. Now, it is the “pro-gun” Republican President Donald Trump who is the one making it happen.

 

Kris Kobach is the Secretary of State of Kansas. He is a former professor of constitutional law at UMKC Law School. He wrote an excellent analysis of the constitutional violations of these “red flag” laws:

 

1. The seizure of guns without any hearing at all. The laws all contain an “ex parte” provision that allows the state to temporarily seize a person’s guns without even notifying the gun owner or giving him a chance to be heard. This is the quintessential denial of due process. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that a person cannot be denied of liberty (to exercise one’s constitutional right to bear arms) without due process of law. This confiscation is “temporary,” but it can easily lead to long-term or permanent confiscation.

 

2. Based on the testimony of one unrelated person. The confiscation order can be based on the testimony of only one person claiming that the gun owner poses a risk to the safety of himself or others. The law deceptively says that it has to be the testimony of a “family member.” such as the one in Washington State But “family member” is defined to include “former dating partners” and anyone who has ever lived with the defendant. So a jilted former boyfriend or girlfriend, or even a roommate from years ago, could easily set in motion the disarming of a lawful gun owner.

 

3. Using a very low standard of proof. The standard for obtaining an ex parte order against a gun owner is absurdly low – one need only show “reasonable cause” to believe that the person may pose a risk. That’s even lower than the “probable cause” standard for obtaining a search warrant. In addition, the judge is forced to rush his decision and issue the confiscation order on the same day of the ex parte hearing. Within two weeks of the ex parte hearing, a hearing with the gun owner present must occur; the purpose is to put in place a long-term confiscation order. But even at that hearing, the standard of proof is far below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials. Rather, it need only be shown by “a preponderance of evidence” that the person poses a risk of injury to self or others. What kind of evidence? Things like the “reckless storage” of firearms and drinking habits can be considered. If you keep a handgun in the bedside table and drink beer regularly, you may [be] in trouble.

 

4. Shifting the burden of proof to the gun owner. The long-term confiscation order lasts up to a year, but may be renewed indefinitely. Once it is in place, it becomes very difficult to remove. To have the confiscation order lifted, the gun owner must prove he does not pose a threat to himself or others. Proving a negative is nearly impossible. Adding insult to injury, the bill even authorizes local law enforcement to charge the gun owner a storage fee for confiscating and storing his guns.

 

After the Parkland school shooting, had Donald Trump simply used his bully pulpit to promote arming teachers and school employees as a deterrent and defense against these school shootings without calling for more gun control, it would have been a HUGE boost for the Second Amendment in general and school safety in particular.

 

Instead, Trump fell in with anti-Second Amendment liberals and started calling for more gun control, adding “mental health” restrictions to gun purchases and making his stupid Stalinist statements about taking guns first and worrying about due process later.

 

As a result, anti-gun liberals all over the country are using Trump’s own words and proposed gun control policies as a rallying cry to enact gun confiscation laws.

 

As it stands right now, Donald Trump has opened the door for more damage being done to the Second Amendment than any other president, Democrat or Republican, in our lifetime.

 

Freedomists in the 50 states had better keep a close eye on their State legislatures this year and next, because, thanks to Donald Trump, gun confiscation is going to be on the agenda in virtually every single State in the country. And while you are at it, don’t overlook the federal Congress.

 

No wonder Dianne Feinstein looked so deliriously (and devilishly) happy when Trump uttered his stupid comment about gun confiscation and said he wanted to bring an assault weapons ban (Feinstein’s bill) into proposed gun control legislation.

 

See the video here:

Watch Dianne Feinstein Erupt With Glee After Trump Seems To Endorse Her Assault Weapons Ban

 

 

But if you are a freedom-loving American who values your liberties and the God-given right to defend them, happy is NOT what you should be feeling right now. You should be OUTRAGED at Donald Trump, and you should be absolutely determined to be ever vigilant against ANY attempt from Democrats or Republicans from federal, State, or municipal government to enact further restrictions against your right to keep and bear arms—because Trump has opened the door not only for more gun control but also for gun confiscation.

 

P.S. One more time I want to remind readers that self-defense—including defense against tyrannical government—is more than a right guaranteed in the Second Amendment to our Constitution; it is a duty assigned us in Nature by our Creator. For anyone, especially a Christian, to willingly surrender their means of self-defense is not only a crime against liberty; it is a sin against God.

 

I urge my Christian friends (and anyone else) to read the book my constitutional attorney son and I wrote entitled “To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns.”

 

Mark it down: Any law demanding the citizenry to surrender their AR-15 rifles would be unconstitutional, unnatural, and unbiblical. And NO Christian or other free man should ever comply with such a law.

 

I know that there is a plethora of pastors who teach that Christians ought to obey the government should it outlaw our guns. THEY ARE WRONG. They are wrong biblically, constitutionally, and morally.

 

Our book shows the Natural and Biblical duty of self-defense. I don’t know of another book like it.

 

With all that is happening today, it is CRUCIAL that people (especially Christians) become familiar with the truths contained in this book. I urge you to order one for yourself and one (at least) for your friends and kinfolk.

 

To order “To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns,” go here:

To Keep Or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns

 

____________________________________________________________________________________

The holodomor was enabled by the initial confiscation of firearms... click on this text to see hidden history known as THE HOLODOMOR (holodomor is Ukrainian for "murder by starvation"...

 
 
 
 
Hitler and Gun Control

In a speech, sometimes said to have been delivered in 1935, Hitler is supposed to have exclaimed: "This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

This quote has been popular with Americans who defend the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms." It's cited to discredit those who support restrictions on firearms ownership and use. It's also cited to support the often-made charge that Hitler and his government curtailed gun ownership in Germany, and confiscated weapons held by private citizens.

The truth is rather different. When Hitler and his National Socialist Party took power in early 1933, they inherited a somewhat restrictive firearms law that the liberal-democratic "Weimar" government had enacted five years earlier. In 1938 Hitler's government revised the earlier law by loosening those restrictions, thereby enhancing the rights of Germans to own weapons. The most thorough confiscation of firearms ever imposed on Germans was carried out at the end of the Second World War by the occupation forces of the United States and other victorious Allied powers.
________________________________________________________________
 
 

MYTH OF GUN CONTROL IN GERMANY, 1928-1945

by Dr. William L. Pierce

| A common belief among defenders of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that the National Socialist...


Gun Control
 

A common belief among defenders of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that the National Socialist government of Germany under Adolf Hitler did not permit the private ownership of firearms. Totalitarian governments, they have been taught in their high school civics classes, do not trust their citizens and do not dare permit them to keep firearms. Thus, one often hears the statement, “You know, the first thing the Nazis did when they came to power was outlaw firearms,” or, “The first thing Hitler did in Germany was round up all the guns.”

 

One can understand why many American gun owners want to believe this. They see in the current effort of their own government to take away their right to keep and bear arms a limitation of an essential element of their freedom and a move toward tyranny, and they want to characterize the gun-grabbers in the most negative way they can. Adolf Hitler has been vilified continuously for the past 60 years or so by the mass media in America, and certainly no politician or officeholder wants to be compared with him. If the gun-confiscation effort can be portrayed convincingly as something of which Hitler would have approved, it will have been effectively tarred.

 

Gun Control 1928-1945

 

 

This identification of the inclination to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms with National Socialism and Adolf Hitler has been strengthened recently by clever magazine advertisements which show Hitler with his arm outstretched in a Roman salute under a heading: “All in favor of gun control raise your right hand.” A Jewish group, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), quite noisy for its size, has been especially zealous in promoting the idea that the current gun-control effort in America has its roots in Germany during the Hitler period. This group has gone so far as to claim in several articles published in popular magazines read by firearms enthusiasts that the current restrictive legislation being proposed by the U.S. government is modeled on a gun-control statute enacted by Germany’s National Socialist government: the German Weapons Law (Waffengesetz) of March 18, 1938.

 

Again, one can understand the motivation of the JPFO. Many non-Jewish firearms owners are well aware that the movement to restrict their rights is led and promoted primarily by Jews, and anti-Jewish feeling has been growing among them. They know that the controlled news media, which are almost unanimously in favor of abridging or abolishing the Second Amendment, are very much under the influence of Jews, and they know that the most vocal anti-gun legislators in the Congress also are Jews. It is natural for a group such as the JPFO to mount a damage- control effort and attempt to prevent anti-Jewish feeling from becoming even stronger among gun owners. Their strategy is to deflect the blame from their kinsmen in the media and the government and direct it onto their most hated enemies, the National Socialists — or at least to create enough smoke to obscure the facts and keep the gun-owning public confused.

 

Unfortunately for those who would like to link Hitler and the National Socialists with gun control, the entire premise for such an effort is false. German firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens by eliminating or ameliorating restrictive laws which had been enacted by the government preceding his: a left-center government which had contained a number of Jews.

 

It is not just that the National Socialist firearms legislation was the opposite of what it has been claimed to have been by persons who want to tar modern gun-grabbers with the “Nazi” brush: the whole spirit of Hitler’s government was starkly different from its portrayal by America’s mass media. The facts, in brief, are these:

 

  • The National Socialist government of Germany, unlike the government in Washington today, did not fear its citizens. Adolf Hitler was the most popular leader Germany has ever had. Unlike American presidents, he did not have to wear body armor and have shields of bulletproof glass in front of him whenever he spoke in public. At public celebrations he rode standing in an open car as it moved slowly through cheering crowds. Communists made several attempts to assassinate him, and his government stamped down hard on communism, virtually wiping it out in Germany. Between upright, law-abiding German citizens and Adolf Hitler, however, there was a real love affair, with mutual trust and respect.

  • The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense and self- reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen should behave. The notion of banning firearms ownership was utterly alien to National Socialism. In the German universities, where National Socialism gained its earliest footholds and which later became its strongest bastions, dueling was an accepted practice. Although the liberal-Jewish governments in Germany after the First World War attempted to ban dueling, it persisted illegally until it was again legalized by the National Socialists. Fencing, target shooting, and other martial arts were immensely popular in Germany, and the National Socialists encouraged young Germans to become proficient in these activities, believing that they were important for the development of a man’s character.

  • Gun registration and licensing (for long guns as well as for handguns) were legislated by an anti-National Socialist government in Germany in 1928, five years before the National Socialists gained power. Hitler became Chancellor on January 30, 1933. Five years later his government got around to rewriting the gun law enacted a decade earlier by his predecessors, substantially amel ior a ting it in the process (for example, long guns were exempted from the requirement for a purchase permit; the legal age for gun ownership was lowered from 20 to 18 years; the period of validity of a permit to carry weapons was extended from one to three years; and provisions restricting the amount of ammunition or the number of firearms an individual could own were dropped). Hitler’s government may be criticized for leaving certain restrictions and licensing requirements in the law, but the National Socialists had no intention of preventing law-abiding Germans from keeping or bearing arms. Again, the firearms law enacted by Hitler’s government enhanced the rights of Germans to keep and bear arms; no new restrictions were added, and many pre-existing restrictions were relaxed or eliminated.

  • At the end of the Second World War, American GIs in the occupying force were astounded to discover how many German civilians owned private firearms. Tens of thousands of pistols looted from German homes by GIs were brought back to the United States after the war. In 1945 General Eisenhower ordered all privately owned firearms in the American occupation zone of Germany confiscated, and Germans were required to hand in their shotguns and rifles as well as any handguns which had not already been stolen. In the Soviet occupation zone German civilians were summarily shot if they were found in possession of even a single cartridge.

Jews, it should be noted, were not Germans, even if they had been born in Germany. The National Socialists defined citizenship in ethnic terms, and under Hitler Jews were not accorded full rights of citizenship. National Socialist legislation progressively excluded Jews from key professions: teaching, the media, the practice of law, etc. The aim was not only to free German life from an oppressive and degenerative Jewish influence, but to persuade Jews to emigrate. The German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, specifically excluded Jews from manufacturing or dealing in firearms or munitions, but it did not exclude them from owning or bearing personal firearms. The exclusion of Jews from the firearms business rankled them as much as any other exclusion, and in their typically ethnocentric fashion they have misrepresented the law involved as an anti-gun law in an effort to cast their enemies in a bad light.


It should be noted in passing that the restrictions placed on Jews by the National Socialists had the intended effect: between 1933 and 1939 two-thirds of the Jews residing in Germany emigrated, reducing the Jewish population of the country from 600,000 when Hitler became Chancellor in 1933 to 200,000 at the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. Jews in the United States, looking at this period from their own narrowly focused viewpoint, have described these peacetime years of the National Socialist government as a time of darkness, terror, and regression, whereas for the German people it was a time of hope, joy, and spiritual and material renewal.

 

Much the same type of distortion is seen in the portrayal of the United States in the early 1950s: the so-called “McCarthy Era.” Senator Joseph McCarthy (Republican, Wisconsin) used his position as chairman of the Senate’s Government Operations Committee to expose the widespread communist infiltration of the U.S. government and other U.S. institutions which had taken place during the Second World War. A substantial majority of the communists who were dragged reluctantly out into the light of day by his efforts were Jews. As a result, the controlled media always have portrayed the period as one of terror and repression, when everyone was frightened of Senator McCarthy’s “witch-hunt.” Of course, it was nothing of the sort to non-Jewish Americans, who were not intimidated in the least. History viewed through a Jewish lens — i.e., through media controlled by Jews — always is distorted in a way corresponding to Jewish interests and concerns.

 

Both the German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, enacted by the National Socialists, and the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928, which was enacted by an anti-National Socialist government, are given below in full, first in facsimile and then in English translation. A little background information first, however, may help the reader to understand their significance. After Germany’s defeat in the First World War (a defeat in which Germany’s Jews played no small part, demoralizing the home front with demonstrations and other subversive activity much as they did in America during the Vietnam war), the Kaiser abdicated, and liberals and leftists seized control of the government in 1918. Hitler, recovering in a military hospital from a British poison-gas attack which had blinded him temporarily, made the decision to go into politics and fight against the traitors he felt were responsible for Germany’s distress.

 

The tendency of Germany’s new rulers after the First World War was much the same as it is for the liberals in America today: they promoted cosmopolitanism, internationalism, and egalitarianism. By 1923 economic conditions in Germany had become catastrophic, and there was much public unrest. The communists had made major inroads into the labor movement and were a growing threat to the country.

 

Hitler had indeed gone into politics, and his National Socialists battled the communists in the streets of Germany’s cities and gradually came to be seen by many patriotic Germans in the working class and the middle class as the only force which could save Germany from a communist takeover and total ruin. Hitler’s National Socialists continued to win recruits and gain strength during the 1920s. The communists, with aid from the Soviet Union, also continued to grow. The political situation became increasingly unstable as the government lost popular support.

 

The government’s response was to substantially tighten up restrictions on the rights of German citizens to keep and bear arms. The Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928, was the most substantial effort in this regard. This law was enacted by a left-center government hostile to the National Socialists (the government was headed by Chancellor Wilhelm Marx and consisted of a coalition of Socialists, including many Jews, and Catholic Centrists).

 

Five years later, in 1933, the National Socialists were in power, Hitler headed the government, and the communist threat was crushed decisively. The National Socialists began undoing the social and economic damage done by their predecessors. Germany was restored to full employment, degeneracy and corruption were rooted out, Jews and their collaborators were removed from one facet of national life after another, and the German people entered a new era of national freedom, health, and prosperity.

 

Finally, in 1938, the National Socialist government got around to enacting a new firearms law to replace the one enacted by their opponents ten years earlier. The highlights of the 1938 law, especially as it applied to ordinary citizens rather than manufacturers or dealers, follow:

 

  • Handguns may be purchased only on submission of a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), which must be used within one year from the date of issue. Muzzle- loading handguns are exempted from the permit requirement. [The 1928 law had required a permit for the purchase of long guns as well, but the National Socialists dropped this requirement.]
  •  
  • Holders of a permit to carry weapons (Waffenschein) or of a hunting license do not need a Weapons Acquisition Permit in order to acquire a handgun.
  •  
  • A hunting license authorizes its bearer to carry hunting weapons and handguns.
  •  
  • Firearms and ammunition, as well as swords and knives, may not be sold to minors under the age of 18 years. [The age limit had been 20 years in the 1928 law.]
  •  
  • Whoever carries a firearm outside of his dwelling, his place of employment, his place of business, or his fenced property must have on his person a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein). A permit is not required, however, for carrying a firearm for use at a police-approved shooting range.
  •  
  • A permit to acquire a handgun or to carry firearms may only be issued to persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit. In particular, a permit may not be issued to:
  •  
    1. persons under the age of 18 years;

    2. legally incompetent or mentally retarded persons;

    3. Gypsies or vagabonds;

    4. persons under mandatory police supervision [i.e., on parole] or otherwise temporarily without civil rights;

    5. persons convicted of treason or high treason or known to be engaged in activities hostile to the state;

    6. persons who for assault, trespass, a breach of the peace, resistance to authority, a criminal offense or misdemeanor, or a hunting or fishing violation were legally sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than two weeks, if three years have not passed since the term of imprisonment.

  • The manufacture, sale, carrying, possession, and import of the following are prohibited:
  •  
    1. “trick” firearms, designed so as to conceal their function (e.g., cane guns and belt-buckle pistols);

    2. any firearm equipped with a silencer and any rifle equipped with a spotlight;

    3. cartridges with .22 caliber, hollow-point bullets.

    That is the essence. Numerous other provisions of the law relate to firearms manufacturers, importers, and dealers; to acquisition and carrying of firearms by police, military, and other official personnel; to the maximum fees which can be charged for permits (3 Reichsmark); to tourists bringing firearms into Germany; and to the fines and other penalties to be levied for violations.

     

    The requirements of “trustworthiness” and of proof of need when obtaining a permit are troubling, but it should be noted that they were simply carried over from the 1928 law: they were not formulated by the National Socialists. Under the National Socialists these requirements were interpreted liberally: a person who did not fall into one of the prohibited categories listed above was considered trustworthy, and a statement such as, “I often carry sums of money,” was accepted as proof of need.

     

    The prohibitions of spotlight-equipped rifles and hollow-point .22 caliber ammunition were based on considerations that the former were unsporting when used for hunting, and the latter were inhumane.

     

    Now read the German firearms laws for yourself, either in the original German exactly as they were published by the German government in the Reichsgesetzblatt or in the complete English translations which are provided here. If you want to skip over most of the legal gobbledygook and go directly to the most pertinent part of the National Socialist Firearms Law — the part pertaining to the purchase, ownership, and carrying of firearms by private citizens — turn to page 35 (Part IV of the Law). Note, as already mentioned above, that two separate and distinct types of permits are referred to: a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), required only for purchasing a handgun; and a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein), required for carrying any firearm in public. Interestingly enough, as also mentioned above, a hunting license could take the place of both these permits.

     

    When you have read the two laws mentioned here, you will understand that it was Hitler’s enemies, not Hitler, who should be compared with the gun-control advocates in America today. Then as now it was the Jews, not the National Socialists, who wanted the people’s right of self- defense restricted. You will understand that those who continue to make the claim that Hitler was a gun-grabber are either ignorant or dishonest. And you will understand that it was not until 1945, when the communist and democratic victors of the Second World War had installed occupation governments to rule over the conquered Germans that German citizens were finally and completely denied the right to armed self-defense.

     

     

     

     

    Most U.S. Federal gun control legislation has been written, introduced, and sponsored by Jewish Congressmen and Jewish Senators.

     

    U.S. Federal Gun Control Legislation, 1968 – present

     

    1968: The Gun Control Act of 1968 comes from Congressman Emanuel Celler’s House bill H.R.17735. It expands legislation already attempted by the non-Jewish Senator Thomas Dodd. America’s biggest and most far-reaching gun law came from a Jew.

     

    1988: Senator Howard Metzenbaum sponsors Senate bill S.1523. It proposes legislation turning every violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 into a RICO predicate offense, allowing a gun owner to be charged with federal racketeering offenses.

     

    1988: Senator Howard Metzenbaum co-sponsors a bill – S.2180 – to ban, or limit/restrict, so-called “plastic guns.”

     

    1990: Senator Herbert Kohl introduces bill S.2070, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which bans gun possession in a school zone. The law will later be struck down in court as unconstitutional.

     

    1993: Senator Howard Metzenbaum sponsors Senate bill S.653. It bans specific semiautomatic rifles, but also gives the Secretary of the Treasury the power to add any semiautomatic firearm to the list at a later date.

     

    February, 1994: The Brady Law, which requires waiting periods to buy handguns, becomes effective. Senator Howard Metzenbaum wrote the Brady Bill. Senator Metzenbaum sponsored the bill in the Senate. The sponsor of the bill in the House was Congressman Charles Schumer.

     

    1994: Senator Howard Metzenbaum introduces S.1878, the Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, aka “Brady II.” Congressman Charles Schumer sponsored “Brady II” sister legislation [H.R. 1321] in the U.S. House of Representatives.

     

    September, 1994: The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 goes into effect, including a provision that bans the manufacture and possession of semiautomatic rifles described as “assault weapons.” [Note: true assault weapons are fully automatic, not semiautomatic]. That gun-ban provision was authored in the Senate by Senator Dianne Feinstein and authored in the House by Congressman Charles Schumer.

     

    1995: Senators Kohl, Specter, Feinstein, Lautenberg and others introduce the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995, an amended version of the 1990 school-zone law which was struck down in court as being unconstitutional.

     

    September, 1996: The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation provision becomes law. It is part of a larger omnibus appropriations bill. It was sponsored by Senator Frank Lautenberg. It bans people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from ever owning a gun.

     

    1997: Senate bill S.54, the Federal Gang Violence Act of 1997, proposes much harsher sentences for people violating minor gun laws, including mandatory prison sentences and forfeiture of property. It was introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Hatch, among others. It returns the idea of turning every violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 into a RICO predicate offense.

     

    January, 1999: Senator Barbara Boxer introduces bill S.193, the American Handgun Standards Act of 1999.

     

    January, 1999: Senator Herbert Kohl introduces bill S.149, the Child Safety Lock Act of 1999. It would require a child safety lock in connection with transfer of a handgun.

     

    February,1999: Senator Frank Lautenberg introduces bill S.407, the Stop Gun Trafficking Act of 1999.

     

    February, 1999: Senator Frank Lautenberg introduces S.443, the Gun Show Accountability Act of 1999.

     

    March, 1999: Senator Frank Lautenberg introduces bill S.560, the Gun Industry Accountability Act of 1999.

     

    March, 1999: Senator Dianne Feinstein introduces bill S.594, the Large Capacity Ammunition Magazine Import Ban Act of 1999.

     

    May, 2000: Senators Feinstein, Boxer, Lautenberg, and Schumer sponsor Senate bill S.2515, the Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2000. It is a plan for a national firearms licensing system.

     

    January, 2001: Senators Feinstein, Schumer, and Boxer sponsor Senate bill S.25, the Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2001. It is a nation-wide gun registration plan [apparently there were two versions of that Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act bill].

     

    May, 2003: Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, and others introduce legislation that would reauthorize the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, and, close a loophole in the law that allows large-capacity ammunition magazines to be imported into the U.S. The ban expired in September, 2004.

     

    October, 2003: Senators Feinstein, Lautenberg, Levin, and Schumer co-sponsor bill S.1774, designed to stop the sunset [ending] of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988.

     

    March, 2005: Senator Frank Lautenberg introduces bill S.645, “to reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act,” in other words, to reinstate the 1994 assault-rifle ban [also known as the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994”] which expired in late 2004.

     

    March, 2005: Senator Dianne Feinstein introduces bill S.620, “to reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act,” in other words, to reinstate the 1994 assault-rifle ban [also known as the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994”] which expired in late 2004.

     

    July, 2005: Senator Dianne Feinstein introduces bill S.A.1621 – Fifty-Caliber Sniper Weapons. This amendment would convert all .50 BMG firearms to NFA weapons.

     

    July, 2005: Senator Dianne Feinstein introduces bill S.A.1622 – Fifty-Caliber Exclusion to S.397. This amendment would modify S.397 to allow suits when the firearm involved was a .50 caliber weapon.

     

    July, 2005: Senator Barbara Boxer introduces bill S.A.1633 – BATFE Safety Standards. This amendment allows law suits to continue/be brought if the product did not meet the safety standards as defined by the BATFE.

     

    July, 2005: Senator Barbara Boxer introduces bill S.A.1634 – ‘Sporting Use’ on Domestic Handguns. Applying ’sporting use’ clause requirements to domestic handguns could, almost completely, dry up the handgun availability in the United States.



    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
     
    Winning the Cultural War

    Charlton Heston's Speech to the Harvard Law School Forum, Feb 16, 1999

    I remember my son when he was five, explaining to his kindergarten class what his father did for a living. "My Daddy," he said, "pretends to be people." There have been quite a few of them. Prophets from the Old and New Testaments, a couple of Christian saints, generals of various nationalities and different centuries, several kings, three American presidents, a French cardinal and two geniuses, including Michelangelo.

    If you want the ceiling repainted I'll do my best. There always seem to be a lot of different fellows up here. I'm never sure which one of them gets to talk. Right now, I guess I'm the guy.

    As I pondered our visit tonight it struck me: If my Creator gave me the gift to connect you with the hearts and minds of those great men, then I want to use that same gift now to reconnect you with your own sense of liberty of your own freedom of thought ... your own compass for what is right.

    Dedicating the memorial at Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said of America, "We are now engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether this nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure." Those words are true again. I believe that we are again engaged in a great civil war, a cultural war that's about to hijack your birthright to think and say what resides in your heart. I fear you no longer trust the pulsing lifeblood of liberty inside you ...
    the stuff that made this country rise from wilderness into the miracle that it is.

    Let me back up. About a year ago I became president of the National Rifle Association, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. I ran for office, I was elected, and now I serve ... I serve as a moving target for the media who've called me everything from "ridiculous" and "duped" to a "brain-injured, senile, crazy old man." I know ... I'm pretty old ... but I sure, Lord, ain't senile.

    As I have stood in the crosshairs of those who target Second Amendment freedoms, I've realized that firearms are not the only issue. No, it's much, much bigger than that. I've come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain acceptable thoughts and speech are mandated. For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 - long before Hollywood found it fashionable. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else's pride, they called me a racist. I've worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life. But when I told an audience that gayrights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe. I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an analogy between singling out innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, was called an anti-Semite.
    Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country. But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh. From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they're essentially saying, "Chuck, how dare you speak your mind. You are using language not authorized for public consumption!" But I am not afraid. If Americans believed in political correctness, we'd still be King George's boys -- subjects bound to the British crown.

    In his book, "The End of Sanity," Martin Gross writes that "blatantly irrational behavior is rapidly being established as the norm in almost every area of human endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules, new anti-intellectual theories regularly foisted on us from every direction.

    Underneath, the nation is roiling. Americans know something without a name is undermining the nation, turning the mind mushy when it comes to separating truth from falsehood and right from wrong. And they don't like it."

    Let me read a few examples. At Antioch college in Ohio, young men seeking intimacy with a coed must get verbal permission at each step of the process from kissing to petting to final copulation ... all clearly spelled out in a printed college directive. In New Jersey, despite the death of several patients nationwide who had been infected by dentists who had concealed their AIDs --- the state commissioner announced that health providers who are HIV-positive need not .....
    need not ..... tell their patients that they are infected.

    At William and Mary, students tried to change the name of the school team "The Tribe" because it was supposedly insulting to local Indians, only to learn that authentic Virginia chiefs truly like the name.

    In San Francisco, city fathers passed an ordinance protecting the rights of transvestites to cross-dress on the job, and for transsexuals to have separate toilet facilities while undergoing sex change surgery.

    In New York City, kids who don't speak a word of Spanish have been placed in bilingual classes to learn their three R's in Spanish solely because their last names sound Hispanic.

    At the University of Pennsylvania, in a state where thousands died at Gettysburg opposing slavery, the president of that college officially set up segregated dormitory space for black students. Yeah, I know ...
    that's out of bounds now. Dr. King said "Negroes." Jimmy Baldwin and most of us on the March said "black." But it's a no-no now. For me, hyphenated identities are awkward ... particularly "Native-American."
    I'm a Native American, for God's sake. I also happen to be a blood-initiated brother of the Miniconjou Sioux. On my wife's side, my grandson is a thirteenth generation native American ... with a capital letter on "American."

    Finally, just last month ... David Howard, head of the Washington D.C.
    Office of Public Advocate, used the word "niggardly" while talking to colleagues about budgetary matters. Of course, "niggardly" means stingy or scanty. But within days Howard was forced to publicly apologize and resign.

    As columnist Tony Snow wrote: "David Howard got fired because some people in public employ were morons who (a) didn't know the meaning of niggardly, (b) didn't know how to use a dictionary to discover the meaning, and (c) actually demanded that he apologize for their ignorance."

    What does all of this mean? It means that telling us what to think has evolved into telling us what to say, so telling us what to do can't be far behind. Before you claim to be a champion of free thought, tell
    me: Why did political correctness originate on America's campuses? And why do you continue to tolerate it? Why do you, who're supposed to debate ideas, surrender to their suppression?

    Let's be honest. Who here thinks your professors can say what they really believe? It scares me to death, and should scare you too, that the superstition of political correctness rules the halls of reason.
    You are the best and the brightest. You, here in the fertile cradle of American academia, here in the castle of learning on the Charles River, you are the cream. But I submit that you, and your counterparts across the land, are the most socially conformed and politically silenced generation since Concord Bridge. And as long as you validate that ... and abide it ... you are -- by your grandfathers' standards
    -- cowards.

    Here's another example. Right now at more than one major university, Second Amendment scholars and researchers are being told to shut up about their findings or they'll lose their jobs. Why? Because their research findings would undermine big-city mayor's pending lawsuits that seek to extort hundreds of millions of dollars from firearm manufacturers. I don't care what you think about guns. But if you are not shocked at that, I am shocked at you. Who will guard the raw material of unfettered ideas, if not you? Who will defend the core value of academia, if you supposed soldiers of free thought and expression lay down your arms and plead, "Don't shoot me."

    If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist. If you see distinctions between the genders, it does not make you a sexist. If you think critically about a denomination, it does not make you anti-religion. If you accept but don't celebrate homosexuality, it does not make you a homophobe. Don't let America's universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism.

    But what can you do? How can anyone prevail against such pervasive social subjugation? The answer's been here all along. I learned it 36 years ago, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC, standing with Dr. Martin Luther King and two hundred thousand people.
    You simply ... disobey. Peaceably, yes. Respectfully, of course.
    Nonviolently, absolutely.

    But when told how to think or what to say or how to behave, we don't.
    We disobey social protocol that stifles and stigmatizes personal freedom. I learned the awesome power of disobedience from Dr. King ...
    who learned it from Gandhi, and Thoreau, and Jesus, and every other great man who led those in the right against those with the might.

    Disobedience is in our DNA. We feel innate kinship with that disobedient spirit that tossed tea into Boston Harbor, that sent Thoreau to jail, that refused to sit in the back of the bus, that protested a war in Viet Nam. In that same spirit, I am asking you to disavow cultural correctness with massive disobedience of rogue authority, social directives and onerous laws that weaken personal freedom.

    But be careful ... it hurts. Disobedience demands that you put yourself at risk. Dr. King stood on lots of balconies. You must be willing to be humiliated ... to endure the modern-day equivalent of the police dogs at Montgomery and the water cannons at Selma. You must be willing to experience discomfort. I'm not complaining, but my own decades of social activism have taken their toll on me. Let me tell you a story.

    A few years back I heard about a rapper named Ice-T who was selling a CD called "Cop Killer" celebrating ambushing and murdering police officers. It was being marketed by none other than Time/Warner, the biggest entertainment conglomerate in the world. Police across the country were outraged. Rightfully so-at least one had been murdered.
    But Time/Warner was stonewalling because the CD was a cash cow for them, and the media were tiptoeing around it because the rapper was black. I heard Time/Warner had a stockholders meeting scheduled in Beverly Hills. I owned some shares at the time, so I decided to attend. What I did there was against the advice of my family and colleagues. I asked for the floor. To a hushed room of a thousand average American stockholders, I simply read the full lyrics of "Cop
    Killer"- every vicious, vulgar, instructional word. "I GOT MY 12 GAUGE SAWED OFF. I GOT MY HEADLIGHTS TURNED OFF. I'M ABOUT TO BUST SOME SHOTS OFF. I'M ABOUT TO DUST SOME COPS OFF..."

    It got worse, a lot worse. I won't read the rest of it to you. But trust me, the room was a sea of shocked, frozen, blanched faces. The Time/Warner executives squirmed in their chairs and stared at their shoes. They hated me for that. Then I delivered another volley of sick lyric brimming with racist filth, where Ice-T fantasizes about sodomizing two 12-year old nieces of Al and Tipper Gore. Well, I won't do to you here what I did to them. Let's just say I left the room in echoing silence.

    When I read the lyrics to the waiting press corps, one of them said "We can't print that." "I know," I replied, "but Time/Warner's selling it." Two months later, Time/Warner terminated Ice-T's contract. I'll never be offered another film by Warner's, or get a good review from Time magazine. But disobedience means you must be willing to act, not just talk.

    When a mugger sues his elderly victim for defending herself ... jam the switchboard of the district attorney's office.

    When your university is pressured to lower standards until 80% of the students graduate with honors ... choke the halls of the board of regents.

    When an 8-year-old boy pecks a girl's cheek on the playground and gets hauled into court for sexual harassment ... march on that school and block its doorways.

    When someone you elected is seduced by political power and betrays you .. petition them, oust them, banish them.

    When Time magazine's cover portrays millennium nuts as deranged, crazy Christians holding a cross as it did last month ... boycott their magazine and the products it advertises.

    So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobedience's of history that freed exiles founded religions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God's grace, built this country.

    If Dr. King were here, I think he would agree.

    Thank you.

     _______________________________________________________________________

     

     

     

    Bearing Arms: A Fundamental Necessity

    By Chuck Baldwin 
    November 1, 2018

     

    As I have said repeatedly, it is a fundamental necessity that the American people keep and bear arms. And bearing arms means carrying a firearm with you wherever you go. America’s most recent mass shooting serves as another exclamation point behind that statement.

     

    Furthermore, as an author, columnist, radio talk show host and pastor who is outspoken in my support of the Second Amendment, I often receive inquiries from people asking for my personal preferences regarding firearms. This column is devoted to answering those inquiries.

     

    I’m sure this column will not provide anything new for the firearms aficionados out there. However, we are living in a violence-prone society, and more and more people (especially ladies) who never paid much attention to guns before are sensing the need to arm themselves but often don’t know where to start. I hope this column helps these folks.

     

    Plus, there are many Christians reading this column who have been brainwashed by preachers who promote the idea that they don’t need to own a gun, because, they say, God doesn’t intend for us to defend ourselves. I trust this column will cause these folks to at least study this issue for themselves.

     

    First, let me emphasize that I am NOT a firearms expert. And I strongly urge you to receive as much instruction and training from a firearms professional as possible. Second, when it comes to a discussion of which firearms are preferable, the suggestions are as varied as the people who proffer them. This column contains my preferences regarding revolvers and semi-automatic pistols; rimfire rifles; centerfire hunting rifles; centerfire semi-automatic sporting rifles; and shotguns.

     

    Most people who are armed nowadays are carrying concealed. Disgustingly, many states do not allow people to legally carry open. Fortunately, that is not true here in Montana where I live, and I often carry open—as do many people in this great State. However, most of the time, I am carrying concealed, as I think it better that the bad guy not know who among his intended victims is able to shoot back. If you are planning to carry a concealed firearm, you will need to carefully consider the kind of clothing you are wearing and how the firearm will fit in with your attire. For most people, concealed carry requires firearms that are—to one degree or another—somewhat diminutive.

     

    My personal preference for a self-defense handgun is a Glock pistol. Glock pistols are as simple as revolvers to operate, reliable and almost indestructible. Plus, they provide increased magazine capacity and are safe. They are also very easy to disassemble and clean. And most importantly, they go "bang" when you pull the trigger. Some ladies might find the Glock grips to be a little bulky for their hands—except for the Glock 42 and 43, which most ladies should find quite comfortable.  But most women should be able to safely and confidently shoot the majority of Glock 9mm pistols.

     

    Favorite options in Glock pistols include the Glock 42 in .380 ACP; Glock 17, 19, 26 and 43 in 9mm Luger (also called 9mm Parabellum or 9x19); the Glock 22, 23 and 27 in .40 Smith & Wesson; the Glock 21, 30 (and 30S) and 36 in .45 ACP; and the Glock 20 and 29 in 10mm Auto.

     

    When I am carrying concealed, I’m usually carrying the Glock 19.  

     

    The 1911 .45 ACP (I prefer Colt, Kimber or Springfield Armory) has been proven to be an extremely effective self-defense sidearm for over a century. But I don't recommend the 1911 for beginners.  

     

    My wife prefers to carry a Smith & Wesson .38 Special revolver in the snub-nose, J-frame configuration. This is primarily due to the reduced weight and size of these weapons for carry purposes. Plus, she just prefers a revolver over a semi-auto. And, yes, I sometimes carry a J-frame as well.

     

    J-frames generally have a poor reputation for accuracy due to their very short barrel. And the reduced 5-shot capacity (for most J-frames) turns off some people. However, 70% of self-defense fights take place at a distance of 2 yards. As such, J-frames are very adequate for the task. In addition, most self-defense fights are settled with 3 shots being fired, so, statistically speaking, 5 shots are normally enough to defend oneself.

     

    I prefer the .38 Special revolver to the .380 ACP semi-automatic pistol. Modern .380s are very concealable, however, and for that reason, I sometimes carry a .380 Glock 42 as a backup. My main complaint with the Glock 42 is it has a stiff trigger pull—around 9 pounds—whereas, most Glock pistols have a standard 5.5 pound trigger pull. I have found that a lighter trigger pull makes accuracy much easier (which is one reason many people prefer the single-action 1911). When I do carry a J-frame revolver, it is usually a Smith & Wesson 340 M&P or a Ruger LCR, which are built for the .357 Magnum and .38 Special cartridges. And when carrying the J-frame, I’m usually loaded with .38s. The .38 Special and 9mm Luger are comparable in power.

     

    But, honestly, the best J-frame on the market these days might be the Kimber K6s. The trigger is sweet (like Smith & Wesson triggers used to be), and it holds 6 rounds instead of 5. The K6s is an all-steel revolver and is, therefore, a little heavier than most J-frames (23 ounces empty). But the extra weight of the K6s makes shooting the .357 magnum round more comfortable than the lighter weight versions. And shooting the .38 round in the K6s is downright pleasant.

     

    And, yes, for some people, a revolver might still be the preferred handgun. It has no external magazine to worry about losing; it is very dependable and reliable; it is easy to clean; and it is simple to operate. NYPD expert Frank McGee says the typical police gunfight conforms to a “rule of three”: 3 rounds, 3 yards, and 3 seconds. So in most real-life situations, the increased firepower of a high-capacity magazine doesn't even come into play.

     

    But, of course, in today’s violent environment, the risk of facing multiple assailants or a heavily armed would-be mass shooter is always possible. In such a situation, a Glock 19 or 17 that has increased magazine capacity would be much preferred, which is why I'm usually carrying one. (Ruger, Smith & Wesson and Springfield, along with others, are also options.)

     

    In dangerous game territory, you will need the power of a 10mm Auto, .357 Magnum, .44 Special, .44 Magnum, .45 ACP, .45 Long Colt or even a .454 Casull. These calibers are not for the limp-wristed, but when one is facing a Brown Bear, it is what one will need to survive. Plus, when your life's on the line, you’ll never feel the recoil. But, truthfully, I would hate to face a Brown Bear (includes the Grizzly and Kodiak) with a handgun of any caliber. These creatures are the fiercest and most formidable animals on the North American Continent (along with the Polar Bear, of course). Against a Brown Bear, I would hope I had a big game rifle or shotgun handy.

     

    I live in Brown Bear country, of course, and when I'm in the woods hiking or hunting, I'm either carrying a Glock 20 in 10mm Auto, a Smith & Wesson 686 in .357 Magnum, a Kimber K6s in .357 Magnum or a Smith & Wesson 629 in .44 Magnum. To be honest, the 629 and 686 get heavy after a few hours in the woods, which is why I usually carry the Glock 20 (the K6s carries very comfortably also, and I often carry this revolver as a backup). Plus, I feel better with 15 rounds of 10mm Auto than with 6 rounds of .357 or .44 Magnum. But I hope and pray I never have to test my theory for real. In a real encounter, you can bet that my rifle or shotgun would be my first choice, and my handgun (whichever one it is) would be the very last choice. (But I spoke with a man recently who, sadly, has had to kill several Grizzlies in his line of work, and he swears by the .357 Magnum. So there you go.)

     

    For a .22 LR rifle (which is great for hunting small game), I prefer the Ruger 10/22 semi-auto. A Marlin model 60 tube-fed .22 LR is also very effective. The CZ model 455 bolt-action rifle just might be the most accurate factory .22 LR on the market. And I absolutely love my Remington American bolt-action rifle in .22 WMR. My all-time favorite .22 rifle is a Remington Nylon 66 in Mohawk Brown (which hasn't been manufactured in a long, long time). But that's because of sentimentality: It was my very first rifle. My dad gave one to me on my 12th birthday, and over the next several years, I fired over 50,000 rounds through it. I finally sold it (which I have regretted to this very day). But I found one in like-new condition (believe it or not) at a Montana gun show recently, and having a Nylon 66 in my possession again brings me great delight. But from a practical standpoint, I believe the Ruger 10/22 stands alone at the top of the heap.

     

    For a big game hunting rifle, my suggestion is either a .270 Winchester or .30-06 Springfield bolt-action rifle or a .30-30 Winchester or .45-70 Government lever-action rifle. (Here in Montana, the .300 Winchester Magnum is a very popular caliber.) The 30-06 Springfield is doubtless the most versatile rifle caliber on the market. However, I usually hunt with a .270. It’s plenty powerful enough for deer, elk or black bear. And, frankly, I just love shooting this low recoil, flat shooting, extremely accurate caliber. I prefer the Remington Model 700 BDL, but there are several fine rifles in this configuration by numerous manufacturers.  

     

    For a semiautomatic rifle, I suggest an AR-15 or Ruger Mini-14 in 5.56 NATO (they also fire the .223 Remington cartridge) or a Springfield M1A or AR-10 in .308 Winchester. My personal choice here is the AR-15. Daniel Defense makes some of the best AR rifles in the world, but they are quite pricey. Other good AR brands include Armalite, Bushmaster, Colt, Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Windham Weaponry and several others. Most ladies will find that the low recoil of an AR-15 or Mini-14 will make the rifle very pleasant to shoot. No home should be without one of these rifles.

     

    For a shotgun, a 12-gauge in any configuration is the premier close-range weapon. Nothing equals it. In a pump shotgun, I prefer a Winchester Model 1300, which is not made anymore. So, you’ll probably have to choose between Mossberg and Remington. In the semi-auto configuration, I prefer Mossberg shotguns. And don’t discount 20-gauge shotguns. The 20-gauge has less recoil than a 12-gauge, and at “bad breath” range (where a shotgun shines anyway), the 20-gauge is just as lethal as a 12-gauge. And for home defense, do not overlook the double barrel shotgun. And while I often use a .410 gauge shotgun for small game, I do not recommend it for self-defense.

     

    It is also critical that no matter which firearm you decide to purchase to be sure and practice with it. The firearm you purchase is no better or worse than your ability to handle it. And be sure to stock up on ammunition. A gun without ammo is reduced to being either an expensive club or a cumbersome paperweight.

     

    Go to your local independent sporting goods or gun store (I don’t recommend the large national chain stores to do your firearms shopping), and get to know your hometown firearms dealer. Most of these people are kind and helpful folks who will be more than happy to assist you in finding exactly what type of firearm is suitable for you and your family.

     

    And always be sure to follow all of the safety rules for your firearm. The last thing any of us wants is an accidental discharge of a firearm that results in the injury or death of a loved one or friend. So, always remember that safety is job one. And rule number one is NEVER point a gun at anyone unless you are doing so in an act of self-defense. And rule number two is ALWAYS assume that a gun is loaded, which takes you back to rule number one. Plus, guns should always be kept away from children before they have been properly taught how to safely handle a firearm—which should be done as soon as possible.

     

    I realize that there are many pastors and Christians who try to impugn the necessity—much less the desire—to own a firearm. These people are famous for saying things such as “God will take care of you; no one needs a gun.” Of course, these same people quickly embrace the idea that police officers should carry guns for self-defense. I never understood why it is that Christians who are not policemen are supposed to “trust God” to take care of them and not arm themselves, but Christian police officers are somehow exempt from this same spiritual notion.

     

    Beyond that, many pastors teach that Christians are obligated to obey civil authorities who demand that we surrender our firearms. They even try and quote Scriptures to prove this preposterous position.

     

    For these reasons, my constitutional attorney son and I collaborated on a book that takes the Scriptures (Old and New Testaments) to prove that self-defense is not just a right under our Constitution; it is a moral obligation given us by our Creator. In the book, we show that Christians who are unwilling to defend themselves, their families and their communities have actually denied the Christian faith. We show that the Bible nowhere teaches God’s people to remain defenseless or to surrender their means of self-defense to any civil authority.

     

    In the book, we examine the Scriptures that the “no gun” preachers use to support their lunacy and show how unbiblical these positions are. We go through both Testaments and show that our Creator has given us the obligation to defend the life He has given us. We also put to rest many of the distortions of Scripture that anti-gun preachers use to turn Christian men and women—who are created to be providers and protectors—into sheepish slaves of the state and helpless prey for human predators.  

     

    Yes, keeping and bearing arms is a spiritual DUTY. Defending oneself or family is as spiritual as praying or reading the Bible or any other spiritual exercise.

     

    The title of our book is To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns. Order it here:

     

    To Keep Or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns

     

    It is not only important to be armed; it is even more important to understand the moral and spiritual underpinnings of WHY we should be armed. And that is exactly what our book attempts to explain.

     

    If you are challenged by this column, I encourage you to highlight what resonates with you, and then take these suggestions to your local independent firearms dealer who can further explain the various nuances of what to look for in a gun for your unique and individual needs. When you do, you might find that his preferences differ from mine. But basics are basics, and at least you have my suggestions as a starting point. And remember, there is no one gun that is perfect for everyone. Get the gun that is right for YOU. In a self-defense situation, any gun is better than no gun. The Boy Scouts motto is good advice: “Be Prepared.” Plus, much more important than the type of firearm and caliber you choose is shot placement (accuracy). And that only comes with practice. So, find a gun that suits you and practice with it.

     

    And if you are one of those people who just don’t “like” guns, when you become familiar with firearms and actually begin shooting under the supervision of a knowledgeable instructor, you might find yourself really enjoying it. But even if you don’t, there are many things we adults do that we don’t enjoy doing, but we do them because we know it is the prudent and responsible thing to do. I would put the proficient use of a firearm in that category.

     

    Good (and safe) shooting.

     

    © Chuck Baldwin