Dependance Breeds the Tolerance of Tyranny

by militialaw on March 1, 2014



Just a friendly reminder that if you do not receive direct government benefits, including Social Security or a government pension, you are in the tiny majority of US residents. The fact is the overwhelming majority of US residents have no interest in changing the status quo due to the monthly checks DC provides.

They will, most likely, be willing to sell you out if they think doing so will keep their direct deposits coming.

If you don’t believe me, ladies and gentlemen we have a real world example of what happens when the working class gets frustrated with a tyrant courtesy of Venezuela.

The NY Times has a little read article out regarding the divide in Venezuela between the middle class and welfare class that has become apparent during the protests against Maduro.

Did you know the protests are limited to the “rich” side of Caracas?

Did you know the slum dwellers are unhappy with the govt, but because the government gives them stuff they aren’t participating in the protests?

Take a good look, because that is what any US rebellion will look like.

A Kiev Kocktail?

by militialaw on February 28, 2014

Thanks to a reader at WRSA, we have an interesting use for Bullseye reloading powder described in a 1967 patent:

A method of producing solid thermite pellets without the use of additives which comprises: mixing thermite powder with Bullseye pistol powder in the presence of a small amount of water, and cold pressing the mixture in a die, whereafter pellets of any desired size are yielded having a sufficient degree of initial strength.

Rust + radiator leak sealer seal + widely available reloading powder = Kiev Kocktail

Venezuelan General Shows “Oath Keepers” How It’s Done

by militialaw on February 27, 2014

The man in the photo below was a general in the Venzuelan army but quit when his CinC ordered him to order his men use the slogan “Fatherland or Death, We Will Overcome.”

Yes you read that right.

A General took his oath to his country seriously over something as small as a motto.

Can you imagine what he would have done if his CinC had ordered him to not provide support to an intelligence facility in Libya about to be overrun?

This General Angel Vivas knew his CinC was fascist scum who was about to lead his country down the road to ruin. So he did what any “oath keeper” would do: he quit.

Then he did this:

When the wave of student protests started a few weeks ago, Mr. Vivas took to YouTube and posted a long rant urging active duty officers not to fire at protesters. On Twitter, he offered practical advice on how to defend against attacks, particularly by gangs of pro-government thugs on motorcycles that were blamed for the shooting deaths of several protesters. The general recommended stringing up nylon or wire across streets to prevent riders from crossing.

Where is America’s General Vivas?

Too busy protecting his pension, I assume?

Do you mean to tell me that no general in the U.S. military has any inkling of what’s going on in this country…or are they just yellow?

“He has the guts that a lot of people lack,” said Anessa Cafferata, a 21-year-old engineering student who takes part in daily protests across the capital

He sure does.

He could even teach Americans a thing or two.

h/t to WRSA


California FFL Will NOT Sell Smart Gun

by militialaw on February 27, 2014

Thanks to Dave Codrea, we know the Oak Tree Gun Club is not going to sell the “smart gun” being hyped by the fascists.

Our facility does NOT carry the Armatix pistol, never has, and this comment was taken out of context in an interview conducted by the Washington Post,


The licensed firearms dealer on-site is not James Mitchell, and the FFL Dealer on-site has not ever merchandised or sold this firearm and does not intend to carry this firearm…

Good to see at least one FFL has taken the side of the People over the Government.

Let’s see 100% of FFLs refusing to deal with the scum that are selling this monstrosity.


Registration is Not Confiscation , Part 2

by militialaw on February 27, 2014

Kurt Hofmann at the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner points out that the threatening letters that the government sent out include three “options” for the rifle owner. The owner can send it out of state, sell to someone else, or render it inoperable. The fourth option was surrender it to a Connecticut cop.
Many of you don’t see each of these options result in de facto confiscation. I suppose we should define our terms.
Confiscation is where an item is involuntarily removed from your control. Traditionally, confiscation involves the government physically taking “contraband” under the color of law. That is what gun owners generally think of when someone uses the term “confiscation.”
I’ve been arguing that failing to register is the same as confiscation. Let’s look at each option the government has given non-compliant residents:
(1) Send it out of state.
So you send your rifle to your great uncle in Maine. How does that help you when they come through the door? How do you use your rifle to defend your home on the seventh day after the EBT cards are turned off? How do you use your rifle in Maine, when the jack booted thugs start going door-to-door in Hartford? If you ship your rifle out of state it has been “confiscated” by Connecticut as a matter of fact.
(2) Sell to someone out of state/to dealer.
Well, that should be obvious. Your rifle is clearly out of your control and has been “confiscated” by Connecticut as a matter of fact.
(3) Render it inoperable.
Under this option you weld the bolt closed and weld a metal rod in the barrel. You now have a useless hunk of metal and plastic under this option. You can’t do anything with this “rifle” and as a result the Government of Connecticut has “confiscated” your rifle as a matter of fact.
You must admit each option results in a disarmed man.
You must admit each option has the same effect as literal confiscation by the government.
How are any of these options any different than burying your rifle in the front yard and not registering? If you do that, if you choose to not register, you lose access to the rifle just as if the ninjas took your gun from you. There is no two ways about it.
Registration is immoral, but during the time before they come to *try* to confiscate it, by registering you can still have access to the rifle WHEN they come for you.
Admit the law isn’t going to be reversed.
Admit a white knight is not coming to save your rights.
Admit they are going to confiscate the guns.
But you can still practice every weekend if you register.
Do you think they don’t know you have the rifle?
Between the 4473 you filled out for the rifle (or any gun for that matter; known gun owners will be at the top of the door-to-door list), to the ammo and mags you’ve had shipped to your door, they KNOW you have a rifle they just need to find it. And even if none of that applies to you for some reason, you can bet your last dollar they will do door-to-doors and will tear your property apart looking for the rifles.
You MUST practice each weekend as they are coming and you can’t practice if your rifle is smothered in Cosmoline, 6 feet under your garden. Maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but at some point Connecticut is going to come for the rifle and you better be able to use it.
If you think you can bury your rifle and still be effective with it after not using it for years, you are naïve and you are going to be among the first to be executed by the regime.
Finally, can I remind you that you have already submitted to background checks, 4473s, semi-auto only rules, and any number of other immoral restrictions on your right to own and bear arms…can you answer why would you finally “resist” on this point?
I’d sincerely like to hear of any reason why someone would choose caching over registration.

Obama Ignores Your Petititions and Protests (Of Course)

by militialaw on February 26, 2014

Yet again, Obama shows just how pointless it is to work within the system.

Remember the hue and cry over NSA telephone spying which Obama promised would be curtailed?

Remember the celebrations on how all the mainstream talking heads and “conservatives” glad handed one another on how responsive he was to objections and how petitions, editorials, and generally being cooperative can work to change the system?

Yeah, well here’s how tyranny responds to that effort:

 The Obama administration has asked a special court for approval to hold onto National Security Agency phone records for a longer period–an unintended consequence of lawsuits seeking to stop the phone-surveillance program.
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the Justice Department was considering such a move, which would end up expanding the controversial phone records database by not deleting older call records.
Under the current system, the database is purged of phone records more than five years old. The Justice Department, in a filing made public Wednesday, said it needs to hold onto the older records as evidence in lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and others.
Under the proposal made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the older data would continue to be held, but NSA analysts would not be allowed to search it.

As far as I can tell only one effort is underfoot in Congress to end this garbage: the USA FREEDOM Act. The bill, HR 3361, has been referred to committee so it’s a ways off from being voted on. Does it ban collection? No. Does it end the NSA? No. So what does it do?

Let’s look at a bit of the official summary of the bill:

Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to set forth additional requirements for obtaining orders for business records in counterterrorism investigations, including requiring that the records sought pertain to a foreign power, an agent of a foreign power, or an individual in contact with, or known to a suspected agent of, a foreign power.

Ok, so still no ban on US citizens. As long as the US citizen is a “suspected agent of a foreign power” they are a target. Good thing for tyranny that phrase, “suspected agent of a foreign power,” isn’t narrowly drawn or defined…

Amends the USA PATRIOT Improvements and Reauthorization Act of 2005 to require the Inspector General (IG) of the Department of Justice (DOJ), for 2010 through 2013, to report on an examination of the minimization procedures (procedures designed to minimize the acquisition and retention of information and to prohibit its unauthorized dissemination) used in relation to business records orders.

Oh good, the DOJ, that cabel of Obama lawyers currently preventing the investigation of Fast and Furious will report on the efficacy of the NSA program. That should be quite helpful to patriots.

Imposes additional requirements on the authorized use of pen registers and trap and trace devices (devices for recording incoming and outgoing telephone numbers), including that: (1) the information sought must pertain to a foreign power, agent thereof, or individual in contact with or known to such an agent; and (2) the application must contain a statement of proposed minimization procedures. Requires audits of the effectiveness and use of such devices.

Again, as long as the target is an “agent” of a foreign power, the government is still good to go.

Prohibits the searching of collections of communications of U.S. persons, except: (1) under an order or authorization for electronic surveillance or physical search, (2) with the consent of such person, or (3) under a reasonable belief that the life or safety of the person in threatened and the information is sought to assist that person.

“Except.” Of course there is no blanket prohibition. That would be much too helpful to patriots.

Limits the collection of wholly domestic communications of a U.S. person to those communications: (1) to which any party is a target of the acquisition; or (2) that contain an identifier of a target of an acquisition, only if the communications are acquired to protect against international terrorism or the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

What a neat little circular logic. NSA is not suppose to do any domestic spying, but this bill would apparently allow spying a US citizen who communicates with another US citizen who is a “suspected agent of a foreign power.” It is interesting, however, that the other exception is limited to “international terrorism.” Patriots and militias have not been identified as a part of international terror…yet. Lots of chatter about “false flags” linking militias to al Qaeda, but I’ll need more tin foil on my hat before I go there.

Prohibits receiving into evidence any information obtained in an acquisition against any U.S. person for which a deficiency in the procedures for acquiring such information is identified by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court). Authorizes the FISA Court, if the government corrects any deficiencies so identified, to permit the use or disclosure of information acquired before the correction under such minimization procedures as the FISA Court shall establish.

Nice to see they incorporated a “fruit of the poisonous tree” exception. If they illegally gain the information, the door is open to “correct” the explanation on how the info was gathered.

Establishes within the judicial branch an Office of the Special Advocate to participate in proceedings before the FISA Court and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, request reconsiderations of FISA Court decisions, and participate in appeals and reviews. Requires the Special Advocate to vigorously advocate in support of legal interpretations that protect individual privacy and civil liberties. Requires the Attorney General to publicly disclose specified information in connection with FISA Court or FISA Court of Review decisions appealed by the Special Advocate. Requires the release of as much information regarding the facts and analysis in such decisions as is consistent with legitimate national security concerns.

This is the portion of the bill that is being trumpeted over and over, in that a group will be designated as constitutional protectors to litigate the efforts of the NSA’s requests. Nevermind the group is employed by the same government that is trying to get the information. Nevermind the group doesn’t actually represent the target. Paper catle, much?

Authorizes the FBI Director to request from a communication service provider the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance billing records of a person as part of a national security investigation only if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the information sought pertains to a foreign power, an agent of a foreign power, or an individual in contact with, or known to a suspected agent of, a foreign power. Provides similar requirements with respect to an FBI request for information from financial institutions and consumer reporting agencies. Revises provisions prohibiting the disclosure of the receipt of a national security letter by such providers, institutions, and agencies to except disclosure to: (1) those persons to whom disclosure is necessary to comply with the request, (2) an attorney in order to obtain legal advice or assistance regarding the request, or (3) other persons as permitted by the FBI. Includes under such prohibition (with the same exceptions) national security letters issued in connection with the investigation of persons with access to classified information. Allows affected communications providers, financial institutions, and consumer reporting agencies to seek judicial review of requests for information. Requires the DOJ IG to report results of audits of national security letters issued during 2010 through 2013.

Here’s more of the same broad, vague “suspected agent” language but this time applied to phone records and financial records.

It would be honest and helpful if it was a simple bill:

No government agency is permitted to spy on US citizens without a warrant issued “upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

But that’s not going to happen this side of a revolution.

Thanks to Zero Hedge for the WSJ excerpt.

Violent Rebellion , Not Voting, was Key to Rebel Victory in Ukraine

by militialaw on February 26, 2014 has posted the NATO response to Russian maneuvers/drills being conducted in and around Ukraine. The response has this whopper of a lie:

We welcome the fact that violence has been stopped through negotiations that paved the way for a peaceful outcome.

Ha! The only negotiating which occurred happened after rebels took to the streets, after they erected barricades, and after they killed government agents and otherwise used violence. In short: thanks to the violence of the rebels, the status quo caved.

Just like the USA, the new government(?) in Ukraine was born of violence and is not the result of sitting down at a conference table and holding reasoned conversation.

They may be a bunch of NWO-loving socialists but the Ukraine rebels understood what Americans have forgotten: if you want to fundamentally change a government, you are going to have to shed blood.

President Jefferson was no fool when he observed:

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.

If You Are Reading This, You Are a Violent Racist

by militialaw on February 26, 2014

The hate mongers at the SPLC are busy conflating “patriots” and “militias” with “hate organizations” this week releasing a report that the number of the groups they spy on has dropped, but, fortunately for the SPLC’s bank account, the remaining groups are “leaner and meaner.”

SPLC continues to successfully demonize militias by making them indistinguishable from groups that hold racial supremacy beliefs. I say successfully because men all over this country are scared to publicly declare themselves militia supporters, me included. There is anecdotal evidence we’ve all heard that “militia” is a word that can get you reported to any number of government entities, including the effa bee eye. Giggles and even guffaws result from the discussion of a militia in so called “polite company.”

It’s ridiculous, evidence of poor education, and of course unfair, but quite necessary in this environment. Liberty is all but illegal in this country. You do not have the right to decide where to live, how much to make, or what to own without getting government approval. Care to add a room onto your home? Hope your government inspector agrees with you. Want to sell raw milk to your community? Not in most jurisdictions, plus the feds have minimum prices for milk you hippie. Prefer to drive a car without an emissions system on it? Ha.

No wonder men don’t want to publicly participate in militias.

But the fact is if we don’t want martial law, we need to start agitating for militia law.

It’s time to mainstream militias.

Don’t Answer the Door

by militialaw on February 26, 2014

Your favorite Constitutional Court has just discovered yet another exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

Following a never-ending line of cases that have ripped apart and mutilated the right to require warrant to enter your home, SCOTUS hs just realized this exception is found in the Constitution: police can ignore your objection to a search of your home if they physically remove you and then ask someone else for permission to search. It doesn’t have to be an emergency. It doesn’t even have to be “urgent.”

The case that produced this exception to the warrant is called Fernandez v. California and a summary of the facts are as follows:

Police officers observed a suspect in a violent robbery run into an apartment building, and heard screams coming from one of the apartments. They knocked on the apartment door, which was answered by Roxanne Rojas, who appeared to be battered and bleeding. When the officers asked her to step out of the apartment so that they could conduct a protective sweep, petitioner came to the door and objected. Suspecting that he had assaulted Rojas, the officers removed petitioner from the apartment and placed him under arrest. He was then identified as the perpetrator in the earlier robbery and taken to the police station. An officer later returned to the apartment and, after obtaining Rojas’ oral and written consent, searched the premises, where he found several items linking petitioner to the robbery.

See what the cops did there? They wanted him out of the house so they decided that the woman must have been attacked by the suspect and so they arrested him. Note: the woman didn’t claim she was attacked and we later learn in the opinion she provided a reasonable explanation for the “injuries” the cops supposedly saw.

So this case works out well for cops.

If they want to search a home, but some jag off is standing on his 4th Amendment rights, they just cook up an excuse to cross the threshold to arrest him, take him to jail, then sweet talk another resident into consenting to a search.

Fortunately there is a defense to this new Fernandez exception:

never answer the door for cops.

Had she not answered the door this would not have played out as it did.

Had he not come to the door, this would not have ended up as it did.

SCOTUS is on a mission to toss the 4th as a relic of the past so you better be ready steady and accurate.