Obama on Guns

Although Obama has guaranteed us that he won't take our guns, it might not be that easy.

Obama said: "I believe in the 2nd Amendment, and if you are a law-abiding gun owner you have nothing to fear from an Obama administration."

Riiiigggghhhhtttt.....

Turns out that even though he may want to, he understands that he doesn't have the support of the rest of his congressional pals.

“Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’’

Of course when he announced that in public it went over like the proverbial lead balloon.

Now it turns out that the 'sportsmen' he talks about, and the 'sporting purpose' that's bandied about by the media and loose in so many in statutes may be open to HIS interpretation.

I support the re-imposition of the ban on the sale of assault weapons that expired in September 2004 because I believe these guns are used primarily for criminal rather than sporting intent.

Ok, I may have a problem with that interpretation. Considering that DOJ stats show that 'assault weapons' are used in less that 2% of all gun crimes, and less than 0.25% of all violent crime. In some major metros (San Antonio, Nashville, etc) and even some states (New Jersey, Maryland, etc) the rate is less than 0.1%.² In fact you're 11 times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by a so called 'assault weapon'. ¹

By the way, all of those statistics are from before the original AWB was in place.

So I'm sorry that those facts get in the way of what you 'believe'. Of course that's never stopped you in the past.....

Thanks to http://olegvolk.net/ for photo.

¹-FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994
²Gary Kleck, “Targeting Guns”, 1997, compilation of 48 metropolitan police departments from 1980-1994

Hey! I'm a member of the Club!

Seems like I'm a new member to a semi-exclusive club. But I'm in GREAT company. My club mates include Ryan Horsley at Red's Trading Post, David Codrea from The War On Guns and even the fellows over at Idaho Ordnance.

How do you join the club? Just expose the corruption, stupidity, and moral ineptitude of the boys and girls over in F-Troop, otherwise known as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Speak out about their botched investigations and raids, talk about their perjured testimony before juries and judges, blog about their attacks on honest law biding American gun owners.

You will be welcomed as the newest members of our club.

You'll know that you have arrived when you go to your blog and you find the folks at the DOJ have developed a certain interest in you exercising your free speech. You'll find like Ryan, David and I that they're not secretive about this interest, in fact they do right out there in the open:








You'd think that a great big Governmental organization would be able to spoof its IP address when it's out there looking for subversive elements threatening the authority of the system. But instead these thugs don't even try to hide who they are, spending your tax dollars and mine, surfing the Internet, looking to intimidate us little people who would dare to question the way they're running our country (and ruining our lives).

This is bunk, this is total BS, this is big brother, bully boy tactics at their worse.

Bring it.........And Welcome To The Club.

Artwork for Firearms Friday shirts almost complete....

Here is the initial mockup of the Firearms Friday shirt. I have 2 different choices on the back design, so let me know in the comments if you want the back with or without the MD Show Logo. Color choice is probably going to be limited to black, or maybe a dark grey.

Front Pocket Logo: (click on pictures for larger versions)


Back Logo with MD Show logo:



and finally without the MD Show Logo:





Remember I will be getting these in real people sizes (2XL and 3XL) I will also be getting a couple in 4XL. So sound off in the comments section and let me know which one you like and what size you'll need. Expect it to be about 3 weeks until we have these ready for sale.

Any questions email: michaeldukesshow AT gmail.com

The ATF is NOT your friend...

With everything that we've been hearing the news the last couple of years you would think that the BATF has only been making collective asses out of themselves in the recent past. But if you look closer you will see an agency that since its very inception has had one goat-rope after another perpetrated by its agents.

From their very first 'no knock' warrant, served on a man and wife by 'plain clothes' agents from part of the treasury departments narco unit, (you can imagine how much these guys looked like scumbags) where the man, thinking that his home is being invaded by drug addicts, grabs his legally owned pistol to defend himself and his wife, and and is shot in the head by the agents. This of course leaves him as a vegetable for the rest of his life. Oh and oops....wrong house.

Flash forward 30 years. You would think that in this time they've gotten their act together. They'll serve warrants the 'right' way and they will do their best to protect citizens civil rights while they do so. Right?

Wrong.

THE LIVES OF Harry and Theresa Lamplugh were turned upside down on the morning of May 25, 1994. Early that day, 15-to-20 armed men and women burst into their rural Pennsylvania home. Under the threat of violence, the Lamplughs cooperated completely with the intruders as they opened safes, locks and cabinets. In spite of their compliance, however, Harry and Theresa were treated with contempt. Throughout the ordeal, a fully automatic machine gun was intermittently thrust in both their faces.

According to Lamplugh, there were a total of six cars full of agents. They were not dressed in any uniform, and only two had the identifying ATF vests on. All firearms were drawn. An M-P5 machine gun was stuck in Harry's face. They did not announce who they were or why they were there, and no search warrants were displayed. "When I asked if they had a search warrant, their first reply was 'shut the f___ up mother f___er; do you want more trouble than you already have?', with the machine gun stuck in my face." Harry said. "They then proceeded to tear my house apart."

The Lamplughs watched in horror as the thugs literally trashed their home. Furniture was overturned or smashed and papers were scattered everywhere. Three pet cats were ruthlessly killed--one literally stomped to death. The gang ransacked their home for more than six hours. When they finally left, Harry and Theresa stood confused and angry in the midst of their demolished home.

The brutal and inhumane events that you have just read about are not fiction. They were taken from the testimony of Harry and Theresa Lamplugh. Only the intruders were not some violent street gang members or foreign terrorists; they were agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Why would two federal agencies send a small battalion of agents to terrorize this couple in the supposed safety of their home? What terrible crime did Harry and Theresa Lamplugh commit that prompted this brutal six-and-a half hour ordeal? Shockingly, there are no good answers to these questions.

Harry Lamplugh, however, is in the politically incorrect business of promoting gun shows. His organization, Borderline Gun Collectors Association, happens to be the largest gun show promoter in the Northeast. As anyone who has ever attended a gun show knows, there are more than firearms and accessories on display. A gun show is also a place where people of common interests meet to express their political views and share opinions. Not surprisingly, criticism of the BATF runs deep at such a forum. And it is no secret that the BATF spends considerable time and effort infiltrating these shows.

Since gun show infiltration is a massive undertaking that yields relatively small returns, the BATF has now honed in on a primary source, Harry Lamplugh. On May 23, 1994, the agencies obtained a search warrant authorizing both the BATF and the IRS to "search" the Lamplugh home. Included in the list of items to be seized were any firearms, ammunition, holsters, cleaning kits, gun cases and firearms accessories. The Lamplughs' attorney points out that the warrant failed to name even one specific item. "Such warrants are vague, overbroad and therefore unconstitutional," he said.

The agents also seized complete financial and business records of the Borderline Gun Collectors Association from 1988 to the present. This included all computer records and any other documents related to the sale and purchase of firearms. Obviously, the BATF was on some sort of "fishing expedition." But the most amazing aspect of the warrant is what was NOT on it. There was no reference to any crime by any person. The BATF appears to hold not only the Second Amendment in disdain, but the Fourth as well. --

So next time your watching the news and you see the 'ATF' logo on someones back, or you hear some story about how some 'dirty' gun dealer is under ATF scrutiny and will probably lose his license and/or go to prison. Ask yourself this question: Are these the guys that we really want to be protecting OUR gun rights?

I think not...

MD

Coming Soon to a Gun Store Near You!!

Ronald Wilson Reagan once said the nine most terrifying words in the English language were "We're from the Government, and we're here to help."

Red's Trading Post in Idaho is continuing to find this out the hard way.

For those of you not paying attention, Red's is the oldest firearms dealer in the state of Idaho. They have sold tens of thousands of guns over the last 80 plus years in business. And due to more 'Help' from the Federal Government, they're about to lose their livelihood.

After undergoing audits by the BATFE starting back in 2000, Red's was alternately given a 'fix-it' list of minor paperwork errors to fix and then a clean bill of health. Then an additional audit in 2007, discovered some clerical errors on the 4473 forms that Red's is required by law to keep on file. Out of 10,000 forms, the ATF found clerical errors in .4% of all forms filed.

Yes, i said .4%

We only wish that our Government had a success record like that in their paperwork practices. But with these errors in hand, the ATF had decided that Red's FFL should be revoked because they posed a 'danger to society'.

Now this story goes on and on. You can find the entire story on Red's website so I am not going to rehash the whole thing. But I will tell the part that I find most chilling.

At some point in the proceedings with the ATF Red's owner/manager Ryan Horsley decided that he had had enough. He had tried to jump through every hoop the ATF had installed. Tried to be nice and keep quiet in order to keep them from getting angry with him. But it suddenly it seemed that the end was in sight, and Ryan decided not to go down without a fight.

So he fought back.

He tried to hook up with the NRA, who continue to be fairly unhelpful when dealing with the ATF, in my opinion. The he got ahold of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. And he got to see the real face behind the BATFE.

You see, JPFO was producing a movie called 'The Gang'. A scathing expose on the practices and deeds of the BATFE since its inception. Ryan was able to be get in contact with JPFO and tell his story. This got some national attention on Red's situation. It also got attention from the ATF. After a nationally broadcast interview in May about his problems, the ATF sent 3 agents to Red's to 'find anything that they could'. These were the words of the supervisory agent from Spokane Linda Young.

Then last week, once the movie was released, Ryan decided to spread the word in his community by holding a free screening at the local movie theater. They had a packed house and a stunned audience when the final credits had rolled. It also generated more press coverage. And then this morning I talk to Ryan and find out that Agent Young showed up this morning with 2 other agents, going through all of his records again. Trying to find SOMETHING! Another fishing expedition, by bureaucrats who want nothing more than to keep their jobs and take away everyone's gun rights on top of it.

So keep Ryan and all the folks at Red's Trading Post in your prayers. And maybe even buy a gun or accessories from them as well.

Just make sure you tell them: "We're Freedom Loving Americans and we're here to help"

Gotta Get One!!

Well I gotta tell ya. I need a new Battle Rifle. Project FAL is currently dead in the water. I'm not complaining mind you. I got a really good deal on that rifle, and even if I have to tear it back down and part it out I would be money ahead.

But its bugging me.

I need a working .308 rifle. They're fun to shoot, and I've got all this ammo just sitting around. I have to do something with it!

But seriously, nothing turns cover into concealment like a .308. Everytime I start talking to one of the boys just back from the Sand, they tell me about things like the feral dogs that roam the streets of Tikrit and Bahgdad. Then they tell me stories about trying to shoot these dogs with their 5.56 chambered rifles, and watching the dogs just keep on coming. Then one of the guys with an AK47 or M14 pops the dog they go down. Now.

So anyway, since FAL is on the backburner I started looking around for something to fill the void.

My buddy Matthew Bracken (Author: Enemies, Foreign and Domestic) got back from the 2007 Shot Show awhile ago and he starts telling me about this new gun the guys from Kel-Tec had at the show.



Its called the RFB (Rifle Forward ejection Bullpup), and its totally bad to the bone. Here's what the brochure had to say about it:

The RFB is a Forward ejecting Bullpup rifle chamber for the 7.62 NATO Cartridge ( .308 Winchester). Three different barrel lengths will be available rangeing from 18" to 32". the first RFB's are expected to ship during the first quarter of 2008.

There's alot of great things about a bullpup rifle. First of all overall length is cut way down because the entire breech mechanism is back by your shoulder. Usually this also helps with the balance of the weapon as well. The other cool thing about this rifle is that instead of ejecting the spent shell casings to the left or the right, the shells travel down an ejection tube that runs parallel with barrel and spits them out in front of you. And it does all this using a standard FAL 20 round mag.

Might be hard for you to picture, so go ahead and check out the video from Kel-Tec.



Go ahead and drool. You know you want to.

The 2nd Amendment

The history and precedent leading to the 2nd Amendment began several hundred years before its creation and has its origin in England. The concept of citizens or "subjects" bearing arms dates back to at least the 12th century when King Henry II obligated all freemen to possess certain arms for defense. In the following century, King Henry III required every subject between the ages of fifteen and fifty to own a weapon other than a knife. This was of such importance that Crown officials gave periodic inspections to guarantee a properly armed townspeople. This was because England did not have a police force until 1829, and in the absence of a regular army it was the responsibility and duty of the subjects to keep watch and ward at night to confront and capture "suspicious persons". This remained relatively unchanged until 1671, when Parliament created a statute that drastically raised the property qualifications needed to possess firearms. In essence, this statute disarmed all but the very wealthy. In 1686, King James II banned without exception the Protestants' ability to possess firearms, even while Protestants constituted over 95% of the English subjects. Not until 1689, with the rise of William of Orange, did the Protestants possess firearms once again with the newly enacted law that reads, "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law". The tradition of securing a military force through a duty of universal military obligation for all able-bodied males follows from the Elizabethan era militia in England.^[1][2]

The English Declaration of Rights (1689) affirmed freedom for Protestants to "have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."[11] When Colonists protested British efforts to disarm their militias in the early phases of the Revolution, colonists cited the Declaration of Rights, Blackstone's summary of the Declaration of Rights, their own militia laws, and Common Law rights to self-defense. While British policy in the early phases of the Revolution clearly aimed to prevent coordinated action by the militia, there is no evidence that the British sought to restrict the traditional common law right of self-defense. Indeed, in his arguments on behalf of British troops in the Boston Massacre, John Adams invoked the common law of self-defense.^[3]

Some have seen the Second Amendment as derivative of a common law right to keep and bear arms; Thomas B. McAffee & Michael J. Quinlan, writing in the North Carolina Law Review, March 1997, Page 781, have stated "... Madison did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment—the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions."^[4]

Others perceive a distinction between the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense; Robert Spitzer has stated: "..the matter of personal or individual self-defense, whether from wild animals or modern-day predators, does not fall within, nor is it dependent on, the Second Amendment rubric. Nothing in the history, construction, or interpretation of the Amendment applies or infers such a protection. Rather, legal protection for personal self-defense arises from the British common law tradition and modern criminal law; not from constitutional law."^[5] Heyman has similarly argued that the common law right of self defense was legally distinct from the right to bear arms.^[6]

The potential connection between the right of self defense and the new constitutional protection of a right to keep and bear arms contained in the Second Amendment depends on the distinction whether 'keep and bear arms' is synonymous more broadly with the right of individual self defense or does 'keep and bear arms' pertain more narrowly towards use of arms in a military context, or, in the case of the Common Law while still under the British, in service of the king and country. This distinction was not subject to serious judicial notice until the first gun control laws were passed in the Jacksonian era. Judges in the nineteenth century split over how to interpret this connection; some saw the Common Law right and the protection of a right to keep and bear arms contained in the Second Amendment as identical; others viewed these as being legally distinct. Texts from the era of the Second Amendment are largely silent on this important question.