Owner Who Banned Muslims From Gun Range Now Running for Governor

by Martin Walsh

 

A conservative woman who banned Muslims from her gun range has announced plans to throw her hat int the political ring. 

Jan Morgan, owner of the Gun Cave Indoor Firing Range in Hot Springs, announced on Dec. 31 that she will be running for governor of Arkansas.  Morgan will be challenging incumbent Asa Hutchinson in the Republican primary in 2018. 

Hutchinson was elected in 2014.

Morgan has been very critical of Hutchinson, saying the governor “campaigns like a conservative Republican but governs like a liberal Democrat,” according to the Texarkana Gazette.  Prior to announcing a run for governor, Morgan made headlines in 2014 when she had a direct message for radical Islamic extremists, and banned Muslims from her firing range, as Fox News reported at the time. “ I refuse to train the next Islamic terrorist,” Morgan wrote on her site JanMorganMedia, explaining her decision.

Citing safety concerns, Morgan said that the religion of Islam represents and promotes a “theocracy, terrorist organization, not a religion.”  Naturally, the story drew major attention, including a lengthy (and reasonably fair) interview in The Washington Post.

According to The Arkansas Times, Morgan has been a stalwart for the Second Amendment and will likely make that a top issue for her campaign. Morgan said she plans to hold an event toward the end of the month to speak with voters and discuss the issues they care deeply about.  If elected, Morgan would become the first female governor of Arkansas.  While Morgan would be an ardent advocate for several conservative issues, her candidacy would make her a lightning rod in national politics.

It’s unclear how Morgan will fare against Hutchinson, but one could certainly assume it’s going to be an interesting, and possibly raucous Republican primary.

Get ready for fireworks, Arkansas.



Two Supreme Ct. Decisions the Anti-Gunners Don't Want You to See

by Carl F. Worden

There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.

The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45). Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.

The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you.

Both of these cases are standing law to this day.

The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.

I didn't make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.


DICK ACT of 1902... CAN'T BE REPEALED

 
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
 
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
 
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."


The Honorable William Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917



 






Do you have a gun in your House?

by Conservative Action

 

When I had my gallbladder taken out and spent 10 days in the hospital for what should have been an overnight stay the insurance company kicked me out.  I had home nurse visits for two weeks and was asked if I had guns in the house.  I responded that if I did I would not tell them.  So the comments I received have some merit. There are comments from two other people who have also been asked if we keep guns in the house. The nurse just kinda slipped it in along with all the other regular questions.  I told her I refused to answer because it was against the law to ask. Everyone, whether you have guns or not, should give a neutral answer so they have no idea who does and who doesn't.  My doctor asked me if I had guns in my house and also if any were loaded. I, of course, answered yes to both questions. Then he asked why I kept a loaded gun close to my bed.  I answered that my son, who is a certified gun instructor and also works for Homeland Security, advised me that an unloaded, locked up gun is no protection against criminal attack. The Government now requires these questions be asked of people on Medicare, and probably everyone else. 

I had to visit a doctor other than my regular doctor when my doctor was on vacation..  One of the questions on the form I had to fill out was: Do you have any guns in your house?? My answer was None of your damn business!!  So it is out there! It is either an insurance issue or government intervention.  Either way, it is out there and the second the government gets into your medical records (as they want to under Obamacare) it will become a major issue and will ultimately result in lock and load!! Please pass this on to all the other retired guys and gun owners... 

Thanks, from a Vietnam Vet and retired Police Officer: I had a doctors appointment at the local VA clinic yesterday and found out something very interesting that I would like to pass along. While going through triage before seeing the doctor, I was asked at the end of the exam, three questions:1. Did I feel stressed? 2. Did I feel threatened? 3. Did I feel like doing harm to someone? The nurse then informed me, that if I had answered yes to any of the questions, I would have lost my concealed carry permit as it would have gone into my medical records and the VA would have reported it to Homeland Security. Looks like they are going after the vets first. Other gun people like retired law enforcement will probably be next. Then when they go after the civilians, what argument will they have? 

Be forewarned and be aware. The Obama administration has gone on record as considering veterans and gun owners potential terrorists. Whether you are a gun owner, veteran or not, YOU’VE BEEN WARNED! If you know veterans and gun owners, please pass this on to them. Be very cautious about what you say and to whom.



Editors Note:  Remember that Obamacare requires everyone's medical records to go into an electronic database managed by the government. Refusal to authorize your records to be transferred to this database will assuredly result in refusal of treatment. Your medical information then becomes a national gun registry which will be used as a 'confiscation' list probably under the UN small arms treaty that has been approved without Senate ratification.