Internet Articles (2017)
he first time this country's lawful government tried to disarm the American people, they did so under an extremely lopsided force of arms. The date was April 19, 1775. Where? Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts. Why those two cities? Because John Hancock, one of the wealthiest merchants in the colonies, had warehouses filled with muskets, gun power and musketballs in Concord; and Samuel Adams, who did more than any patriot to inflame the colonies ro rebel against England, lived in Lexington.
On April 18, 1775, a year before the Declaration of Independence and eight years before the ratification of the Articles of Confederation would forge a nation from 13 independent colonies that would create a weak central government to do its bidding as it revolted against the British throne, Maj. Gen. Thomas Gage dispatched Lt. Col. Francis Smith and 700 seasoned British troops to Concord and Lexington, Massachusetts to put down a colonial rebellion the was brewing in Massachusetts. Smith's orders were to go to Concord, 16 miles northwest of Boston, arrest John Hancock and seize a warehouse full of muskets and munitions that Hancock was stockpiling there. Then they were to proceed six miles farther to Lexington and arrest Samuel Adams whose writings under nearly a hundred pseudonyms inflamed the colonies to rebel against King George III.
Gage's orders were to seize and destroy every weapon and musketball they found anywhere between Boston and Lexington. Hancock and Adams were to be returned to Boston in shackles where they would be hung for treason. Gage was convinced the puiblic hangings of Adams and Hancock would cool the revolutionary fervor of the colonists. Also, logic suggested that an unarmed civilian population would not, for long, resist the most powerful army on Earth. Gage was convinced he would defuse the rebellion before it ever started.
As Smith's troops moved through the countryside confiscating arms and munitions, word of their advance spread like wildfire by a group called the Minutemen. When Smith's troops arrived at Concord on the morning of April 19, 1775 the poorly armed colonial militia was waiting for them. As Smith's troops reached the brdge that spanned the Concord River, the farmers and townspeople opened fire, killing two redocoats and wounded several more in the first volley. Yet, even with surprise on their side, the farmers were no match for the seasoned soldiers. Eight townspeople died in the brief skirmish. But the Minutemen bought Hancock the time he needed to empty his warehouse and hide the arms the colonists would need to defend their homes and property from the redcoats who launched what American history would claim was an unprovoked attack on the civilian population.
Smith sent a runner back to Boston for reinforcements and, using what troops he had, he tried to cordon off Concord and do a house-to-house search for Hancock in Concord and Adams in Lexington, containing the insurrection to one colony and ending the American rebellion before it began by hanging Adams and Hancock in the public square in Boston.
Smith, however, discovered his problems were just beginning because, within another hour the countryside was crawling with armed colonials who launched a very successful counter-offensive against the Brits who were now now no match for the farmers who fought in an unorthodox manner from behind trees and hedgerows, slaughtering the British troops who fought in the traditional European formation, volley-firing by row after row. But, with only shadowy figures to fire at, it was the stalwart soldiers of most formidable army in the world falling dead in the wooded area between Concord and Lexington that day.
The colonists did not stand and fight. They fired and disappeared, only to fire again from a a few feet away. The redcoats were dropping like flies, having no foe they could see to shoot. Unnerved, Smith's troops broke ranks and ran with their elusive enemies chasing them. When Smith's reinforcements arrived, and without ever seeing the enemy who was slaughtering their comrades, they too turned tail and joined the retreat.
Had the farmers, mechanics and merchants in Concord and Lexington fought their anti-gun foes with words and not action, the Revolutionary War would have been a single blood stain in England's history that resulted in the hanging of two men and the confiscation of every weapon in the colonies. Most likely, a nation called the United States would not exist today. And North America would be a patchwork quilt of small nation states bullied by its largest protagonists—just as history evolved in Europe.
The skirmishes in Concord and Lexington would have been only a minor footnote in Great Britain's history with a puzzling question which no one would bother asking: why two men, hung for treason, would have imagined they could actually incite a national rebellion against the greatest power in Eruope—and prevail?.
When the revisionists who tidy up history sweep the truth under the proverbial rug by altering the motives of both the villains and the victims, no one thinks to ask why because the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle of history are recut to snugly fit the now-edited landscape of yesterday.
The Founding Fathers very deliberately created a system of governance in which the central government would be obligated, by its subservient position, to fear the States—and, most of all, the People. The original draft of the Constitution came from the writings of John Locke based on his studies of Emer de Vattel, patched together by James Madison (conservative), Alexander Hamilton (federalist), John Jay (federalist) and the wordsmith, Thomas Jefferson (conservative), who actually penned the Constitution. Jefferson with his friend, Madison, then labored over its revisions in collaboration with a Committee of Five: Oliver Ellwworth [CT] (federalist), Nathaniel Gorham [MA] (federalist), Edmund Randolph [VA] (conservative), John Rutledge [SC] (conservative) and James Wilson [PA] (federalist) who settled the disputes by finding the middle ground between the federalists and the conservatives. Jefferson and Madison stubbornly held out for the a weak central government that would be subservient to the States. Jefferson finally won the debate when he said, "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty."
His words sunk home quickly since the People of the United States had just fought 12 years to shake off the shackles of tyranny. Trading a British tyrant a thousand miles away for 140 American tyrants a few hundred miles away did not appear to be a good bargain. (The 3rd Congress, based on the first census, had 30 Senators and 109 Congressmen.) The votes needed to ratifiy the Constitution were not there until the Bill of Rights was added to make sure that the new subservient central government could not assume powers not granted it by the States and the People in the Constitution.Today we know just how well that turned out.
Although the Federalists (largely the northeastern States) who evolved into today's social progressives) lost the constitutionalist battle in 1787. Alexander Hamilton won one major concession in the battle to shape the perceprtion of how the Constitution would be interpreted through the addition of the meaningless preamble which preceded Article I. Of course, it wasn't meaningless to Hamilton because he knew that somewhere down the road to history a future generation of federalists would convince the courts that Hamilton's preamble was not merely an explanation of what the States enacted between Articles I and VII, but was instead supra rights granted to the federal government that were so important they preceded all other rights. (Other than defense spendinng and paying interest to the familieis of the money barons who own 100% of the stock of the Federal Reserve System. almost 100% of all of the debt incurred by the United States government is spent on social welfare programs under the "auAlexander Hamiltonthority" of the "welfare clause" which does not exist.)
It would have been far better for the United States today if the dual fought between Hamilton and Aaron Burr took place in 1786 instead of July 11, 1804 in Weehawken, New Jersey where Burr killed Hamilton for defaming him during the New York gubernatorial race. The charges against Burr were eventually dropped, but it ruined his political career. Hamilton's death happened 7 years too late to protect the American people from the same type of social progressives who control the White House and the US Senate today.
Now that we've restored the original pre-1804 jigsaw puzzle pieces to the original historic context, it is in the best interests of young Americans who were born after 1979 when the education revisionists found a permanent home in Washington, DC to take the time to understand the Constitution and, especially, that the preamble confers no rigthts on anyone.
It was in 1979 that the social progressive-controlled Congress created the Department of Education and federalized education. The Department of Education, like the other DOE (the Department of Energy) promulgated by Jimmy Carter in 1977, was created primarily to brainwash the next three or four generations of Americans into blindly accepting a parallel reality—a pseudoreality the politicians, the princes of industry and the money mafia needed to transform America from a free and independent, militarily superior America into an economically weakened nation-state in a new global world order governed and judged by the human capital-rich Islamic and socialist members of the United Nations.
The transfer of wealth began with the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] in 1993, the treaty which is not a Treaty, allowed the transfer of America's jobs to the union-free, human capital rich nations in Southeast Asia, Africa and any nation without laws that favored labor unions—and the reimportation of those American branded goods back to the United States for sale to US consumers without tariffs..
The One-Worlders have almost achieved their objective of changing America's past to make it dovetail better with their plans for America's Godless future—as a subservient debt-laden former great economy, stripped of its political power, its financial wealth and the prestige which made it the greatest nation on Earth. To achieve their goal all that is left is to break the patriotic spirit of its people by outlawing their right to resist the tyrants who are erasing their rights by simply ignoring them—and relying on social progressive judges to nullify them by simply erasing the Bill of Rights by transforming it into the UN International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights which was formally adopted on Dec. 16, 1966 and became universal law on March 23, 1976. There are no universal gun rights in the UN International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights, and all other rights are conditioned on the whims of the local governments enforcing them.
If the social progressive still control the White House and the US Senate in Jan. 2017, then expect to see some form of anti-gun rights coup d' etat begin to take shape the moment they get one more social progressive on the high court. What they will likely attempt to do is couple the UN International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights with the Bill of Rights, making the inherent rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights conditional and, of course, completely erasing the 2nd Amendment since gun rights since no other country on Earth possesses an inherent right to own guns. It is the 2nd Amendment that protects the 1st Amendment.. The 1st Amendment empathically makes it clear the government may not enact any laws which restrict the free exercise of religion in the United States. None. Nada. Ziltch. Zit. Yet, the community organizer in the White House thinks as long as he convinces idiots and imbeciles with IQs equal to their hat sizes, he is free to use his telephone and pen to amend, erase or create new laws at will by Executive Order.
Yet, under Article 13 of the Covenant on Civil & Political Rights, "The right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas carries with it special duties and and responsibilities, and restrictions, but these shall be only as such as are provided by law." In Article 13 (the equivalent to the 1st Amendment) we see an inherent right that supersedes the right of government, erased and replaced with a conditional right which government can abrogate at will. (In case you've forgotten what the 1sat Amendment says, here it is in its entirety: "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances..." ) Wait a minute—what did you just read? Scores of American citizens filed grievances against Barack Obama in federal court over his lack of standing as a citizen of the United States and every federal court refused them standing, claiming that only Congress could challenge Obama's eligibility. From what comic book did those judges find that rendering of the law?
The 1st Amendment doesn't address Congress' rights, it addresses the rights of the People—us. We, the People, have the right to challenge the federal government when it violates our rights, and the Constitution obligates the federal judiciary to adjudicate the usurping of our rights. Congress has an obligation to impeach and remove any federal judge who refuses. And, of course, the People and the States have an obligation to recall and remove any Congressman and/or Senator who impedes the removal of any judge or Supreme Court Justice who fails to abide by the Constitution of the United States. That's how the document works. It works for the People, not the clowns in Congress and particularly, not for the clown-in-chief. The only problem with the Constitution is that there are too many lawyers tinkering with it not to protect the rights of the People, but to strip them of those rights. Because it's not until those rights are erased that the princes of industry and overlords of Utopia.can replace our inherent rights with the conditional rights promised under the UN's Covenant on Civil & Political Rights.
If we, the People, don't start reading that document the way it was written in simple, unambiguous words and phrases, and applying those words and phrases the way the Founding Fathers expected them to be applied, we are going to see a complete nullification of the 2nd Amendment by the Supreme Court which will attempt to couple the UN International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights with the Bill of Rights, erasing from the Constitution the verbiage that guarantees our inherent right.
Abrogating the 2nd Amendment will be the hardest task of conquest to achieve since the the One-Worlders well remember what happened when the British tried to seize the weapons of the American people on April 19, 1775. It ignited the American Revolution. The One Worlders, led in the 1920s by the money barons who believed the easiest way to prevent war was to outlaw the weapons of war—something the League of Nations tried to do in the 1920s. It failed because rogue nations in Europe and Asia secretly built war arsenals as their non-belligerent neighbors converted their WWI machinations of war into plowshares. As Germany stretched out its greedy arms in the mid-1930s, its peaceful neighbors lacked the tanks, planes, ships and light and heavy weapons to stop them.
The Council on Foreign Relations, created in 1925 to re-educate the mindset of the world once again ignored the belligerent states of the world and concentrated on reeducating the law-abiding world into believing with peace comes prosperity. For some reason it never dawned on those who have everything and need nothing that those with nothing want everything the rich possess. As long as greed exists, war will persist.
Since history has shown that greed will always exist, government decided at the end of World War II that global peace could be achieved only by eliminating the weapons needed by aggressor nations or by aggressors within peaceful nations, to impose their will on their neighbors.
The globalists' war on the private ownership of guns and therefore the federal government's war on the 2nd Amendment began during the presidency of John F. Kennedy, shortly after the abortive Bay of Pigs fiasco. The game plan was publicly known as State Department Publication 7277. Its official name, was entitled Freedom from War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.
While most Americans today are aware that Publication 7277 called for the gradual transfer of all American military assets—men and machines—to the United Nations (which is forbidden by its charter from fielding an army), most people don't know that 7277 also detailed plans for the global disarming of all private citizens thorughout the world as well. It would not bode well for the utopians to disarm the governments of the world and leave their people armed to the teeth. Government would then have even more to fear from the populace.
The authors of the Kennedy plan—or rather, the Council on Foreign Relations plan (since that's where the disarmament agenda was born)—were CFR members Dean Rusk, Kennedy's Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and presidential advisors John McCloy and Robert Lovett. McCloy would be appointed to head the newly created US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency the following year. Lovett was offered his choice of cabinet positions in the Kennedy Administration and reportedly turned all of them down. He preferred the role of invisible advisor. In that capacity, Lovett handpicked most of those who became the anti-gun inner circle of both the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations.
Banning the private ownership of guns in America became the unspoken agenda of Congress even though since 1968 legislators on both sides of the aisle pretended that their intent was never to ban the private ownership of guns but simply to regulate them to make sure that guns didn't get in the hands of criminals. (Politicians like to pretend that criminals, like honest people, go to lawful gun stores and buy weapons the same way people without criminal backgrounds do.) Criminals don't do to Dick's Sporting Goods Stores or Walmart to buy the weapons they plan to use to hold up a convenience store or kill a rival gang member. Criminals don't go to the neighborhood gun store to purchase firearms. Ever. They buy guns smuggled into the United States, usually from China, the Middle East, third world Asian countries—the reverse of what Obama Attorney General Eric Holder tried to prove by framing legitimate licensed gun dealers in the United States by convincing them they were part of a federal sting to catch gun smugglers when the Feds approved the sale of registered firearms to known Mexican gun runners who were supposed to be leading the ATF, the DEA and the FBI to the drug cartels in Mexico where they would then all be arrested.
In reality, what the government was attempting to do was build the "case" to end the lawful selling of firearms in the United States to anyone by establishing a paper trail from the legal gun dealers in the United States to the drug cartels in Mexico—finally proving that theoretically legal gun dealers in the United States were supplying the criminal enterprises in the Western hempisphere with the weapons they used to commit murder and mayhem.
On October 7, 2011, The Examiner reported that Hillary Clinton's 2009 claim, parroted by Barak Obama, Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano, that 90% of the guns captured from drug cartel members came from lawful gun dealers in the United States. That asssertion shows that Clinton was in the forefront of pushing the false assertions used in Fast & Furious, the FBI and ATF program that was supposed to theoretically track guns illegally puirchased by straw buyers from legitimate gun dealers for sale in Mexico to the drug cartels. Holder, the ATF and the Obama Administration argued, when the facts of Fast and Furious became known, that the purpose of the program was to connect the links between the gun dealers, the straw buyers and the drug cartels. That was a lie since what the FBI and ATF did in tandem, was ask legitimate gun dealers to sell firearms to known straw buyers with the FBI approving background checks and authorizing the sale of the weapons, while the ATF, the DEA and the CIA followed the guns to the drug cartels where, theoretically, the US government with the assistance of the Mexican government, would arrest the straw buyers and drug cartel buyers getting both guns and drugs off the streets of both Mexico and the United States. Nothing could have been further from the truth. First, the Obama Administration somehow forgot to keep the Mexican government in the loop.
In reality, the purpose of Fast and Furious was to create a paper trail from US gun dealers to drug cartels, erasing the footprints and fingerprints of a complicit government who tricked lawful gun dealers into believing they were helping track down and arrest drug dealers, their moles, and the gun smugglers who supplied them. What never occurred to the legal gun dealers is that they might someday be accused by the ATF of unlawfully selling weapons to the gun walkers who supplied the Mexican cartels. Had Fast and Furious not been made public due to the murder of US Border Patrol agent Brian Terry (with a weapon the FBI approved for sale to a gun walker),the American people would never have learned that the State Department, the Dept. of Homeland Security, ther BATF and the FBI would have used the paper trail from legal gun dealers to the drug cartels in closed sessions with the leftwing controlled US Senate arguing the need to ratify the UN Small Arms Treaty—which would ultimately lead to the nullification of the 2nd Amendment by the United States Supreme Court—and the seizure of all privately owned weapons. Permits to own what will become illegal weapons would be available to the favored elite, likely leaving only single shot 4.10, 20 gauge and 16 gauge shotguns with buckshot cartrdges—close the equivalent to the smooth-bore muskets the 1775 farmer used for hunting and protecting his family from Indian attacks—rather than the more accurate and more much more lethal military-stype muskets with rifled bores used by the aristocrat land owner in the 18th century..
The Obama Administration, US Attorney General Eric Holder and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been trying to figure out how, since 2009, to skin the proverbial fish without creating a constitutional dilemma. On May 19, 2010 Clinton signed the UN Small Arms Trade Treaty Resolution, the first step of the social progressive's global gun ban treaty. One hundred fifty-two nations signed the resolution that would lead to a global ban on the private ownership of firearms 41 years after the CFR's release of State Department Publication 7277 in September, 1961. The Global Gun Ban Treaty, disguised as a international arms trade agreement, was supposed to materialize in October, 2012. It appeared to be a no-show in the United States as all of the other industrialized nations signed the Treaty, surrendered their weapons and watched violent crime skyrocket in their countries as much as a hundredfold. I asked Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gunowners of America to check with his contacts on the Hill to see if the Treaty covertly ended up buried in some Senate bill that no one noticed. Larry called his best friend, Congressman Ron Paul whose staff began digging to see if it was possible that had happened, but nothing turned up until March, 2013. On that date the Senate voted 53 to 46 to kill the Small Arms Treaty. That battle lost, all that was left for the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton was subtrafuge. After all, Obama had his telephone and pen. The fact that what he intended to do on every front violated the Constitution and his oath to protect that same document, mattered not to him since the Constitution was merely an obstacle that stood in his way.
In 2011 the Department of Justice put the monkey on the back of the the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation [FDIC] to better manage their risks by eliminating insurance coverage on the banks and/or the accounts of high risk industries. Named as high risk businesses were stores that sold pornographic magazines and videos, drug paraphernalia and all firearms retailers. In addition, included were anti-abortion, pro-heterosexual marriage advocates and anti-Obama conservative bloggers and PAC groups who did their advocacy on the Internet and used eBay®-owned PayPal™ to collect donations from likeminded Americans. The FDIC played a key role in urging (strong-arming) banks and payment processors like PayPal™ to "...better manage their risks" by more carefully scrutinizing credit card transactions to these types of groups (i.e., stop doing business with them).
Added to the FDIC warning came one from Barack Obama's "pen" over the signature of Eric Holder which threatened enforcement from the federal government if banks ignored the warning and continued to do business with "high risk" customers. The threat from Holder prompted several banks to cut their ties with online gun retailers even to the point of selling their debt to get the retailers completely off the bank's books.
Because Barack Obama could not get Congress to act, he used his telephone and his pen with a series of new regulations, one of which was known as Operation Choke Point, which would completely bypass constitutionally protected gun rights by simply choking off the lines of credit of "risky retailers." Operation Choke Point is a Department of Justice policy to punish banks who knowingly assisted fraudulent merchants who harm consumers. That was a comment made to the Washington Times on Friday, May 16, 2014: "The Agency is conducting several investigations that aim to hold accountable banks who are knowingly assisting fraudulent merchants who harm consumers, not discourageor inhibit the lawufl conduct of these honest merchants".
Could that be why honest merchants were being targeted by the Executive Branch? Their crimes? They don't sell porn or drug paraphernalia. They sell legal firearms and comply with all BATF regulations and receive FBI approval for the transactions. Yet hundreds of small gun shops and several large gun retailers are now being targeted by Barack Obama's telephone and pen through the banks many of them have done business with for decades.
Peter Weinstock, a lawyer at Hunton & Williams LLP told the Washington Times that "...this administration has very clearly told the banking industry which customers they feel represent 'reputation risk' to do business with. So financial institutions are reacting to the extraordinary enforcement arsenal by being ultra conservative in who they do business with. Any companies that engage in any margin of risk as defined by the administration are being dropped."
Camden Fine, president of The Independent Community Bankers of America [ICBA], a small bank association, said "...the enforcement actions threatened by the Justice Department are too broad and overly aggressive and needs to be balanced by ensuring that businesses and consumers that operate in accordance with applicabla laws can still access payment systems. ICBA requests that the DOJ suspend Operation Choke Point immediately and focus its resources directly on businesses that may be violating the law rather than targeting banks providing [lawful] payment services."
Of course, that wouldn't work for the DOJ which does not believe its own rhetoric. The purpose of Operation Choke Point is not to cut off the funds of illegal gun dealers or even porn peddlers (which would cut about 50% of the work activity of a good many tenured federal worker who spends more time looking at porn sites than doing the jobs they are paid to do). The purpose of Operation Choke Point is to make it impossible for Internet firearms companies to make transactions since over 85% of their business is transacted by credit card, and to force banks to kill or limit the use of the checking accounts of gun dealers, making it difficult for those companies to cash or deposit checks from buyers as well. If this does not smell like restraint of free trade nothing does. What we have here is "guilt by accusation." Fine concluded by saying, "Jusrtice's operation threatens to close access to the financial system to law-abiding businesses because the mere prospect of an enforcement action is sufficient to cause financial institutions to restrict access to their payment systems to only established companies that present low risks."
"Regulations on the financial industry has increased over the past few years," said Thomas Vartgarian, chairman of the global law firm, Dechert LLP which specializes in financial regulatory law. Congressional Republicans said that neither Obama nor the DOJ nor the Departments of Commerce, Labor, Education, Homeland Security nor anyone else except Congress has the statutory authority to do what the DOJ and Obama are doing. "Obama," they said, "is using regulatory powers to shutter industries it doesn't like. In 2013, 31 Republican Congressmen said the Obama Administration and the Justice Department used the FDIA to intimidate banks and payment processors to terminate business relationships with lawful borrowers."
The FDIC's acting General Counsel, Richard Osterman defended the FDIC's definition of what constitutes a "risky business"—which is subject to money laundering and "risky behavior" laws, noting that no bank is outright prohibited from doing business with those companies. "We have actually put out a policy statement on this issue," Osterman said, "to make it clear from the very top that as long as financial institutions are properly managing their relationships and tghe risks, they're neither prohibited nor discouraged from providing these services."
Hunton & Williams lawyer Weinstock poophaded that notion when he said, "The cost of that due diligence, coupled with the threat of a lawsuit for doing business with a customer in an industry the government has defined as risky has a chilling effect."
It has taken the Obama Administration six years to figure our how to erase a good portion of the 2nd Amendment without violating the 2nd Amendment. How? By attacking the ability of gun manufacturers, gun distributors and gun dealers to buy and sell through Alexander Hamilton's fake commerce clause.
Among those gun dealers are Top Gun Firearms Training & Supply in Miami, Floirda. In April, 2014 his local bank, BankUnited, U.A. dumped his online business and closed their account. BankUnited told T.R. Liberti, Top Gun's owner that hid "...company's line fo business is not commensurate with the industries we work with."
In May, 2014, Black Rifle Armory in Henderson, Nevada had its bank accounts frozen by the local bank it had used for years. The bank's explanation? It was required by the Jusrtice Department to scrutinize Black Rifle Armory's online transactions to determine if any of them were suspicious. The bank, required to do so by the DOJ, put the cart before the horse. Normally, a bank employee would see something that triggered a mental alarm, and then, the bank would freeze that client's assets until an investigation confirmed their suspicions, or confirmed there was nothing wrong. But once again, Operation Choke Point was never designed to find anything wrong, it was designed solely to cut off ability of legal businesses in the United States to buy and sell.
The American Banking Association, the banking industry's advocacy group in Washington, DC said that the sole purpose of the Obama-Holder agenda is to freeze out of the financial system every gun manufacturer, gun distributor and gun dealer in the country through Operation Choke Point. The ABA believes the DOJ will be relatively successful because the regulatory burden placed on the banks, and the risk of DOJ investigations of banks which do not comply will be too great for small banks, who will simply buckle and dump their firearms customers, both large and small. Richard Reiss, a senior vice president of the ABA noted in the April 28, 2014 issue of American Banker that "...all of this is predicated on a notion the banks are the choke point for all businesses." Cut off any business' ability to buy and sell, and that business ultimately dies—just like Powderhorn Outfitters in Massachusetts did. Powerhorn sold black powder and traditional firearms, archery gear, and fishing equipment until TD Bank suddenly dropped them for no reason other than the bank was being bullied by the Justice Department. Powderhorn Outfitters had no trouble moving their money and all of their business to another bank which seemed to appreciate their business. If I was a TD Bank customer and I believed the 2nd Amendment was being messed with by the federal government, and my bank was letting the DOJ get away with it without suing the Obama Administration, I know I would be switiching banks, too. I'd likely follow Powerhorn Outfitters to their new bank since it appears to be a bank that respects the 2nd Amendment. And, since I would then also live in the third most liberal state in the country—Massachusetts—the State in which the American Revolution began because this nation's government in 1775 tried to deny American citizens the right to own firearms and use them not only to hunt food for the table, but to protect their families from those who threaten them.
I thought it appropriate to complete this rather wordy piece with the view of Associate Justice William O. Douglas who wrote the majority opinion in the 1939 Miller v United States (307 US 174) case (FDR's second attempt to outlaw the private ownership of guns in the United States). In his opinion, Douglas noted that "...based on the privileges standardized by the States in the 18th century, the general public—not State-controlled militias—has to be as well-armed as its central government since the people and the States view the federal government as much, if not more, of a threat to liberty than any foreign intruder on American soil."
Douglas was a leftwing federal magistrate, but unlike today's leftwing social progessives who don't believe in a republican form of government, Doulgas was a constitutionalist. He was also much wiser than his years. I only wish the current justices sitting on the high court were that smart. I know the American people are. Too bad Attorney General Eric Holder, the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and, of course, the community activist who needs to steal America's constitutional right to own—and carry—firearms to protect their homes, their lives...and liberty, aren't that smart.