The latest tactic employed by the Brady Campaign to deprive law abiding citizens of their Second Amendment Rights is to sue what they call “Bad Apple” gun dealers. Cord Byrd has teamed with Tampa attorney Noel Flasterstein to defend a federally licensed gun dealer who legally sold a firearm that was then used by a criminal to murder two people. The gun dealer was investigated by both the ATF and the local state’s attorney’s office and he was found to have committed no wrong doing in the sale of the firearm.
The aim of the Brady Campaign is to sue small retailers out of business thereby shrinking the options law abiding citizens have when choosing to purchase a firearm. The Brady Campaign brags on its website that it is launching this campaign of lawsuits nationwide. The Law Firm of Cord Byrd, P.A. is always ready to stand in the breech and defend what it believes to be frivolous attacks against your gun rights. Updates regarding the litigation will be posted regularly.
The Fourth Amendment and the rest of the Constitution still matter. This citizen, armed with the knowledge of his Constitutional rights prevents a warrantless search of his home. If we are to preserve liberty and honor those who have paid the ultimate price defending those rights we must be willing to exercise them ourselves.
News outlets are reporting that Westerners, including Americans and Brits, have traveled to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS. Furthermore, security experts are warning that the jihadis with western passports can travel seamlessly back to America and the UK. One national security expert’s main concern is that westerners are travelling east to obtain ISIS terrorist training only to return to our shores. The primary fear is that the jihadists will be able to obtain weapons such as AK-47’s and AR’s and then use them to attack civilians in shopping malls or other crowded areas.
If such an event were to take place using legally obtained weapons, before the smoke clears, the call to limit the private ownership of guns in the name of national security will become deafening. The media will clamor that it is unpatriotic to oppose curtailing the Second Amendment and that the NRA and its members are terrorist “sympathizers.”
Since 9/11 we have repeatedly traded liberty for security, the very trade off Benjamin Franklin warned us against. With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA and the arming of federal agencies with military hardware, the homeland has become the “front line” on the misnamed “war on terror.” Terror is a tactic just as blitzkrieg and kamikaze attacks are tactics. We did not fight World War II to stop blitzkrieg and kamikaze attacks, we fought the war to put an end to the tyrannical ideologies of Nazism, Fascism and militarism. Unfortunately the “leaders” of our nation are too cowardly to accurately identify the enemy we face, radical Islam.
The federal government’s number one task is to secure the people from harm from outside forces and yet our southern border remains a sieve, and neither of the two major political parties are doing anything to stop it. A cynic might argue that the federal government does not care very much about border security because it serves the twin purposes of securing future voters and the ability of our enemies to attack us thus creating the crisis necessary to end the private ownership of weapons. The removal of the Second Amendment as a constitutional right is viewed as the Holy Grail of the radical left. Once they end this right then the people will return to the status of serfs which is where our masters and overloads want us. To quote Thomas Jefferson, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
Defenders of the Constitution and the Second Amendment ignore the risk of ISIS and our domestic enemies at our peril.
Civil injunctions for protection against repeat violence, commonly referred to as restraining orders, serve a valid purpose but in many instances are abused by parties seeking to gain an advantage in litigation or to seek revenge. A hearing is held, but all too often the court will issue the injunction with little to no evidence. Consider that for a moment, you can be deprived of your constitutional rights on little more than vague and often false allegations. Making matters worse the injunctions can be made permanent and the court can deprive a respondent of their constitutional right to possess and use firearms FOREVER.
Florida law allows a respondent to petition the court to terminate the injunction and restore the civil rights deprived by the injunction. If you have been deprived of your constitutional right to possess a firearm because of a restraining order contact me to discuss the particulars of case and have your rights restored.
The retail giant Target has adopted a no-guns policy in all of its stores even if the law in your state or locality permits the carry of firearms on private property.
The change in policy follows agitation by anti-gun group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, most likely just the latest iteration of a pro gun control group with a fax machine.
Target’s interim CEO John Mulligan said in a statement,”Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create.”
By his statement Mr. Mulligan insinuates that gun owners are family unfriendly. Maybe he should have gone to a local gun range, shooting or hunting club where he would have witnessed families of all shapes and sizes enjoying and exercising our constitutional rights.
Responsible gun owners must combat and push back against this type of mushy and ill-informed thinking regarding the shooting sports. Perhaps Target should spend more time protecting the identity of their customers credit card information and less time on bogeyman.
Now that you know, choose to spend your dollars wisely.
In a unanimous opinion the US Supreme Court held the Fourth Amendment still matters and that police cannot snoop through your cell phone without a search warrant.
Lawyers for the government argued that law enforcement and government agencies could develop protocols to protect the rights of citizens, but the court in essence said the bureaucrats cannot be trusted.
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the court stated, “The Founders did not fight a revolution to gain the right to government agency protocols.”
With the federal and state governments assaulting our liberties at every turn, it is worthy of thanks that the Supreme Court is the last bulwark of liberty and that the court acknowledges why the Founders fought against tyranny.
Yesterday SCOTUS issued an opinion that has received a bit of media attention simply for the fact that in the 5-4 ruling the anti gun wing of the court held sway over what the law actually says.
Abramski legally purchased a firearm for his uncle who is also legally permitted to own a firearm. The government contended that Abramski engaged in a straw purchase and lied on the gun purchase form which is illegal, because his uncle gave him the money to buy the gun before Abramski purchased the firearm. Despite the plain language of the statute and despite the government’s concession that people are allowed to gift guns, resell guns and buy guns to give away in a raffle, the court upheld Mr. Abramski’s criminal conviction. Do not try to make sense of the majority opinion because it does not make sense unless you want to appear to be doing something to “get tough on guns.”.
The bottom line is: Don’t have someone give you money to purchase a gun before you make the purchase or like Mr. Abramski you may find yourself in trouble with a misapplication of law.
Below are links to a video — the same video — one is on Facebook the other is on YouTube. I suspect it will go viral so I thought you should see it.
The video is of a Florida Highway Patrol trooper in the SW Florida area (between Sarasota and Naples) totally misrepresenting the law to a citizen. At minimum, this appears to be a situation of poor training. Nothing in Florida law requires law-abiding people to carry their firearms unloaded — much less with the magazines removed — while in their vehicles, and certainly not concealed weapons license holders who are carrying on their persons. That would defeat the purpose of carrying for self-defense.
FHP making up new laws as they please ~ didn't really want to post this as the LEO was very polite but at the same time…
Here at FGL we are concerned not just with your Second Amendment rights but ALL of your constitutional rights. With increasing frequency the federal government and their agents are unlawfully detaining and questioning American citizens, infringing on your constitutional right to travel. They get away with this because Americans either do not know or are afraid to exercise their rights. Please watch the video and remember the phrases:
“Am I being detained?” and “Am I free to go?”
The link to “Am I Free to Go” above is an article and video demonstrating Americans exercising their right not to be bullied by federal agents. By the way you also have the right to film law enforcement, as you will see in the video. The right to film law enforcement has been upheld in numerous recent court opinions n the matter.
Cord Byrd, an attorney who specializes in gun rights and Second Amendment issues, said self-defense has been an important part of the law for centuries, and Stand Your Ground is an extension of that.
Co-host Kent Justice of town hall co-sponsor WJXT TV-4, asked Byrd if Stand Your Ground wasn’t superfluous if self-defense is already allowed. But Byrd said Stand Your Ground was needed to protect law-abiding people from overzealous prosecutors.