Great Three Percenter Speech

[Freedom First]

[video=youtube_share;XkjLlZu9uno]http://youtu.be/XkjLlZu9uno[/video]

The guy's name is Mike Vanderbaugh. He's a real 2A man who embraces the true meaning of Freedom.

 

[nobama]

[video=youtube_share;XkjLlZu9uno]http://youtu.be/XkjLlZu9uno[/video]

The guy's name is Mike Vanderbaugh. He's a real 2A man who embraces the true meaning of Freedom.

Awsome speech!! Thanks for posting.

 

[Freedom First]

Awsome speech!! Thanks for posting.

The guy's the real deal...

Sipsey Street Irregulars

 

[davidmcbeth]

This is a speech given in CT ... he is a resident of Alabama ...

Unfortunately, contrary to the claps and cheers .. folks in CT don't have the guts to stand up to the government in the manner by which he supports.

 

[Freedom First]

This is a speech given in CT ... he is a resident of Alabama ...

Unfortunately, contrary to the claps and cheers .. folks in CT don't have the guts to stand up to the government in the manner by which he supports.

Well, that remains to be seen, now don't it? And I don't personally think it will take a majority. Some mighty big fires start with a single spark.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Well, that remains to be seen, now don't it? And I don't personally think it will take a majority. Some mighty big fires start with a single spark.

Heard the same stuff with NY residents .. crying "we will resist" and nothing further happenings.

Because, if one is serious .... when they say that they are coming after you, one does not wait but goes and gets them.

CT is in a slightly different situation than NY. In NY the law was passed legally. In CT it was not. The CT law will all be struck down due to technical aspects of the law's creation and other legal processes needed to have been performed before the bill was to be voted upon. the technical aspects are clearer arguments than the 2nd amendment arguments (that democrats don't want to be decided by courts).

The e-cert process was not followed - the law will be voided because of this issue. If it requires someone to be arrested is the question in my mind ~ it may very well require a criminal trial is needed in state court to decide this aspect of the law. 2nd amendment issues can be brought up (in federal court ~ not state) without a criminal trial. Various legal teams in CT have talked about filing a case in state court but I think that they'll file in federal court as that venue does not require a person to put his head on "the chopping block" as it were as the federal court can examine 2nd amendment issues ~ maybe a 14th due process case regarding the e-cert process violations?

Well, I'm content to wait a while ... I am still collecting data concerning the infringement aspect of various sections of the law in CT.

There are many angles to attack the law in CT ... and more limited angles to approach the NY law. If anyone was going to start resisting it would have been NY by now ~ yet all I hear is crickets from that state...I see 1 suit regarding the e-cert process in NY that is a dead duck IMO and nothing else. The NRA is involved with a lawsuit in NY ~ I don't trust them at all ... they like to make "deals". The NRA is taking the viewpoint that people need to be protected from criminals and don't have the gumption to actually say we need guns to protect us from the governments. I think that after boston this shows our need to have guns and accessories to protect us from both criminals and the governments.

There has been a new case filed, DISABLED AMERICANS FOR FIREARMS RIGHTS, LLC Et Al v. DANNEL P. MALLOY, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CONNECT They claim in their complaint:

The provisions of the Act unfairly and arbitrarily deny these fundamental rights to the
plaintiffs....
in that "large capacity magazines" are convenient and necessary for disabled persons such as the plaintiffs to participate in these lawful activities....
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that the Court:
1. Enter a declaratory judgment that the Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention
and Children's Safety, in whole or in part, violates the plaintiffs' rights to keep and bear arms,
not to be denied the equal protection of the laws, and to be ree of discrimination based on
physical disability, in violation of Article I, §§ 1,15, and 20 of the Connecticut constitution; and the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 27-2 and 46a-58(a); and
2. Issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions
against implementation and enforcement of the Act.


Its a 17 paragraph, 6 page complaint. And it does not allege violations of any federal law.

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/complaint-for-declaratory-judgment-and-i-34480/

If one wishes to read the complaint.

 

[Freedom First]

Heard the same stuff with NY residents .. crying "we will resist" and nothing further happenings.

Because, if one is serious .... when they say that they are coming after you, one does not wait but goes and gets them.

CT is in a slightly different situation than NY. In NY the law was passed legally. In CT it was not. The CT law will all be struck down due to technical aspects of the law's creation and other legal processes needed to have been performed before the bill was to be voted upon. the technical aspects are clearer arguments than the 2nd amendment arguments (that democrats don't want to be decided by courts).

The e-cert process was not followed - the law will be voided because of this issue. If it requires someone to be arrested is the question in my mind ~ it may very well require a criminal trial is needed in state court to decide this aspect of the law. 2nd amendment issues can be brought up (in federal court ~ not state) without a criminal trial. Various legal teams in CT have talked about filing a case in state court but I think that they'll file in federal court as that venue does not require a person to put his head on "the chopping block" as it were as the federal court can examine 2nd amendment issues ~ maybe a 14th due process case regarding the e-cert process violations?

Well, I'm content to wait a while ... I am still collecting data concerning the infringement aspect of various sections of the law in CT.

There are many angles to attack the law in CT ... and more limited angles to approach the NY law. If anyone was going to start resisting it would have been NY by now ~ yet all I hear is crickets from that state...I see 1 suit regarding the e-cert process in NY that is a dead duck IMO and nothing else. The NRA is involved with a lawsuit in NY ~ I don't trust them at all ... they like to make "deals". The NRA is taking the viewpoint that people need to be protected from criminals and don't have the gumption to actually say we need guns to protect us from the governments. I think that after boston this shows our need to have guns and accessories to protect us from both criminals and the governments.

There has been a new case filed, DISABLED AMERICANS FOR FIREARMS RIGHTS, LLC Et Al v. DANNEL P. MALLOY, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CONNECT They claim in their complaint:

The provisions of the Act unfairly and arbitrarily deny these fundamental rights to the
plaintiffs....
in that "large capacity magazines" are convenient and necessary for disabled persons such as the plaintiffs to participate in these lawful activities....
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that the Court:
1. Enter a declaratory judgment that the Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention
and Children's Safety, in whole or in part, violates the plaintiffs' rights to keep and bear arms,
not to be denied the equal protection of the laws, and to be ree of discrimination based on
physical disability, in violation of Article I, §§ 1,15, and 20 of the Connecticut constitution; and the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 27-2 and 46a-58(a); and
2. Issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions
against implementation and enforcement of the Act.


Its a 17 paragraph, 6 page complaint. And it does not allege violations of any federal law.

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/complaint-for-declaratory-judgment-and-i-34480/

If one wishes to read the complaint.

Case law will not settle this. It will be an old man who understands Rights and has a desire to see his grandchildren free who will start the settlement process. You know, the old guy who bled for the concept of a free nation, the rule of law, freedom and all that. The one who remembers a better time and wants his progeny to live in days like those.

Sure, there lots of talk. There was much talk in the days leading up to 1774 too. But some few people were very busy during those days. And when the people began to understand the trap they lived in, the tyranny they adhered to, and began to hate it, then things changed. There were men like Mike in those days. Sam Adams was a rabble rouser of the first degree and his passions paved the way for the people to move against the edifice of British rule in the Americas. It's men like Mike and his ilk who are the hope I hold for this nation. Not politicians or newsmen. Not radio guys or actors. Real men willing to shed their blood in the cause of Freedom. Men who understand the statement, "If not now, when? If not me, who?"