Posts Tagged ‘bob unruh’

Soldiers pledge to refuse disarmament demands

March 18, 2009

Posted: March 17, 2009
11:21 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Campaign urges members of military to ‘steel resolve’ to ‘do the right thing’


An invitation to soldiers and peace officers across the United States to pledge to refuse illegal orders – including “state of emergency” orders that could include disarming or detaining American citizens – has struck a chord, collecting more than 100,000 website visitors in a little over a week and hundreds of e-mails daily.

Spokesman Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers told WND his organization’s goal is to remind military members their oath of allegiance is to the U.S. Constitution, not a particular president.

He said the organization deliberately does not collect the names of those who subscribe to Oath Keepers’ beliefs because of their status mostly as active duty soldiers.

He told WND he is scheduled to talk about the issue on G. Gordon Liddy’s radio program tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time, and he’s begun working with “Gathering of Eagles” on several projects, including a Pro Troop Events gathering scheduled in Washington in June.

Rhodes said his goal is to “teach them more about what they swore to defend so they will be better able to see when an order violates the Constitution and the rights of the people, and is thus unlawful.”

That review must be done immediately, so they have an opportunity to decide what is right and wrong and then to “steel their resolve to take a stand and do the right thing, whatever the cost,” the organization says.

The U.S., Rhodes noted to WND, was launched as a natural law republic, meaning the founders recognized all rights come from God, not the government.

The founders, many of whom ended up active militarily in the revolution, rebelled “against the principle” that a king or parliament could rule them.

“That’s where we are. We want to make sure men in the military understand in advance what the line is they won’t cross,” Rhodes said.

One testimonial posted by an active duty Army soldier, who was kept anonymous, said that message already has gotten through.

“I want you guys to know I’m with you 100 percent and so are a lot of my fellow soldiers. These kinds of discussions go on between us often, and we all know that we did not swear an oath to any politician (of either party),” he wrote.

“And just for the record not me or anyone else in my platoon would ever follow an order to disarm the American people,” he wrote.

The organization describes itself as a non-partisan group of members of the military as well as peace officers “who will fulfill our oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.”

Among the orders the soldiers are pledging NOT to obey:

  1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people. … Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people, and we will not commit treason by obeying any such treasonous order.
  2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects – such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons. … We expect that warrantless searches of homes and vehicles, under some pretext, will be the means used to attempt to disarm the people.
  3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal. … Any attempt to apply the laws of war to American civilians, under any pretext, such as against domestic “militia” groups the government brands “domestic terrorists,” is an act of war and an act of treason.
  4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor. … It is the militia of a state and of the several states that the Constitution contemplates being used in any context, during any emergency within a state, not the standing army.
  5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.
  6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. … Such tactics … by the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto, and by the Imperial Japanese in Nanking, turn[ed] entire cities into death camps. Any such order to disarm and confine the people of an American city will be an act of war and thus an act of treason.
  7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. … Such a vile order to forcibly intern Americans without charges or trial would be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason, regardless of the pretext used.
  8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.
  9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.
  10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

“We will not make war against our own people. We will not commit treason. We will defend the Republic,” the organization’s website states. “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually affirm our oath and pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

Rhodes said the organization has not even had time to complete its website, but the word is spreading so quickly through its blog that thousands of people are investigating the site each day.

Plans had been to wait on the campaign until a website was established, but recent events accelerated the effort, he said.

One such situation was a training exercise planned by the National Guard in Iowa on which WND reported.

Rhodes said the effort is not a response to President Obama or his policies.

He said the accumulation of power in the executive branch in recent years has been alarming. The fears crystallized when Obama took office and suddenly had access to the accumulated power.

That, he said, is a “powderkeg.”

“We do feel in our hearts that this effort has the potential to change history for the better and to forestall or even prevent this nation from ever experiencing the horrors that plagued so many other nations in the 20th Century,” the website says.

“We are convinced that it is not too late, that there can be a turning of the tide – if we (and that means you too!) can reach enough of our brothers in arms and remind them of their oath, teach them more about what it is they swore to defend, and steel their resolves to stand firm if/when their oath is tested. We feel honor bound to do all we possibly can to achieve that mission.”

WND already has reported on several members of the U.S. military who have raised concerns about the implications of Obama’s possible ineligibility to be commander-in-chief.

One officer who signed onto a case filed by attorney Orly Taitz, the California activist with the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, immediately was ordered by his commanders not to speak to the media.

The officer’s identity was withheld to prevent further actions against him.

Taitz said she’s working with more than 100 members of the military in her case.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born

Gun trial witness: Feds out for ‘vengeance’

February 1, 2009
Posted: January 31, 2009
10:55 pm Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


An expert who testified against the government in a disputed Wisconsin gun case involving what the defense has described as a “broken” gun says federal agents ever since have been retaliating and the government’s actions are costing his business hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“I am a witness in a still pending case, and I am being ‘leaned on,'” Len Savage, of Historic Arms LLC, told WND. “This is not the first time ATF has taken out vengeance during a court case.”

The dispute stems from Savage’s testimony during a Wisconsin gun dispute. There a man loaned out a gun, it fired several shots at one time at a gun range, and the federal government prosecuted him for transferring a “machine gun.”

Savage’s testimony contradicted government opinions that the gun was, in fact, a machine gun, because the type of rifle was known to have a problem with misfiring. The defendant, David Olofson, nonetheless, was convicted and his case is on appeal.

The agent whose opinion Savage had contradicted, Max Kingery, shortly after was assigned by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to review a gun part that Savage was proposing to build and sell as part of his business.

The government’s review involved Savage’s part, a conversion unit intended to allow a small number of owners of a specific type of legal machine gun to be able to shoot ammunition costing 1-2 cents per bullet rather than 25 cents.

But the agent added several pieces of metal, some chain, some wires and some duct tape to the conversion unit, allowing it to fire, and then classified the conversion unit itself as a machine gun.

“Max Kingery was assigned to evaluate the submitted product from my company. He is the one who contrived the test, and made the determination,” Savage told WND.

But he said he’s not going to let the decision go unchallenged, and he’ll contest the government’s opinion at a trial over its “arrest” of the gun part in question.

That case now has become formal, with the filing of documentation in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia and naming as a defendant “One Historic Arms Model 54RCCS ‘7.62x54R Caliber Conversion System’ machine gun, Serial No. VI.”

“Plaintiff requests that the court issue a warrant and summons for the arrest and seizure of the defendant property; that notice of this action be given to all persons known or thought to have an interest in or right against the defendant property; that the defendant property be forfeited and condemned to the United States of America…” the government’s civil filing claims.

Several WND messages left with two different offices of the federal agency over a period of two days requesting a comment were not returned.

“Don’t forget the guy who did the evaluation is the guy I testified against four months previously,” Savage said. “That’s impropriety.”

He said, in fact, if anyone made a “machine gun” in this case, it is the government, since its agents added the materials needed to make the conversion unit fire a bullet.

“I didn’t submit it with those parts,” he said.

He said he had proposed building about 350 of the units to sell to customers who already have been approved by the government to have and use the type of machine gun they would fit. But the government’s decision to add parts and define it as a machine gun stymies not only that plan, but apparently is costing him possession of the unit he submitted for examination.

Savage told WND the logic behind the addition of the parts and then the determination the conversion unit is a machine gun doesn’t follow.

“If you tie a string on both triggers of daddy’s double barreled [shotgun] then that would be a machine gun too,” he said, citing the government’s definition of anything that causes multiple shots with a single trigger action.

He said the government did, in fact, make just that determination, but eventually backed away partly.

In 1996, the Firearms Technology Branch of the federal agency determined that “a 14-inch long shoestring with a loop at each end” when attached to a rifle “caused the weapon to fire repeatedly until finger pressure was released from the string.”

“Because this item was designed and intended to convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun, FTB determined that it was a machine gun…,” the agency confirmed in a 2004 letter.

However, in 2007, it followed, “Upon further review, we have determined that the string by itself is not a machine gun, whether or not there are loops tied on the ends. However, when the string is added to a semiautomatic firearm … the result is a firearm that fires automatically and consequently would be classified as a machine gun.”

Savage said such logic should apply in his case, because his conversion unit – without the addition of the extra materials added by the government – doesn’t fire.

He said the government is in the processing of “arresting” the conversion unit, and then a trial will be scheduled for a determination. The government wants ownership of the unit as well as its costs in the case.

Savage wants a determination that his unit is a repair part or conversion unit.

And he said if the government wins its argument, there will be further complications, since the agency has made conflicting determinations in the past.

Specifically, he said, the AFT has ruled that for MAC type machine guns, the upper portion “that contains the bolt, recoil system and barrel … to be a ‘gun part,’ not even a firearm.”

“All of these without exception would fail the ATF’s contrived test,” he said. “If I took the tape and zip tie route that ATF demonstrated in detail and put that on the stock unit, I have a zip gun, just as illegal.”

“This ‘test’ will turn any upper that has a feed device into not only a firearm, but a machine gun,” he said.

Savage’s testimony in the Olofson case, in Berlin, Wis., harshly criticized the government’s weapons testing procedures. In that case, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to 30 months in jail for loaning a rifle that misfired, letting off three bullets at one time.

The government then classified it a machine gun, and convicted Olofson of “transferring” such a weapon. He surrendered to federal authorities and is serving his term, prompting the Gun Owners of America to issue a warning about the owner’s liability should any semi-automatic weapon ever misfire.

“A gun that malfunctions is not a machine gun,” Larry Pratt, executive director of GOA, said at the time. “What the [federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] has done in the Olofson case has set a precedent that could make any of the millions of Americans that own semi-automatic firearms suddenly the owner [of] an unregistered machine gun at the moment the gun malfunctions.”

When U.S. District Judge Charles Clevert imposed the sentence, a commentary in Guns Magazine said, “It didn’t matter the rifle in question had not been intentionally modified for select fire, or that it did not have an M16 bolt carrier … that it did not show any signs of machining or drilling, or that that model had even been recalled a few years back,” said

“It didn’t matter the government had repeatedly failed to replicate automatic fire until they replaced the ammunition with a softer primer type. It didn’t even matter that the prosecution admitted it was not important to prove the gun would do it again if the test were conducted today,” the magazine said. “What mattered was the government’s position that none of the above was relevant because ‘[T]here’s no indication it makes any difference under the statute. If you pull the trigger once and it fires more than one round, no matter what the cause it’s a machine gun.’

“No matter what the cause.”

Savage had told the agency in an earlier letter the decision to install the additional parts on his conversion unit “in order to induce full auto fire [is] clear and reliable evidence that they were contrived to deny my constitutional rights.”

He said during an interview with Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership that Olofson had been instructing a man in the use of guns, and the student asked to borrow a rifle for some shooting practice.

“Mr. Olofson was nice enough to accommodate him,” Savage said. So the student, Robert Kiernicki, went to a range and fired about 120 rounds. “He went to put in another magazine and the rifle shot three times, then jammed.”

He said the rifle, which was subject to a manufacturer’s recall because of mechanical problems at one point, malfunctioned because of the way it was made.

Savage said once the government confiscated the gun, things got worse.

“They examined and test fired the rifle; then declared it to be ‘just a rifle,'” Savage said. But when agents demanded another test, a different ammunition was used and the result was a machine gun classification.

David Codrea, in the Gun Rights Examiner, wrote, “Given enough added parts that are not part of the submitted design, I know a lot of people who could turn a banana into machine gun.”

“Why are they doing this, especially since many other caliber conversion uppers exist that are not so classified? Will this area be revisited? Or is this payback for Savage testifying on behalf of David Olofson and in other cases?”