Archive for Gun Rights
Herring Resigns from HOA Board Over Remuda HOA vs Russells Lawsuit
Posted by: | CommentsNumerous sources are now telling me that Parker County, Texas Precinct 400 Chair, Marvin Herring, has been vocal in telling everyone who will listen that he has now resigned from the Remuda Ranch Estates Homeowners Association Board. Others are saying that they just won’t believe it until they see an official resignation announcement. I did try to contact Mr. Herring about his resignation from the board and was unable to reach him for comment. His resignation is taking place at a time when there is a great deal of pressure in Parker County to resolve the lawsuit brought on by the hoa against Johnnie and Clara Russell (vague updates on this lawsuit available at the bottom of this story).
During our research we were most surprised when we learned that Marvin’s wife, Peggy Herring, just happens to be the Parker County Democratic Party Precinct 400 Chair. Wouldn’t this kind of partnership make for an exciting conversation during your evening meal? We’ve also been told that Mr. Herring proudly voted in favor of a shooting ban ordinance in Parker County in subdivisions with 10 acres or less which put several gun instructors in the county out of business. The ordinance which passed in March of 2009, came after the members of the Remuda Ranch Estates Homeowners Association retaliated after they lost their case against Jack Cavenah who was one such instructor who had a shooting range in his backyard.
On March 13, 2009, the Weatherford Democrat reported this on the new ordinance impacting gun rights in Parker County,
“This is absolutely a personal vendetta that Orin Book and the homeowner’s association have against me,” Jack Cavenah said. “They’ve twisted this and made it sound like something it’s not, and all we want is both sides of the story. If they’d whipped us fair and square, that’d be one thing and I’d shut up. But this smells.”
Cavenah claims the court session wherein the ordinance was adopted, was held without giving both sides an opportunity to present their case.
“We had no idea that meeting was happening because the meetings usually happen on Mondays, and this one was on Friday,” he said. “I spoke to both the county judge and Commissioner Jim Webster the week before about this very issue, and neither of them mentioned the meeting to me. They didn’t mention it because they’d already made up their minds and they didn’t want us there telling our side of the story.”
When I spoke with Mr. Cavenah about about this particular issue, he stated,
I still remember what he (referring to Marvin Herring) stood up and said. He said, “This ain’t the wooly west anymore!”
You may recall a previous post where I revealed the hoa board members and Mr. Herring was listed as one of the board members. I will state that I have yet to find an official announcement of Mr. Herring in regards to his resignation from the Remuda Ranch Estates HOA. I have also learned that the Precinct 400 Chair position that Marvin Herring holds is also up for reelection. During my investigation of this story, I had a pleasant conversation with Lynette McCracken about the lawsuit and the many issues with the Remuda hoa. After she had provided me with the issues she was aware of, the conversation switched over to County issues regarding another lawsuit that had taken place where the hoa lost in court. More on this issue at a later date. Once I had a better understanding of the tangled web, I urged Lynette and her friends to get more involved in cleaning up the political landscape in Parker County, Texas. A couple of days after our conversation I learned that Lynette had decided to run for the Precinct 400 Chair position against Marvin Herring. I have to commend Mrs. McCracken for stepping up to run for the betterment of Parker County, Texas. Lynette is currently the Communications Representative for the Parker County Tea Party and a member of the Ft. Worth, Texas 912 Project Group.
Don’t hold your breath too long if you think this is all I have as I work to untangle this web of intimidation and corruption. I can assure you there is a lot more where this came from.
Update on the Russell lawsuit:
Since my reporting on Judge Johnson’s surprise and questionable appearance at a local Tea Party meeting, I have no new information on the Russell bond hearing. Clara Russell has also reported to me that their lawsuit, and everything that has been revealed because of it, has been an awakening and she is now making efforts to help clean things up by getting far more involved in their local politics.
I did reach out to Texas State Representative Phil King any comments he might have on this issue. Mr. King’s prompt response was, “It’s ridiculous. No HOA should be able to regulate religious or political speech. There is no excuse for what has been done to the Russell family. HOAs should focus on large community issues like well paved roads. This was a just a little yard sign.” During a conversation I had with Phil this evening he told me that we was focused on passing legislation that prevents homeowners associations from preventing the freedom of speech which is an important part of our Constitutional Rights.
I have made multiple attempts for a comment from Texas Governor Rick Perry and have yet to receive a response from him on this matter after two weeks.
**************
Please consider contributing to the Russell’s defense fund:
Clara Russell Defense Fund
PO Box 150471
Ft. Worth Texas 76108
The beginning chapters in this developing story:
- Activist Judge Rules Against Freedom of Speech in North Texas! (update #5 7-22-2011)
- Conflict of Interest Causing an Uprising in Parker County, Texas over Homeowners being Sued (Update #1)
- The Conflicts of Interest Keep Getting More Interesting when in Parker County, Texas
- Clara Russell Makes it onto Glenn Beck and Doug Giles to Tell Her Story
- Taking a Better Look into Conflicts of Interest in Parker County, Texas Regarding Russell Case
- Looking into the Board Members (Bullies) of the Remuda Ranch Estates Homeowners Association
- Couple Sued for “WAKE UP AMERICA” sign to appear on GBTV
- Update: Remuda Estates HOA vs Russells Case
The Threat of Gun Bans Still Lurks Over Us
Posted by: | CommentsThe Supreme Court recently upheld the, Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. That is the Amendment that states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of a free people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. The vote was on a narrow 5 to 4 margin. That is a very narrow margin. All that has to happen to reverse that right is for some President in the future to appoint another justice who votes against the Second Amendment. Could Elana Kagan be that activist Supreme Court Justice who will aide the President in creating law from the bench?
If the Second Amendment is over turned and the freedom to keep and bear arms is abridged then no longer are any of the amendments of the, Bill of Rights, a sure guarantee. Our rights will no longer be given us by, “Nature’s God” or “Creator” as stated in, “The Declaration of Independence”. By man our rights will then be given. So then, by man they can be removed. If you do not believe that is the case, look at the most basic of ALL rights, the right to life. When the Supreme Court voted to allow abortion it threatened the life of all people because life of man is no longer sacred. Now, euthanasia is being discussed in Congress. In the original draft the Health Care Bill was designed to withhold medication that would prolong life for the elderly or what the bill termed as, “terminally ill”. It is a topic now open for discussion in Congress.
How secure would you feel if your neighbor had a sign like this?
If Guns are banned, will that stop murder? What if someone is so full of hate they stab someone who dies as a result of a stab wound, would we then ban knives? If we ban knives and a baseball bat is used to bludgeon someone to death, will bats be banned? In Biblical times they stoned people to death, should we ban rocks or stones? The danger lies, not in the weapon, it lies in the heart of the person who wields the weapon. Since the garden of Eden there have been murders. There will be murders and threats of killings until man no longer abides on this planet.
Tell the people of Arizona that the second amendment is unconstitutional. When the Federal Government will not protect or defend the sovereignty of our borders then it becomes the duty of the state to do so. It also becomes the duty and responsibility of those who live under the threat of illegal immigrants who are violent to have in their possession the means to defend their family and property. It then is the responsibility of every voter to vote out of office ALL those who refuse to live up to the oath they took to, “Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”
The greatest threat to our freedoms are the people who govern. If they look at the Constitution as an antiquated document, then we will indeed be in grave danger of losing all freedoms. Recently I was given a copy of the Constitution. On the cover was a disclaimer, “This is an antiquated document.” The Speaker of the House of Representatives, when asked if one of her pet projects would be considered constitutionally stated, “Are you kidding?”. She no longer considers the Constitution important except when it is used to further the agenda of her party. We will either return to a Constitutional government or live under tyranny worse than that of King George. We will then not have our rights removed from us by force, we will have surrendered them for the illusion of security.
2nd Peaceful Armed Open Carry Restore the Constitution Rally to Hit Greensboro NC
Posted by: | CommentsI have just received word in a Press Release that there will be a second “Peaceful” armed open carry rally which will be held in Greensboro, North Carolina on August, 14, 2010.
Armed Open Carry rally in Alexandria, VA April 19, 2010
You may recall a similar peaceful rally that didn’t receive much MSM press earlier this year. On April 19, 2010 a group came together and held a peaceful armed open carry Restore the Constitution rally at Fort Hunt Park in Alexandria, Virginia where they expressed their support for their Second Amendment rights provided by the Constitution while also expressing their serious concerns for the many attacks, by those with a socialist agenda, currently taking place against the Constitution.
This year the event will be held at the Guilford Courthouse Battleground National Park in Greensboro, NC from 1-4 PM on April 14th. The permit has been approved for the event and they are requesting that you follow all state and federal laws and any guidelines the group puts in place. Please take a look at Randy’s Right for a detailed list of these laws.
This year’s speakers are expected to be Mike Vanderboegh, Daniel Almond, Taylor Ruble, John Ainsworth, Ron Woodard, David DeGerolamo, Bubba McDowell, Laura Long, Dr Dan Eichenbaym, Dr BJ Lawson, Rick Smith, Bill Randall, June Griffin, Tom Baugh, Dr Ada Fisher, and Vernon Robertson.
Once again, this will be a peaceful event with law abiding citizens coming together to support their Constitution.
Your Iowa Taxes Pay a Lobbyist to Remove Your Right to Bear Arms (Corrected)
Posted by: | CommentsArticle written by, Michael Ware, Vice-President – Operations Iowa Carry .org
That’s right. You read correctly. Let me make this clear for you. Your Iowa taxes pay a lobbyist to remove your right to bear arms. Your doctor would probably be unhappy with me for managing to raise your blood pressure 15 points in five seconds. However, your doctor’s unhappiness aside, you need to consider a few things.
As Iowa Carry has worked to change the Iowa Code we’ve run into about as many obstacles as you can imagine. Some that were evident from the start and some nobody could have seen. It seems as if making a change that honors Iowans is something nice to think about, but in actuality much harder to accomplish. I happen to subscribe whole heartedly to the Sun Tzu ethic and I reread “The Art of War” at least once a year. Many of you are thinking “know your enemy” at this point and you’d be right on the money. Through years of watching, reading, and participating on various forums I noticed a pretty high rate of questions and answers regarding the law in Iowa. While some of this takes interpretation from a lawyer, the vast majority of the questions I noticed were those of simple Iowa Code. I began combing the legislature and reading Iowa Code to familiarize myself with the layout, the content, the means to look up and search for various code, etc. I also began researching activity within the legislature. I started following lobbying while reading and digesting lobbying reports.
Header Image at Iowa Carry .org
The ISSDA (Iowa State Sheriffs and Deputies Association) came to forefront this past session as an opponent to our legislation. The ISSDA is comprised of many county sheriffs and deputies. Of the 99 Iowa counties, seven counties don’t belong. The 92 counties that are members all pay membership dues in some fashion. The board of the ISSDA speaks on behalf of their membership. They have various committees one of which is their Legislative Committee. They employ a lobbyist. Sounds pretty normal, right?
How is the ISSDA funded? There are several ways. The members which include the Sheriffs and Deputies pay membership dues much like most organizations. Some members pay out of their pocket, some counties organize pancake breakfasts and local fundraisers to fund their dues. Primarily, most forecast their dues into the county budget and your taxes pay for the membership to this organization. Did the hair raise on the back of your neck a little? If it hasn’t, it soon will.
Let’s delve into the numbers a bit with documentation via the state’s legislative website. According to the copy of client data 2008-2009 the ISSDA spent $51,063.29 in lobbying and expenses with their registered lobbyist. To most of us that sounds like quite a bit. To others, it may just be a number. I decided to compare for myself what the ISSDA spent on lobbying against others during the same time period. Some of the names I found and the amounts they spent are surprising, so I looked specifically at some local companies many of you may know as examples. Have you ever bought gasoline? Casey’s spent $23,350.00. Do you ever gamble? Diamond Jo Casinos spent $20,000.00. Do you buy groceries? Hy Vee spent $55,401.33. Do you use a computer? Microsoft spent $13,394.25. Do you have insurance? Principal spent $22,404.97. Have you ever crossed a set of train tracks? Union Pacific Rail Road spent $7,000.00. Do you use a bank? Wells Fargo spent $44,500.00. These are some of the largest and most well known companies in the Iowa area, and they lobby for their own self interests with huge sums of money – each spends cash to benefit their financial position. What is the ISSDA spending their money for? Is it their money to spend?
If you haven’t noticed a trend here, I’ll spell it out for you. The ISSDA is spending massive amounts of money to lobby against your right to bear arms – and you’re paying for it!
I have researched the monies spent that a certain lobbyist reported. Of the $7400.00 contributed, by this lobbyist, to campaigns in 43 separate disbursements, 28 were spent with Democrats at a total of $5350.00. The other 15 disbursements of $2050.00 were spent with Republicans.
This brings me to some reasonable conclusions. The ISSDA board obviously doesn’t speak for all Iowa’s sheriffs as many counties don’t belong as members. Of those counties that do belong to the ISSDA, the cross section of sheriffs is about 50/50 with Democrats and Republicans. Did the ISSDA board report to their members how much they spent with a certain lobbyist, as compared to other entities that lobby? I doubt it. Did the ISSDA board mention how heavily weighted it was toward Democratic Legislators? I doubt it. Why spend so much with Democrats that control the Governor’s office, the House, and the Senate? Is this payback in some fasion? Over one thousand entities were able to lobby last year and many did. Of the largest monies spent on lobbying the ISSDA managed to rank near the top. If I were an ISSDA member I’d be questioning their motives and their expenditures a bit. After all, it appears as the ISSDA lobbyist efforts have taken this on as a partisan issue, when it is simply an issue of freedom.
We hold Iowa Law Enforcement in the highest possible regard and the vast majority of these good men and women support us. However there are those that
Gun Carry Guessing
support taxpayer funded lobbying and discrimination of your right to bear arms. IowaCarry fights this fight throughout an entire year on one quarter what the ISSDA spent for a portion of the year. Unlike the ISSDA we speak for all our members, as they volunteer to be part of our group. Most of all we fight this fight with ethics and morality. While Iowa Code section 68A.505 prohibits use of public resources for political purposes, it does not apply to lobbying. Your taxes pay a lobbyist to remove your right to carry a weapon. Are you ready to join the fight yet? Join us at Iowa Carry .org.
Editor’s Note: Correction – Iowa Carry has asked that some content be corrected in this article.
How Could Owning a Gun Prevent You from Getting Healthcare? (Updated)
Posted by: | CommentsWe are all quite aware that the Baucus healthcare bill passed through the Senate Finance Committee with promises to increase your healthcare costs and your taxes. Fortunately, the President still does not have the 60 votes needed to make his nationalized healthcare reform pass through as law.
There are still a number of serious concerns lurking around this whole issue. One of the biggest would be the question of just how much health care would increase
under the recently passed Baucus bill? One estimate produced by, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, shows that the new legislation could cost the average household of four an estimated $26,000 more per year. That’s right! That is $26,000 that could have been used to purchase firearms and ammunition and instead will be going to support the mandated Obamacare.
What you aren’t seeing in the news is that the nationalized healthcare legislation could very easily be refused to you if you are one of the hundreds of thousands who are gun owners and Second Amendment supporters. No matter which bill you are looking at, there will be a national database which will contain your personal and medical details. It has been reported through a number of sources that medical questionnaires have already been including questions asking if you own guns, along with many other questions that do not pertain to your health. It is the belief of many that these questions have been posed in preparation of the national database.
Reports from GOA have already alerted members of discrimination against gun owners having already occurred by the homeowner insurance industry.
“Gary Atkinson, a South Carolina businessman and Del Bruno, a Connecticut cop, have had a common problem. When their insurance companies found out that they were involved with guns, they had their insurance coverage canceled.”
“After some research, Atkinson learned that State Farm has canceled other people in other parts of the country. It seems they have — for the agents — a permissive policy. If the agent wants to cancel a gun owner, they can do so at their own discretion.”
Now, Gun Owners of America comes out with,
“…proposed healthcare legislation would compile the information of Americans into a government database. The group says that by using this data, the government could deem a citizen “medically unfit” to carry a gun.
“All of the proposals that we’re aware of would handle people’s health data that way,” said Larry Pratt, executive director of the group.
“And then you end up having a gazillion people lose their gun rights because of some medical record that someone doesn’t like, where they say, ‘Oh, that might be a danger to their self or others.’ No trial, no due process, just gone.”
It seems to me that gun owners now have many more reasons to take a stand against the proposed healthcare legislation with the potential for their Second Amendment rights to come under even greater attack.
Judge Napolitano Voices in on New Jersey v Brian Aitken
Posted by: | CommentsI have just received this update from Brian Aitken regarding his arrest by New Jersey law enforcement for allegedly transporting firearms illegally. Judge Napolitano offers his opinions on his show, “Freedom Watch”. What adds weight to his opinions on this case is that the Judge use to be a Superior Court Judge in the state of New Jersey.
I owe all of you a huge thank you for voting for Brian to appear on Judge Napolitano’s show and for having a faith in this young man as he endures this potentially life changing attack on his Constitutional Rights.
Article helping to break Brian’s Story:
Brian Aitken Follows New Jersey Gun Laws and Now Faces 7 years in Prison
Find Details of Brian Aitken’s appearance in his press release:
Yesterday, Brian Aitken appeared on “Freedom Watch” on FOX News to discuss his unconstitutional arrest and indictment with Judge Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court Judge.
Mr. Aitken, a 25 year old resident of New Jersey, was arrested for what the State of New Jersey has called “illegal possession of unregistered firearms” on January 2, 2009. According to all verifiable sources, it appears Mr. Aitken was abiding by the law and even went so far as to seek the advice of New Jersey State Police before being arrested for doing what he was told—even though State and Federal laws protect his right to possess and transport his legally owned firearms.
Surprisingly, Mr. Aitken has received no local or national media attention until recently; understandable when one considers the local media has had their hands full with the recent New Jersey Corruption Sting—which resulted in the arrest of mayors, state lawmakers, and other public officials.
Mr. Aitkens first national appearance began with Judge Napolitano saying, ““I am happy to meet you because you are a lover of freedom, and a defender of freedom, although your rights in the Garden State have not been upheld by the judicial system.”
The interview was most notable due to the Judges’ personal and professional connection to New Jersey. Judge Napolitano spent his career as a lawyer and Superior Court Judge in the same state that is trying to lock up Mr. Aitken for obeying the law. Add in the 11 years Judge Napolitano spent as a constitutional law professor at Seton Hall University and it’s difficult to imagine anyone could know the New Jersey State Law better than him. “Jersey is not a gun-friendly state,” said Judge Napolitano, “I can tell you as a former life tenured judge in that State, [New Jersey] is not a friend of the Second Amendment.”
Judge Napolitanos’ expert opinion? “They were legally possessed… I’m 100% on your [Brian Aitkens’] side.”
Part 6: 08/05/2009 Freedom Watch 26 w/ Brian Aitken
