EXPOSED – ‘Black Lives’ Leader Arrested On SHOCKING Charges, National Media Hides It

There are people who truly sacrifice and dedicate their lives to the betterment of society. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was one such man. With nothing to hide, he marched through the Democrat South seeking to be “free at last,” so that all people – not just black people – could be free.However, there are those who only claim to be advocates or social crusaders, who do so just to bolster their low self-esteem or to fraudulently elevate their “fame quotient.” One such miscreant is a former Black Lives Matter leader from Atlanta, Tyree “Sir Maejor” Page. It appears this “black social justice” leader has been arrested multiple times for…wait for it…impersonating a police officer.

It is ironic – and at the very least pathetic – that someone who sought the spotlight to castigate law enforcement wanted so badly to be a law enforcement officer. It proves Page was nothing more than a two-bit fame seeker.

Page became one of the faces of leadership for the Black Lives Matter movement in the days following the chaotic and raucous marches through Atlanta’s streets protesting fatal police shootings. Page was even a member of a group that met with Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed to demand changes in police training and tactics. He was even a featured speaker at the ensuing joint news conference.

In the joint news conference with Mayor Reed and Atlanta Police Chief George Turner, Page said, “We stand on the shoulders of those that have paved the way for us to be able to protest in the streets and to be able to have our voices heard.”

However, when politicians and law enforcement leadership don’t do their due diligence on understanding who they are commiserating with, embarrassing situations can develop. They certainly did in this case.
Page had already been arrested – multiple times – for impersonating a police officer. In fact, his social media pages are loaded with pictures of him decked out with weapons and tactical gear.

In December 2014, Atlanta police charged Page with impersonating a police officer when they found him at a gas station “wearing a replica of the Atlanta police officer uniform” and armed with a Glock 45 automatic pistol and other police-relevant gear. He had a black female handcuffed in front of the gas station. Page said he was working security there, but this was found to be untrue.

In October 2015, police arrested Page, who was again armed and wearing a bulletproof vest, outside a MARTA station. He, stupidly, demanded to see identification from a man who turned out to be an Atlanta Police Department sergeant.

And again, Page was arrested this January after he “blustered” his way past security guards at a high-security state office building. He claimed he was an FBI agent. Court records evidence he was carrying a gun. Stunningly, he managed to gain access to the Secretary of State’s corporate records office. One witness at the Sloppy Floyd state office building said that Page “had more weapons than I’ve ever seen an officer wear.”
However, our plea bargain legal system being what it is, Page was allowed to evade the three felony counts of impersonating a law enforcement officer by pleading guilty to lesser charges of obstruction and carrying a weapon in an unauthorized location.
Page is currently on two years of probation.
Page and the Black Lives Matter Atlanta faction of the movement parted ways a few months back—but being the opportunist he is, Page started his own group: Black Lives Matter of Greater Atlanta.
This is the opportunistic face of Black Lives Matter. It is a gaggle of disingenuous, victimhood class, special interest narcissists who ignore the statistics refuting their ridiculous claims even as they set their own neighborhoods on fire in protest.
Of course, the judge in the plea bargain should have sentenced Page to being on the front lines of the BLM riots. That would have been a proper punishment for this so-called “activist.”

Thomas Jefferson

"Those who hammer their guns
into plows will plow for those
who do not." Thomas Jefferson

How To Buy A Silencer Without Really Trying

Posted on August 15, 2016 by Tom McHale

By Tom McHale
Gun guy, Tom Mchale, gives us a quick look at the new process for individuals and trusts on how to buy a silencer.

How To Buy A Silencer Without Really Trying

Tom McHale

USA –- Every time I go to the range with a couple of suppressors, I get the question, “Can anyone buy one of those?”

Yes, still, after decades of legality, it’s still a common question, probably because Uncle Spendy makes the process of buying and owning one so darn confusing.

Here, we’re going to take on the herculean, and most likely impossible, task of translating government regulation-speak into common English and a set of easy to follow steps, so you can figure out how to buy a silencer or suppressor if you so desire.
The whole process just changed somewhat, thanks to the implementation of ATF Rule 41F, which took effect July 13, 2016. Under the new rules, the purchase process became easier for some and more difficult for others.

The net-net explanation is that there are two ways to legally buy a suppressor – as an individual or as a legal entity like a trust or corporation. For individuals, restrictions have lightened up a bit. For entities, you have to do more legwork.

While pros and cons of buying as an individual or trust is a whole separate discussion, it’s worth a brief diversion here to look at the big pros and cons.
If you buy as an individual, you fill out paperwork, jump through some hoops, and you own a suppressor. As far as overly-complicated government processes go, it’s a fairly straightforward process. However, you are the only one who can own and use the suppressor. You can’t loan it to someone else. You can’t transfer it to a friend or family member without them going through the whole process you just did.

Springfield Armory XDM Threaded Models in 9mm and .45 ACP shown here with a SilencerCo Osprey (top) and SilencerCo Octane (bottom)

SilencerCo Salvo 12 Shotgun Silencer

If you go to the trouble and expense to set up a legal entity like a gun trust, it’ll cost you a couple hundred bucks for the legal work to create your trust. However, when the trust buys a suppressor, all trustees designated on that trust have legal access to use suppressors, buy more on behalf of the trust, or sell them later. Multiple people have legal authority to use it. As an example, I use a trust for all of my immediate family members so any of us can use any of our collective suppressors. If I die, those I leave behind have full legal right to continue owning and using the silencers.

How To Buy A Silencer

So back to the how-to process. Let’s take a quick look at the new process for individuals and trusts. We’ll ignore how it used to be because you can’t do that anymore anyway.
If you’re buying a suppressor as an individual, your life is a little bit easier with implementation of 41F, mainly because you no longer need to get specific permission from your chief law enforcement officer (CLEO). We’ll explain that in a minute.

Here are the steps on how to buy a silencer as an individual:

Step 1: Choose the suppressor you want from a dealer like SilencerCo. You’ll probably have to pay for it up front, or at least leave a deposit, but that’s up to your dealer. They’ll need some money because they’ll have to hold it for some undetermined number of months while Uncle Sam laboriously scrutinizes your paperwork.
Step 2: Your dealer will help you fill out a BATFE Form 4 titled “Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm.” Yes, this is for a suppressor, but the paperwork is for other National Firearm Act items too like short barrel rifles. The form asks for information on the specific silencer, its make and model, serial number and so on. It also contains information about you, the buyer. On the back are a series of questions that affirm your legal ability to purchase this item. The requirements are essentially the same as when you pass an NICS check to buy a regular firearm. If you’re not a convicted felon, currently indicted for a felony, drug user, mental defective, and don’t have a restraining order, you’re probably OK.
Step 3: You’ll need to attach a fingerprint card and a 2×2-inch photograph of yourself taken within the past year. Basically, this is a common passport photo. This is a good place to mention how enterprising people have made the process much, much easier. If you buy a suppressor through the SilencerCo network of dealers they offer a useful download, EasyGuide To Purchasing A Silencer .
Step 4: Next, you’ll need to send a copy of the completed Form 4 from Step 2 to your local Chief Law Enforcement Officer. This is a bit of a chicken and egg situation as the Form 4 asks for the name and address information of the CLEO in your area where you sent a copy of the same Form 4. Just fill it out with the right contact information, then send it to your CLEO. Here’s a positive change for individual purchasers. Before, you would have had to get permission from your local CLEO before even submitting your application to the ATF. Many CLEOs in less gun friendly areas simply would not approve suppressor applications, thereby creating a de-facto ban on suppressor ownership in their area of jurisdiction. Now, you don’t need their permission, you only have to inform them, and they can’t prevent your purchase without a legal reason proving that you are ineligible.
Step 5: Package all this up, along with a check, money order, or credit card number and send it off to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Your dealer will help you with this to make sure you’ve got everything together.
Step 6: Wait. And wait. And wait some more. It’ll take months. How many depends on how nervous people are about the pending political situation. If it looks like Hillary is going to win, there will be a flood of suppressor applications and the ATF will get backlogged again, causing delays of a year or more. At time this article was written (August 2016), you’ll probably only have to wait a few months to get your approval back.

National Firearms Act Transfer Stamp

Step 7: Eventually, you’ll get a letter from the ATF with a copy of your Form 4 with an attractive and colorful stamp attached. This is your permission slip to take possession of the suppressor you paid for that’s been collecting dust while the ATF dilly dallies around with your application. Make photocopies of this and keep one with the suppressor at all times – you have to produce it if asked by law enforcement. Stash the original away somewhere safe.

If you buy as a trust, the process is almost identical. The only difference is that all trustees will have to do the fingerprints, passport photos, and complete an ATF Form 5320.23 Responsible Person Questionnaire each time the trust acquires a silencer. As a result, your application packet will be about an inch thick, which is really funny because the fine print on all these forms always has a notice about the National Paperwork Reduction Act. Hmmm, imagine that.
That’s all my advice on how to buy a silencer. It sounds harder than it really is, and a good dealer knows this process cold and can walk you right through it.

Well, folks, this is a great example of your tax dollars at work. All this, just to buy a muffler to protect your hearing and those around you.

This is how the US military would put down an armed rebellion

• Blake Stilwell, We Are The Mighty

Members of the US Army reserve stand at attention. Getty Images / Paul J Richards
What if the “2nd amendment people” Donald Trump mentioned recently during a campaign rally were actually able to spark an armed rebellion to overthrow the United States?
In a 2012 article for the Small Wars Journal, two academics took a stab at such a scenario and tried to figure out how state and federal authorities would likely respond to a small force taking over an American town.
In their paper, retired Army colonel and University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies professor Kevin Benson and Kansas University history professor Jennifer Weber wargamed a scenario where a Tea Party-motivated militia took over the town of Darlington, South Carolina.
The circumstances may seem far-fetched, but in today’s deeply partisan political environment, it’s at least worth looking into how the feds would respond if an American town tried to go it alone.

Precedents for fighting an insurrection

Benson and Weber cite Abraham Lincoln’s executive actions during the Civil War and Dwight Eisenhower’s 1957 intervention in Little Rock, Arkansas as precedents for the executive use of force in crushing a rebellion. The President would be able to mobilize the military and Department of Homeland Security to recapture a secessionist city and restore the elected government.
The government would invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 to form a response:

From Title 10 US Code the President may use the militia or Armed Forces to:
§ 331 – Suppress an insurrection against a State government at the request of the Legislature or, if not in session, the Governor.
§ 332 – Suppress unlawful obstruction or rebellion against the U.S.
§ 333 – Suppress insurrection or domestic violence if it (1) hinders the execution of the laws to the extent that a part or class of citizens are deprived of Constitutional rights and the State is unable or refuses to protect those rights or (2) obstructs the execution of any Federal law or impedes the course of justice under Federal laws.)

The Insurrection Act governs the roles of the military, local law enforcement, and civilian leadership inside the U.S. as this type of scenario plays out.
A US Soldier with the 464th Military Police Platoon fires an M9 Beretta pistol during training. Wikimedia Commons

How it could go down

An extreme right-wing militia takes over the town of Darlington, South Carolina, placing the mayor under house arrest and disbanding the city council. Local police are disarmed or are sympathetic to the militia’s cause and integrated into the militia.
The rebels choke traffic on interstates 95 and 20, collecting “tolls” to fund their arsenal and operation. Militiamen also stop rail lines and detain anyone who protests their actions.
The insurgents use social media and press conferences to invoke the Declaration of Independence as their rationale, arguing they have the right to “alter or abolish the existing government and replace it with another that, in the words of the Declaration, ‘shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.’”
Because of this, they enjoy a “groundswell” of support from similarly-minded locals throughout the state. The mayor contacts the governor and his congressman. The governor doesn’t call out the National Guard for fear they’d side with the militiamen. He monitors the situation using the State Police but through aides, he asks the federal government to step in and restore order, but cannot do so publicly.
The President of the United States gives the militia 15 days to disperse.

Mobilizing a response

The executive branch first calls the state National Guard to federal service. The Joint Staff alerts the U.S. Northern Command who orders U.S. Army North/Fifth U.S. Army to form a joint task force headquarters. Local units go on alert – in this case, the U.S. Army at Forts Bragg and Stewart in North Carolina and Georgia, respectively, and Marines at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
CH-46 during exercise at Camp Lejeune October 2007 Wikimedia
The Fifth Army begins its mission analysis and intelligence preparation of the battlefield. This includes locating enemy bases, critical infrastructure, terrain, potential weather, and other important information.
Once the Fifth Army commander has a complete picture of the militia’s behavior patterns, deployments of forces, and activity inside the town, he begins a phased deployment of federal forces.

Civilian control of the military

The Fifth Army is in command of the military forces, but the Department of Justice is still the lead federal agency in charge on the ground. The Attorney General can designate a Senior Civilian Representative of the Attorney General (SCRAG) to coordinate all federal agencies and has the authority to assign missions to federal military forces. The Attorney General may also appoint a Senior Federal Law Enforcement Officer to coordinate federal law enforcement activities.
It’s interesting to note that many of the Constitutional protections afforded to American citizens still apply to those in arms against the government. For instance, federal judges will still have to authorize wiretaps on rebel phones during all phases of the federal response.
Troops on the ground will be aware of local, national, and international media constantly watching them and that every incidence of gunfire will likely be investigated.

Beginning combat operations

Combat units will begin show of force operations against militiamen to remind the rebels they’re now dealing with the actual United States military. Army and Marine Corps units will begin capturing and dismantling the checkpoints and roadblocks held by the militia members.
Cpl. Justin Dudley from Oxnard, California, with Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 262 (Reinforced), 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, 3rd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, keeps watch while flying in a UH-1Y Venom during Amphibious Landing Exercise 15 at Crow Valley, Sept. 30, 2014. US Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Robert Williams Jr./Released
All federal troops will use the minimum amount of force, violence, and numbers necessary. Only increasing to put pressure on the insurrectionist leaders.
After dismantling checkpoints, soldiers and Marines will recapture critical infrastructure areas in the city, such as water and power stations, as well as TV and radio stations and hospitals.
Meanwhile, state law enforcement and activated National Guard units will care for the fleeing and residents of the city. This is partly for political reasons, allowing the government most susceptible to local voters to be seen largely absent from being in direct, sometimes armed conflict with their own elected officials.

Restoring government control

Federal troops will maintain law and order on the streets of the city as elected officials return to their offices. Drawing on U.S. military history, the government will likely give individual members of the militia a general amnesty while prosecuting the leaders and those who broke the law during the uprising.

Read the original article on We Are The Mighty. Copyright 2016. Follow We Are The Mighty on Twitter.

Seattle judge upholds ATF’s decision banning ammo designed for AK-47s

Originally published August 10, 2016 at 3:22 pm Updated August 10, 2016 at 3:29 pm

The decision came in a lawsuit brought by Redmond-based P.W. Arms Inc., which obtained permits to import more than 100 million rounds of the Russian- and Eastern European-made ammunition.

By

The Associated Press

 

A federal judge in Seattle has upheld a decision by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to ban ammunition originally designed for AK-47 assault rifles.
The decision Wednesday by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour came in a lawsuit brought by Redmond-based P.W. Arms Inc., which obtained permits to import more than 100 million rounds of the Russian- and Eastern European-made ammunition known as 7N6. When the first shipments arrived in early 2014, the ATF deemed them “armor-piercing” and barred their importation for civilian resale.
The company said the agency misinterpreted the definition of armor-piercing bullets under federal law. But the judge disagreed, saying they contain a steel core and can be fired from a handgun.
Coughenour noted that P.W. Arms never disputed the bullets can pierce body armor, and he called the company’s arguments disingenuous.

Now The Obama Administration Is After Gunsmiths?

Frank Miniter ,  

Contributor

I expose the excesses of the bureaucracy.

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

The gunsmith here is fixing a sight on a rifle. The Obama administration is now saying that gunsmiths are “manufacturers” who must register with the State Department and pay a $2,250 annual fee. (ATTILA KISBENEDEK/AFP/Getty Images)

My gunsmith has a lathe, a drill press, even a barrel reamer. He uses them to repair guns. To him, they are like a car mechanic’s welding equipment, drill and cutter tools. He never thought drilling out a broken-off screw or grinding down a gun part to make a rifle’s action work smoother would define him as a “manufacturer.” But now, according to the federal government, he is a manufacturer and is required to pay a $2,250 annual fee as mandated by the U.S. State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) regulations. This is what the Obama administration is now saying in a rule change.
Manta lists 15,615 gunsmiths in American today. Many of these are small shops—many of them are even side businesses for people who began tinkering with guns and then went to a gunsmith school. Requiring these people to pay $2,250 every year will drive many of them out of business or underground. Perhaps that is the reason for the rule change from the Obama administration. If there is another reason, they aren’t making it public.
This “guidance” for federal regulators from the U.S. Department of State was issued on July 22.
A statement from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for firearms manufacturers, says this “‘guidance’ has created considerable and understandable confusion and concern among gunsmiths and gun owners.”
The text of the Arms Export Control Act, which these regulations stem from, uses the term “manufacture” as the dictionary defines it, not in the expansive way the government is now attempting to use it. According to the Obama administration’s new definition of what constitutes a manufacturer, everything from bicycle repair shops to carpenters would be deemed “manufacturers” and therefore be subject to regulations and fees that companies that make products and import and/or export goods are subject to. But those other businesses are not being defined as manufacturers. So, as gunsmiths are being singled out, this is obviously more gun-control politics from the Obama administration.
This $2,250 fee is designed to fund the DDTC’s export licensing system. How are gunsmiths using or burdening this system? The NSSF says, “This is even more outrageous when one considers that DDTC is sitting on at least $140 million dollars of previously paid registration fees collected over many years from exporters from many industries including ours.”
The NSSF says they are lobbying Congress to step in and fix this problem with legislation. They also say, “The Obama Administration has refused to publish and implement the regulatory changes necessary to transfer for export licensing of commercial and sporting firearms and ammunition products to the Department of Commerce from the Department of State.”
Imagine a gunsmith getting up from his bench, where he was busy tweaking a gun’s stock for a customer, to answer a call from the State Department demanding he pay $2,250 every year or face the legal consequences, and you see why this is outrageous.
As there is no known reason for burdening gunsmiths with this large annual fee, and because doing so requires a strange and expansive redefinition of the word “manufacture,” it seems clear this is just more gun-control politics from the Obama administration.

Obama Administration Releases Latest Executive Gun Control

By Dave Dolbee published on July 30, 2016 in General

It seems the closer we get to President Obama departure from the White House, the more brazen he is getting with his gun control agenda. The administration’s latest action targets small manufacturers and gunsmiths—the heart of the firearms small business community. But make no mistake; an attack on one has a ripple effect and is an attack on us all.
Here is the full release from the NRA-ILA:

On Friday, July 22, just as members of his party were gathering in Philadelphia to coronate Hillary Clinton as their presidential nominee, the Obama Administration once again released a sweeping gun control measure by executive fiat. This time the bad news came via the U.S. State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), which is primarily responsible for administering the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and its implementing rules, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The upshot is that DDTC is labeling commercial gunsmiths as “manufacturers” for performing relatively simple work such as threading a barrel or fabricating a small custom part for an older firearm. Under the AECA, “manufacturers” are required to register with DDTC at significant expense or risk onerous criminal penalties.
As with prior executive actions on guns, the administration released its dictate suddenly and without advance warning to or prior input from affected businesses, completely bypassing the normal formalities associated with a significant rulemaking. The guidance is also likely to result in more confusion than clarity and may significantly chill heretofore legal conduct associated with gunsmithing.
By way of background, the AECA and ITAR concern rules by which military materiel is exported from, and imported to, the United States. The so-called “defense articles” governed by the AECA/ITAR are compiled in what is known as the U.S. Munitions List and include some, but not all, firearms and ammunition, as well as their parts and components. Thus, for purposes of the regime, a spring or floorplate from the magazine of a controlled firearm is subject to the same regulatory framework as the firearm itself.

As promised, President Obama is no longer relying on his phone, and enacting gun control with his pen through executive action.

The AECA/ITAR require anybody who engages in the business of “manufacturing” a defense article to register with DDTC and pay a registration fee that for new applicants is currently $2,250 per year. These requirements apply, even if the business does not, and does not intend to, export any defense article. Moreover, under ITAR, “only one occasion of manufacturing … a defense article” is necessary for a commercial entity to be considered “engaged in the business” and therefore subject to the regime’s requirements.
Adding to the confusion, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and its amendments (GCA) also regulate firearm manufacturing, importing, and exporting. Both of the laws also use the same or similar terms but apply them in different ways. Thus, what triggers the legal requirement for an entity to be registered as a “manufacturer” under the AECA/ITAR may or may not also bring that entity within the scope of the GCA, and vice versa.
DDTC’s new “guidance” only makes this situation worse by coming up with a confusing and counterintuitive list of activities that it considers “gunsmithing” versus “manufacturing” (despite the fact that it insists it relies on the “ordinary, contemporary, common meaning” of those terms).
For example, DDTC generally labels procedures that involve cutting, drilling, or machining of an existing firearm in order to improve its accuracy or operation or to change its caliber as “manufacturing,” even if they do not create a new and distinct firearm. This includes threading a muzzle for a muzzle brake or blueprinting that requires machining of a barrel.
On the other hand, DDTC contends that gunsmithing includes only very simple procedures, such as the one-for-one drop-in replacement of parts that do not require cutting, drilling, or machining for installation. But even then, if the parts “improve the accuracy, caliber, or other aspects of firearm operation,” “manufacturing” may occur. Finishing treatments for firearms generally are not considered manufacturing under the guidance, nor are cosmetic flourishes such as engraving. Meanwhile the mounting of a scope that involves the machining of new dovetails or the drilling and tapping of holes may or not be “manufacturing,” depending on whether the scope improves the accuracy of the firearm beyond its prior configuration.

It seems the government only wants to pass laws to strip the weapons from honest gun owners. I have yet to hear of a single law being proposed that seeks to remove guns from the hands of criminals. Have you?

For those who are confused by the guidance, DDTC offers the option of requesting an advisory opinion through the agency. The regulation providing for such opinions, however, states they “are not binding on the Department of State, and may not be used in future matters before the Department.” Moreover, the request involves typical bureaucratic hoops to negotiate, including providing both an original and seven copies of the request and supporting information in hardcopy form.
DDTC’s move appears aimed at expanding the regulatory sweep of the AECA/ITAR and culling many smaller commercial gunsmithing operations that do not have the means to pay the annual registration fee or the sophistication to negotiate DDTC’s confusing maze of bureaucracy. Like ATF’s early “guidance” this year on the GCA’s licensing requirement for firearm “dealers,” it is also likely to have a significant chilling effect on activity that would not even be considered regulated.
The administration’s latest move serves as a timely reminder of how the politicized and arrogant abuse of executive power can be used to suppress Second Amendment rights and curtail lawful firearm-related commerce. That lesson should not be forgotten when voters go to the polls this November.

What’s next? What else do you think the President will do to assault the Second Amendment before he leaves office?