Family of Gun Owners Stop Persistent Home Intruder

Posted By Philip Hodges on Apr 11, 2014

The Penas are a family of gun owners who live in Florida. Luis Pena, the dad, awoke one morning to investigate noises he heard. He saw a man trying to break in through the french doors that led do his back deck. Luis fired a warning shot to get the guy to leave, but the intruder was determined to break in.

By the time he made his way in through the doors and into their kitchen around 7 a.m., Luis’s wife and son had armed themselves, and all three of them were standing there, waiting to greet him.

The intruder, an apparently unarmed man, decided that it would be a good idea to charge at Luis, and when he did, Luis shot him in the torso and killed him.

I think this is a pretty clear cut case of self-defense. They even gave him a chance to run away by firing a warning shot. And since the guy was dumb enough to pursue three armed citizens in their own house, he got what he deserved. If they had had no guns and had to resort to calling the police, who knows what would have happened to this family in the time it took the police to show up?

Obama, Kerry, and a gaggle of others; all sellouts, all gungrabbers, all willing to submit to the @#! U.N, and give up our constitutional right to bear arms…


With NDAA we are NOT free anymore, if you haven’t done so, exercise your  2nd amendment rights.  Don’t wait till it’s too late.



BaldEagle_132-In_flight_on_water - Copy



 From Patriot Action Network

Posted by Darla Dawald, National Director on March 25, 2014

Common Core Workbook Says the Constitution Only Permits the Right to Keep & Bear Registered Firearms

From Our Own Liberty News Network:

Springfield Superintendent Says His Teachers Will Keep Using a Common Core Workbook that Says the Constitution Only Permits the Right to Keep & Bear Registered Firearms

Last week, Liberty News reported that a school district in Illinois is using a Common Core sanctioned workbook to teach students that the Constitution allows gun owners to only keep and bear registered firearms.

Now, Bob Hill, the Springfield School District Superintendent says seventh-graders at Grant Middle School will continue using the workbook despite Conservative parental objections, reports The Blaze.


Mr. Hill claims the controversial text is valid because, the workbook “is not the only resource that provides a definition of the Second Amendment.”

He further explains that he thinks the resource accurately places the Second Amendment in the “context of 2014.”

During a recent interview with the local radio station, 970 WMAY, Hill states that he will not stop teachers from using the book because doing so would be “unfair” and “insulting” “micromanagement.”

He even claimed “the material is not ‘proselytizing’ a certain political point of view” and argued, removing the material would be “pretty unfair relative to what the teacher has going on,” reports The Blaze.

At no point did the superintendent ever comment on the Second Amendment’s original intent which has remained unchanged since its inception – giving the American people the right to defend themselves with force when challenged by armed adversaries.

If you’re interested in hearing Hill’s radio interview concerning his position on the controversy, you can listen via mp3 here.

Liberty News Network

This quote makes me so angry:

Mr. Hill claims the controversial text is valid because, the workbook “is not the only resource that provides a definition of the Second Amendment.”

He further explains that he thinks the resource accurately places the Second Amendment in the “context of 2014.”

These people are hell bent on reshaping America, our Constitution, our history, our future, and our children!

Friends, we must push back! Show up in outrage at the school board meetings!!

Darla Dawald


Malloy On Connecticut’s “Assault Weapon” Ban: “Your Side Lost”

Posted by on March 16, 2014 at 10:38 am

When confronted by a citizen who takes issue with the state’s blatantly unconstitutional “assault weapon” ban, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy tells him that “your side lost” and that we must comply with the law.


He further—and dishonestly—claims that the law was merely re-outlawing guns that “were illegal until 2004.” Presumably, Malloy is referring to the 1994-2004 federal assault weapon ban, and is acting as if modern firearms and standard capacity magazines were always against the law until 2004.

This is a blatant and calculated falsehood.

It’s quite obvious from his rhetoric that Malloy has no intention of backing down and repealing this law.

What is still unknown is how greatly outnumbered Connecticut law enforcement officers are going to enforce this law, and if their attempts to enforce it are going to lead to an outbreak of violence as tensions remain very high in the state.

If blood is spilled as the result of enforcing this blatantly unconstitutional law, the blame will like squarely on the heads of Governor Malloy and the legislature.


Bob Owens Author: Bob Owens is the Editor of A long-time shooting enthusiast, he began blogging as a North Carolina native in New York at the politics-focused Confederate Yankee in 2004. In 2007 Bob began writing about firearms, gun rights, and crime at Pajamas Media, and added gun and gear reviews for Shooting Illustrated in 2010. He is a volunteer in the Appleseed Project, where he shares stories of our shared American heritage and teaches traditional rifle marksmanship. His personal blog is, and he can be found on Twitter at bob_owens.

Editor’s Note: I told you about the situation involving Ares Armor at the end of February. Now, it seems that the ATF has tyrannically stepped in and raided our friends at Ares Armor, potentially exposing thousands of customers to possible raids by the rogue federal agency.

This is one of those stories that leaves one with that sick and sinking feeling. If it has not already been made clear, the federal government just sent another message to gun owners. They will get our information, and eventually confiscate our guns, by whatever means necessary. If that means ignoring a restraining order or violating 4th amendment rights, they are not above doing that.

On Saturday, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives raided Ares Armor in an effort to obtain customer lists that were protected by a restraining order. Ares Armor manufactures components such as the lowers that people use to build their own AR-15. It has always been perfectly legal to do so and through an ongoing struggle Ares actually obtained a restraining order to protect the privacy of their customer database. They did however agree to turn over components to the ATF. That was not enough. On Saturday it ceased to matter.

BizPacReview reports:

When Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents expressed interest in a Southern California gun part and accessory store, it sought the protection of a federal district court. But on Saturday, agents raided the store anyway.

Ares Armor sells what are called “80% lower receivers” to allow a buyer to make his own AR-15 rifle. According to federal law,”The term ‘firearm’” includes “the frame or receiver of” a weapon, but one that is only 80 percent complete does not fall under that category.

When ATF agents began nosing around Ares Armor and started asking questions, the store obtained a temporary restraining order prohibiting the agency from seizing its product line and customer list. A hearing was scheduled for March 20 to litigate the issue.

However, on Saturday, ATF agents raided Ares pursuant to an ex parte order — an order obtained without notice to the other party, in this case Ares — and did just what Ares feared, according to the amateur video below.

More info and videos at:

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

From posting on PAN:

Ares Armor, owned by a Marine Corps veteran, invaded by the ATF. Call to action!

  • Posted by Gary Huggins on March 17, 2014

HEADS UP! Ares Armor, owned by Dimitrios Karras, a Marine Corps veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq, was raided by the ATF on Saturday, March 15, 2014 here in San Diego County. Please take action:

Statement from Dimitrios Ares, owner: “Our new friends are probably not pleased that we are not down on our knees begging for mercy. We have been contacted by several politicians already but we need all the help we can get! Please do more than offer kind words. Contact your representative or congressmen and make sure they know about our plight. What they have done is wrong!”

I urge you to contact your representatives and urge them to investigate this invasive and unwarranted raid by the ATF and take action to stop this tyranny.

Distribute this information to every 2nd Amendment and gun forum asap. Your assistance is greatly appreciated!

Ares Armor has a timeline of events regarding this tyranny here:
Ares Armor in National City, CA. raided by the ATF on Saturday, March 14, 2014


By / 4 March 2014

As we’ve noted in previous reports, sometimes things can spin out of control when open carry activists and police officers meet. That was certainly not the case in Austin, Texas, when an officer responded to a call about “suspicious” men openly carrying rifles.


In a video posted on YouTube in January by the activist group Come and Take It Texas, an officer is seen approaching the armed men in a non-aggressive fashion.

“Just checking you guys out,” he says in the video. “I already know the law.”

The officer, which the group identifies as Mark Dale with the Austin Police Department, even jokes with one of the men about his holstered squash. The man said he was openly carrying the squash as a joke because he’s unable to openly carry a pistol in Texas.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Patriot Action Network

Standing against big government and for the people!

Darla Dawald,…

Darla Dawald, National Director

Check out the discussion ‘Connecticut Gun Confiscation: Scott Wilson of CT Citizens Defense League With The Latest’

BRAND NEW INTERVIEW TODAY: The latest information from Connecticut on the state’s gun confiscation letter, what’s happening now, what happens next and HOW YOU CAN HELP!

Posted by Jimmy Z on March 3, 2014

My “two cents”  X.


email-bannerWritten on Thursday, February 13, 2014 by

I want to talk about the U.N. Small Arms Treaty. I have a written a couple of articles about it before, but in light of some recent developments, like the EU calling for the ratification of the treaty among European Union states for instance, it may be time to discuss it again. Also, let’s not forget the U.N. just issued resolution 2117, which calls for member states to collect civilian arms and destroy them. My friends, you only need to look at Australia, Canada and Britain to see that civilian disarmament is their goal.

To truly understand what is at stake here you simply need to look at the state of the country and how the left uses propaganda to distort everything. My friends, provisions are written into the treaty which authorizes the United Nations to act as peace keepers within the borders of “conflict areas.” What is happening here in our country? The United States could very well be considered an “unstable” region in the event of an economic collapse. The fact that many Americans are vigorously standing for their second amendment rights while it has been written into policy that doing so makes you a terrorist, could be all the excuse the U.N. needs in the event of this treaties ratification. Escalating tensions over the erosion of our constitutional rights could very well see the deployment of U.N. troops to deescalate tensions, and disarm so called “hostile” parties. That would be the patriots defending liberty of course.

Understand that this treaty puts all control of firearms production into the hands of government while drastically diminishing your rights to own them. Also, understand that nowhere in the treaty is the right to self defense recognized by the U.N. Nor is the right to self defense a recognized right in the U.N. Charter of human rights. What they do promise however is the right to be secure in a social and “international order” in which their interpretation of human rights can be fully realized. Better wake up folks, I don’t think they are on the same page as you and I.

Many of you are likely thinking that we are free and clear from any danger of this treaty being ratified. Several senators have taken a bold stand which makes the two thirds majority a virtual impossibility, for now. Can anyone explain to me the real purpose for all the radical rule changes in the senate? While they may revolve around other issues such as judicial appointments and other nominations, it clearly demonstrates an ability on the part of the democrats to do whatever they wish unchallenged by any opposition. Who can say that any of these rule changes haven’t already increased the chances of this treaties ratification? Sadly, with the Republican Party as split as it is on many issues, this is one we simply cannot ignore folks. The politicians we support will be feeling the heat to ratify this treaty at some point, probably after another Sandy Hook event.

The bottom line is this; the United States is one of the last remaining nations that recognize the inalienable right to own weapons for self defense. Self defense isn’t even accurate description; we have the right to bear arms in order to protect our freedoms, self defense from a tyrannical government intent on imposing its will against ours. Clearly, a global organization like the U.N., pushing an anti freedom agenda like agenda 21 is not going to allow this to continue. Especially after they have successfully implemented their disarmament plans in so many other parts of the world. I have said this before and I will say it again. Every bit of propaganda is designed to psychologically disarm you, take you off your guard if you will. Once they have done this physically disarming you is easy. This is why they try so hard to demonize gun owners. They are trying to psychologically condition you to voluntarily surrender your guns. Clearly, they weren’t expecting the American population to respond to this little scheme by purchasing more firearms. Eighty million gun owners determined to protect their freedoms should be quite an obstacle in the minds of U.N. gun grabbers. I truly love this country.

Read the rest of this Patriot Update article here:

Courtesy of Cry and Howl:

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out California’s concealed weapons rules.

February 13, 2014

I’m doing lately what I don’t usually do … find a story and simply link to it. But this one is too good to pass up. I know it’s difficult to believe but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out California’s concealed weapons rules.

Via: Yahoo News

Dan Cartwright, co-owner of TDS Guns, places a semi-automatic pistol on display at his store in Rocklin, Calif., Friday, July 27, 2012. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)

The AP Court tosses California’s concealed weapons rules Federal appeals courts strikes down California’s concealed weapons permit rules

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A divided federal appeals court has struck down California’s concealed weapons rules, saying they violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Thursday that California is wrong to require applicants to show good cause to receive a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The court ruled that all law-abiding citizens are entitled to carry concealed weapons outside the home for self-defense purposes.

The divided three-judge panel disagreed with two other federal appeals courts that have upheld permit rules similar to California’s.

The U.S. Supreme Court often takes cases when federal appeals courts issue conflicting rulings.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that law-abiding citizens can keep handguns in the home for self-defense purposes, but didn’t address whether that right extends outside the home.

I have to tell you though, the best part of this story is in the comments section. Scroll down after you click on the link and read some awesome comments by ordinary citizens.

X here – NOTE – Since this yahoo pg will change as comments are added. I posted these. See below:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =michael

michael    9 mins ago

lawyers! only a lawyer would think “bear” only applies to inside your home. when a man was said to “bear arms”, they meant as a solider. so if you told a civilian to bear arms, you meant as a soldier, or to defend the government as a volunteer….


  • Wayne   16 mins ago  

    All it’s going to do you probably have more and more law abiding California citizens carrying their hand guns and pistols illegally in consealment, because many law abiding calif. citizens are sick and tired of all of the #$%$ rules and regulations about hand guns and assault weapons!! Go to hell…

  • Laissez-Faire Advocate    56 mins ago

    Hopefully the same thing can now happen in NJ. Crime rates are up and I am not able to get a CCW permit because I do not have enough verified threats against me. I have some Pakistani guy telling me there is a problem with my MS Windows account and when I tell him I use Mac he started with questions as to why did I kill Bin Laden? I got State Police on my cell phone while they were ranting and telling me they were going to blow up my house, while reciting my address and apparently looking at google earth pictures. So I have that threat on file with State police, I had a guy point a gun at me in my truck and I drove like a maniac to get away from him and that is on file… but I do not have a reason to carry to protect myself????? Since no one really follows the laws anyway anymore… I am about to give up trying to stay legal. I have seen the wrong end of a gun twice now and had knives pulled plenty of times…. Knives don’t scare me…twice I ended up with the would be mugger’s knife in my hand telling him to lay down until police arrive. I want to do the right thing and protect myself and my family, but if that means doing something illegal… I may just have to consider that at some point. It’s a sad day in America.

BOOM: All Federal Gun Laws are Unconstitutional

By / 7 February 2014

SCARY – 17:00 to 19:18

Freedom Outpost’s Constitutional scholar Publius Huldah recently explained why Federal gun laws are unlawful. She noted that the first gun control measures put in place in the United States did not take place until 1927, when Congress banned the mailing of certain weapons. We went from 1776 to 1927, 150 years after our founding, when Congress decided, “We better start disarming the American people.”


Huldah goes through the history of the Federal government’s unlawful actions to regulate firearms in America and she points out that when it started, the Progressives had already begun a takeover. I’ll also note the Federal Reserve had been established in 1913 as well.

In 1938 Congress legislated that gun dealers had to obtain a Federal Firearms Licenses and maintain names and addresses of those they sold their firearms to.

She was sarcastic when she asked if we would ask the current President and Congress for “crumbs,” begging them to let us keep “some of our firearms.”

She called the letter from the Utah Sheriffs Association “shameful” because it begged Obama not to impose restrictions on firearms by executive order, but rather let Congress determine those things.

However, Huldah said that “We must make a principled resistance. To do that, we must learn the applicable principle.” She then pointed her listeners to the Constitution to see whether or not the Federal government can impose such legislation.

Huldah then pointed out that there is a little known fact about the Constitution:

“It is one of enumerated powers only. When “We the people” ordained and established the Constitution, we created the Federal government. It is our creature. We are the creator. It is the creature. It is not our master.”

“The Constitution is so short,” she continued, because all of the powers enumerated to the Federal government are listed in it. “Depending on how you count, we delegated only 21 powers to the Federal government.” Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1-16 are those powers.

Huldah then courageously pointed out that all laws made by Congress, any restrictions imposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, any restrictions made by executive order, and all Supreme Court decisions that restrict firearms are unconstitutional. They are unconstitutional because there is no authority to do so.

God is the giver of men’s rights, according to the Declaration of Independence, and the right to defend one’s self and one’s family is not only a right, but it is a duty and responsibility before God, according to the Bible which is a demonstration of our love for others. Therefore, she rightly pointed out that the Second Amendment is not the source of our right. It merely recognizes that the right is to be free from any interference whatsoever to defend ourselves, our families and our communities from attack. “This understanding is as old as human history,” she says.



The Federalist No. 46

The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared

New York Packet Tuesday, January 29, 1788 [James Madison]


“The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition.  The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made.  Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.”


Link to site courtesy of Talon’s Point.


Time To Use The Ivory Tower For Target Practice

By on January 31, 2014

2nd Amendment

The old men weren’t so dumb as the Ivory Tower-ites would have us think.

Not sure what they’re smoking in the Ivory Tower, but it could be a commercial success if the right market forces were applied.

Get this:

A Stanford University law professor took the view that the Second Amendment permits strong gun control, telling the crowd that “restriction has to be at the core” of the right to carry a gun.

John J. Donohue, a member of the Stanford Law School faculty, made his remarks during a debate with attorney Donald Kilmer, an adjunct professor at Lincoln Law School of San Jose.

“I support the right to self-defense,” said Donohue during the debate, according to The Stanford Review. “But that doesn’t mean that you have a right to high-capacity magazines.”  From Daily Caller

Wait, just a second,  How can having a right to a high-capacity magazine square with restriction being at the core of the right to carry a gun?  Doesn’t the Second Amendment say the right “shall not be infringed”?  Wouldn’t that put any restrictions into question?  And this is coming from a law professor?

Not that high capacity magazines in the wrong hands are a good idea, but that’s more a matter of society dealing with mental illness appropriately and that is a completely different discussion that is not happening thanks in part to the inhabitants of the Ivory Tower.

To continue with Donohue’s diatribe, now that jaws have returned to their normal positions:

Donohue explained that the Second Amendment must be interpreted in historical context. The founding fathers had no idea how powerful–and destructive–today’s weapons would become, he said.

He also criticized the argument that the right to bear arms was necessary for American citizens to guard against tyranny.

“It’s fanciful to think that guns in the hands of citizens acts as a realistic check,” said Donohue. “They’re not really trained to do so. And it’s fanciful to think that the military would ever turn on U.S. citizens.”


Wanna come at that one again, professor?  War machines have been plenty destructive for a number of centuries.  Our founding fathers had access to cannon, among other “big guns” and knew that well-timed and proper placement of lead made up for a lack of it.  Men who could place a cannonball in such a way as to create the maximum amount of damage were quite valued on the battlefield.

Several modern weapons make up for aim with volume, but that doesn’t mean that weapons haven’t been potent long before now. (After all, our bloodiest war was the one we fought against ourselves, and there were no high capacity magazines involved.) Advances in weapon design were a foregone conclusion among people familiar with the battlefield and the inventive mind.  Don’t forget, one of our founders (the subject of the image at the top) was among the most inventive men in American history.  The gentlemen who drew up the founding documents of this nation would have quite well understood that the musket’s days were numbered.

The thing about aim is anyone could have it.  It’s a by-product of vision, steady and firm body control, and practice – or at least that’s the impression we non-gun people get from our friends who shoot.  In the hands of the right citizens who have practiced and know where to aim, guns of any sort are plenty deadly, and as such a check on abusive regimes that want to control the people via force and fear, which is what results when the authorities are armed and citizens are not.  There’s nothing “fanciful” about it.

Frankly, some quite well trained civilians with the right guns and ammo could take out…well, more than cheap Chinese food.  The Ivory Tower would not be a safe place to be with the right projectile blowing up the right pylon.  (And not many ivory tower residents of my acquiantance are structural or civil engineers.  That’s APPLIED science, not lab.)

As for the military turning on U.S. citizens: the rank and file probably would not on their own, but high brass (that means officers at ranks where they would be in charge of attack missions) are being asked about it, and those answering that they won’t fire on the people are being relieved of command.  It’s not comforting at all.

The inhabitants of the Ivory Tower won’t get that and the implications until they hear INCOMING! and assume it means the mail has arrived.

In the meantime, Donohue and his fellow residents of La La Land might take head of his debate opponent’s words:

“Taking away citizens’ arms has always been the first step of the greatest human rights violations,” [Kilmer] said. “The mistake of giving up your arms is a mistake you only get to make once.

That one is actually historical fact.  It would be well worth the field trip to the library to look it up.  Last I looked, the Ivory Towers still have those.

Creeping Sharia

Documenting the Islamization of America

Digestible Politics

Politics Made Easy!



sharia unveiled

illuminating minds

The Mad Jewess

With political commentary contributed by NYC/QP Cable TV's David Ben Moshe.

Reality Check

American Patriot's Reality Check

The Conservative Citizen

No apologies - No Retreat - No surrender

Allen West Republic

Articulating American Principles & Values


How the hell did I get here?


Politics & News for Patriots, Conservatives, Libertarian Republicans and Ron Paul Lovers


People Healing People

Boudica BPI Weblog

Following in the spirit of Britain's Queen Boudica, Queen of the Iceni. A BPI site. I am an opinionator, do your own research, verification.

Rat Nation

exposing the lunacy of liberalism one post at a time

The Christian Gazette

Spreading The Gospel


Swiss Defence League



Freedom Is Just Another Word...

“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.”~Thoreau

Jericho777's Blog

Correcting Misinformation!

Rogue Government

Eternal Vigilance for Liberty

Energy Independence For States

Jobs and The Economy

Citizen Tom

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Armor of God

Attempting to obey God and follow Jesus Christ our Lord

Cry and Howl

Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge. Proverbs 19:27

Gds44's Blog

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not," warned Thomas Jefferson.


History Repeating Chronicles


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 157 other followers