Back to Fort Fairfield Journal      WFFJ-TV      Contact Us



Obama Fires Opening Salvo in

Dem’s Gun Confiscation Scheme


By:  David Deschesne

Fort Fairfield Journal, January 20, 2016


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA—Presidential impersonator, Barack Hussein-Obama has begun the final year of his illegal occupation of the White House by laying the groundwork for the Communist party's plans to institute gun registration and ultimately confiscation in the U.S.  Obama plans to use executive orders to force every person in the U.S. who wants to sell a gun via private sale to another to first obtain a Federal Firearm License and then conduct the background check on the buyer just as if they were a federally licensed gun store.  In addition, Obama plans to require the reporting of those who have been arbitrarily diagnosed with the highly subjective label, “mental illness” and thus prohibit them from purchasing firearms.  To top it all off, Obama also plans to fold the federal “no fly list” into the FBI background check system.


Executive Orders

   The end-run Obama plans to use to circumvent Congressional lawmaking authority is by issuing executive orders.  While executive orders that are in compliance with the Constitution and current federal law do have the same force of law as if passed by Congress, they are subject to nullification by the courts and can be overturned by future Congressional legislation.

   It is highly doubtful the current Republican controlled Congress will do anything to check Obama's Executive Order gun control strategy since they recently gave the Democrat party everything on their wish list by approving The 2,000 page, $1.1 trillion Omnibus spending package signed into law before Christmas which fully funds Planned Parenthood, Obamacare, illegal executive amnesty, EPA overreach and the Syrian refugee program.

Speaking on Obama's ultimate quest for total gun confiscation, Maine Congressman, Bruce Poliquin issued a statement with a lot of empty rhetoric and platitudes that had no real substance when it comes to how he and his fellow Republicans actually plan to stop Obama's mad quest to ban guns in the U.S.  “[Obama] announced today his intent to violate his Constitutional authority and to circumvent the will of Congress and the American People in order to move forward with his continual attacks on law-abiding citizens and the Second Amendment,” said Congressman Poliquin in a press release. “As I’ve said before, we need to better enforce the laws that are in place now and develop comprehensive strategies to keep Americans safe. I will continue to stand up for our Constitutional rights and oppose any attack from Obama on our Second Amendment.”

    While he claims he'll “continue to stand up for our Constitutional rights,” Congressman Poliquin does not indicate how he, or the Republican party for that matter, intends to actually do that amidst the flurry of unconstitutional Obama executive orders raining down around them.


The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

   The U.S. Constitution is clear on gun ownership.  The second amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”


The Maine Constitution is even clearer.  At Article 1, Section 16 it says;  “Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.”


   Looking at the U.S. constitution's enumeration of this right, it says the right “shall not be infringed.”  To infringe means to trespass, encroach or otherwise interfere with a person's rights.  In this respect, every law on the books now that requires background checks is already an infringement upon the gun buyer's rights.  Obama plans to further expand these federal infringements via unconstitutionally enacted executive orders, mandating his agencies step up their violations of the Constitution against all gun buyers in the U.S.   Maine's enumeration of the right to keep and bear arms says, “this right shall never be questioned.”  Again, the requirement to fill out a form, answering questions and petitioning the FBI for permission to buy a firearm violates both the spirit and letter of these two clearly enumerated rights.

   Obama cleverly tries to disguise these infringements by stating the First Amendment's freedom of speech does not allow one to “yell 'Fire' in a crowded theatre.” Therefore, according to his twisted logic, the expansion of background checks before a person can be allowed to purchase a firearm is just as reasonable a limitation on a person's rights.

   The Obama logic here doesn't follow, however.   The exercising of a right to free speech by yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre would be the proximate cause of any damage to life or property as a result of the ensuing stampede to the exits and there has been a justifiable limit to the freedom of speech as an affirmative defense in that respect.  However, when a person simply exercises his right to buy a firearm, there is no danger of life or property in the initial sale transaction, which Obama seeks to unlawfully expand limitations on.  The threats to life or property can only come after the firearm is acquired and used in an improper manner.  In this case, there are already dozens of laws on the books regulating the use of firearms, limiting where they can be used, and allowing for the punishment of those who use them to damage life or property.  In order to make Obama's logic follow properly, a federal background check and government license would have to be issued for anyone to exercise their right to free speech because they might yell “fire” in a crowded theatre at some undetermined time in the future that might end up causing damage to life or property.


The Militia

   For such a simple word, the communists and controllers of society have been extremely successful at using the establishment media to redefine “militia” in such a way as to give the wording of the Second Amendment a completely foreign meaning with respect to its original intent.  Those who advocate for abolishing private ownership of firearms say the “militia” means the National Guard or the military.  However, the actual law defines it quite differently.

   Black's Law, 7th edition defines “militia” as; “a body of citizens armed and trained, especially by a state, for military service apart from the regular armed forces.”  Note it says “apart” from the regular armed forces - not a part of them.

   The U.S. Code defines militia as; “all able bodied males between 18-45 years of age” (Title 10 USC, sec. 311) and in Maine, like many other states it is similarly defined as “all able bodied citizens of the State between the ages of 18-45 years” (MRS 37-B, sec. 222).  Maine even goes further in its definition by exempting from the militia anyone who is already a member of the U.S. armed forces or National Guard.  So if you are in the National Guard or regular military service in Maine, you cannot be a part of the militia.

   Under this correct definition of militia, the Second Amendment can be seen to apply to the private citizenry not already enrolled in the active duty military or National Guard.

   Furthermore, the 2nd amendment is only a limitation on federal power, which can't legally be exercised within a State to begin with except for a very select few instances found in Article 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution.  Upon closer review, one will find neither the U.S. government in general, nor the President in particular have ever been granted the power or jurisdiction to regulate, check, question or prohibit gun sales within any of the States in the Union.  But they continually do so, arbitrarily and unlawfully, in nearly all cases with the cooperation of the local sheriff and State Police.


Everybody Licensed

   Federal law defines who can be regulated as a gun dealer as: “a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms manufactured.” The law clearly notes that “such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.” (18 USC, sec. 921)

   However, Obama seeks to arbitrarily expand that law to include every nickel and dime private gun sale in the country and hire a coterie of new agents to snoop on those sales and enforce his dictates.  Since this executive order would not comply with current federal law, it would start out null and void.

   “ATF will make clear that whether you are ‘engaged in the business’ depends on the facts and circumstances,” Valerie Jarrett told reporters recently. “On factors such as: whether you represent yourself as a dealer, such as making business cards or taking credit card statements. Whether you sell firearms shortly after they’re acquired or whether you buy or sell in the original packaging.  Numbers are relevant. The ATF and DOJ did not identify a magic number of weapons that makes you engaged in the business because that would limit their ability to bring prosecution.”

   Jarrett then said that selling as few as two firearms could require a license. Later , Attorney General Loretta Lynch said that the threshold could be as low as one firearm sale.

   However, the ATF’s written guidance on federal firearms licensing emphasizes that whether sales are repetitive is a key determination in whether or not an individual needs a license. According to the ATF at; “As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy and sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast, if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personal collection, you do not need to be licensed.”

   The guidance goes on to assert, as Jarrett did, that there is no “magic number” for how many firearms somebody could sell before needing to acquire a license and some court cases have involved a small number of firearms being sold. “There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement,” it reads. “Courts have looked at both the quantity of firearms sold, as well as the frequency of sales, as relevant indicators. When combined with other factors, selling large numbers of firearms or engaging in frequent transactions may be highly indicative of business activity.”

   “With this 'new' executive action, there really is nothing new. The ATF has always had complete discretion when it comes to deciding what constitutes dealing in guns without a license, and as many people have already noted, they have prosecuted people for as few as two firearms,” said Paul Helinski, founder of  “Selling a personal collection, or even legitimately horse-trading to get guns that you want isn’t “dealing in guns.” Generally you would have owned those guns for longer than a few days or weeks. This should immediately take you out of the realm of someone who is “dealing” in firearms, because clearly the guns were not purchased to resell. The ATF knows when you purchased the guns for the most part, because they are now getting all the 4473 records, which are digitized these days from all large gun shops and even a number of small ones. If you wanted to sell a bunch of guns at one time, there is nothing preventing you from contacting your local ATF office and letting them know that you are selling a private collection and that you are not flipping the money back into guns to buy and sell in the future. [However,] for 500 AR receivers, good luck trying to convince them that you didn’t buy them specifically to sell at a profit, which is indeed dealing in guns. If you are sitting on that kind of inventory, sell a half a dozen of them, rent some office space and get your FFL license. I don’t know why the Facebook guys don’t do that to begin with.”

   According to, One former high-ranking ATF official with decades of experience at the agency said that cases involving somebody who sells firearms without a license are rarely pursued.

   “Typically you couldn’t get a U.S. attorney to take a case like that because it lacks jury appeal,” the former official told “You’re going to prosecute some old guy for selling one gun? It would have to be some real special circumstance like a major drug trafficker was caught selling a gun before they press that, and how likely would that be?”

   The potential confusion caused by the administration’s public comments may result in people applying for licenses they do not need.   “It could tie up resources,” the former ATF official said. “It could keep them from doing compliance inspections.”

   Though Obama and other administration officials have framed his actions as a way to narrow the so-called “gun show loophole” and require more gun show sellers to perform background checks, the federal firearms license application form explicitly tells those who only sell firearms in such settings that their applications will not be approved. (see:


Mental Illness

   Another buzz word being bandied about by the presidential impersonator is that of mental illness.  While there truly are some serious issues with mental health that result from the over-prescribing of psychotropic drugs, the Communists in charge of health care and the psychiatric fields - who, in many cases, caused the mental illness to begin with - are gearing up to label just about everybody in the country as “mentally ill” thus preventing them from legally buying a firearm

   On July 18, 2015 Breitbart News reported on Obama’s push to ban gun-possession for Social Security beneficiaries who are believed incapable of handling their own finances.  At that same time, the Los Angeles Times reported that a ban was being put together “outside of public view,” so all the details were not known. But the Times did know that the ban would cover those who are unable to manage their own affairs for a multitude of reasons–from “subnormal intelligence or mental illness” to “incompetency,” an unspecified “condition,” or “disease.” The ban pertaining to Social Security beneficiaries is now tucked into the “mental health” aspects of Obama’s executive gun control.  The Veterans Administration is also being tasked with providing a list of all veterans who not only have a record of PTSD, but also require assistance with handling their checkbook so they can also be denied the right to defend themselves with a firearm.

   The Obama regime has also authorized a rule allowing doctors to turn in patients they arbitrarily deem mentally ill so the government can strip them of their right to self-defense.   Some doctors are beginning to label people as “mentally ill” simply for not following the political ideology of the accepted mainstream as squawked out nightly on the national television networks.  For years, some Americans have been designated mentally ill for holding certain political beliefs and in certain cases have had their firearms seized as a result.   For example, In 2012, former Marine Brandon Raub was involuntarily detained for psychiatric questioning after he left anti-establishment posts on Facebook which complained about corruption within the U.S. government.  This type of questioning of authority is now being labeled as “mental illness” and those who do the questioning will ultimately have their right to keep and bear arms taken away.

   The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: Fifth Edition (DSM-5), which the American Psychiatric Association uses for psychiatric diagnosis, defines “Oppositional Defiant Disorder” as a “recurrent pattern of negativistic, defiant, disobedient, and hostile behavior toward authority figures” which typically begins at a young age but can survive into adulthood.

   “[Adults with Oppositional Defiant Disorder] feel misunderstood and disliked, hemmed in and pushed around,” according to Russell Barkley, Ph.D.. “Some feel like mavericks or rebels.”

   “In other words, an Obama-supporting psychologist could potentially diagnose conservatives and libertarians with 'Oppositional Defiant Disorder' due to their criticism of authority, particularly the federal government, and then report them to the FBI as too 'mentally unfit' to purchase a gun,” writes Kitt Daniels, from  “But even scarier, the newest version of the DSM-5 is so broad that almost every form of human behavior could be considered some type of mental illness. In fact, over the past 50 years, the number of mental illnesses defined by sequential editions of the DSM have grown from 130 to over 350.”

   Even people who are skeptical of the unproven theory of man-made climate change are being targeted as “mentally ill” and thus may be unable to purchase a firearm.  According to an article by Craig Bannister, from, “Oregon-based professor of Sociology and Environmental studies, Kari Norgaard has declared climate skepticism a mental illness that must be ‘treated.’”

   “The mental health issue I have been warning people about for years,” said Paul Helinski, from www.gunsamerica. “Be careful with what you let your doctor prescribe. The Affordable Care Act was more about nationalizing health records than it was about providing disadvantaged people with health insurance.”

   With a vast majority of the American people having been fed a steady diet of Ritalin, Seroquil, Paxil, Effexor, Lithium, Prozac and other psychotropic drugs from the psychiatric industry over the past twenty years for everything from a headache to a runny nose, a large majority of people are now in a health care database as suffering from “mental illness” and thus potentially prohibited from owning a firearm for self-defense under Obama's new rules.  This, some say, was deliberately done by design.


No Fly List

   Obama said he can't think of any reason why anyone would be opposed to prohibiting someone on the government's “No Fly List” from purchasing a firearm.  What Obama fails to mention is the government's “No Fly List” is compiled by the FBI in secret, does not result from a trial by judge or jury, no evidence is presented, a person is not able to face his accusers and there is no appeals method in place for names erroneously placed on the list to be removed.  This has resulted in the typical big government goofs by having 3- and 4-year old children being labeled as “terrorists” and placed on the list, all the way up to elderly nuns, legislators, air marshals and TSA officers. 

Left-leaning website noted, “While the criteria for what sorts of ‘threats’ get placed on the no-fly list is specific, the evidence that can be used to put someone on the no-fly list – or any government watch list – is pretty thin. The government is trying to predict whether people who have never committed any acts of terrorism before will commit one now, and that involves a lot of what the government calls ‘predictive judgments’ and its critics call guesswork.”

   The No Fly list is nothing more than a horrible joke on the American people and has no basis in reality.  In this respect it is the perfect dream tool of Communist controllers to use to effectively ban everybody who hasn't already fallen into the “mental illness” trap from owning a firearm for self-defense.


Gun Confiscation

   The end result of Obama's unlawful executive orders is clear:  to pave the way for the next Communist controller occupying the White House to expand to registration and ultimately confiscation.  As Paul Helinski notes, “If you look through the executive action, the entire thing is meant to make sure that every gun is tied to an individual. The idea of 'universal background checks' is the only concept they can get traction on, and that will be the next thing, not a gun ban. There are too many guns in America to ban them without proper preparation. Ten years after 'universal background checks,' the oligarchs will have a form on every gun in the US, then they’ll take them away.  This entire thing is just another Weapon of Mass Distraction. Don’t let yourself be Fox News’d into a constant state of sleep. The real issue is that our planet is dying, and they want to keep track of all the guns, because the time is almost here where they won’t be able to cover it up anymore. When that happens, when people are told that they can’t drive their cars anymore, and that they have to enter a lottery to be able to have children, there will be armed revolts worldwide. I don’t care if Donald Trump or Mickey Mouse is our next president, if we even make it that far. You have been warned, and if you are part of the distraction, please consider coming forward, even if it means that you lose your paycheck and pension.”