[FPC News] The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America
<p><em><strong>We encourage viewers and those interested in American history to read Georgetown Law Professor and constitutional scholar, Randy Barnett's excellent, easy-to-read <a rel="noopener" href="https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3168&context=facpub" target="_blank">short article explaining the Declaration here</a> in conjunction with reading the Declaration below.</strong> [</em><em>Note: Some paragraph breaks added to facilitate reading on mobile devices.]</em></p>
<hr>
<p>IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.</p>
<p><strong>The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,</strong></p>
<p>When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.</p>
[FPC News] FPC Sues to Stop California’s Firearms Excise Tax
<p><strong>SAN DIEGO, CA</strong><span style="font-weight: 400;"> (July 2, 2024) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a new Second Amendment lawsuit, filed in the San Diego County Superior Court, challenging California’s Firearms Excise Tax, otherwise known as </span><a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB28/id/2842856"><span style="font-weight: 400;">California Assembly Bill 28</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">, which imposes an 11 percent excise tax on firearms, firearms “precursor parts,” and ammunition. The case is captioned </span><a href="https://www.firearmspolicy.org/jaymes"><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">Jaymes v. Maduros</span></em></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">. The complaint, along with all other case details and documents,</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"> can be viewed at </span><a href="http://fpclegal.org"><span style="font-weight: 400;">FPCLegal.org</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">.</span></p>
The article seems to credit some new hotshot at the Bureau who streamlined the system. The article claims to explain HOW they did it. My question is WHY?
If they do something non-nefarious it makes me suspicious. (Have they ever done something non-nefarious?) I have my suspicions: Did they allow the system to speed up because if you can get the stamp quickly, you’ll be less likely to push for removal of the entire NFA? Is it because it creates an electronic “presence” in their databases? (Obviously 4473 is paper and stays at the FFL.) Is it to encourage more people to apply, thus netting them more $200 stamp fees? Is it something else subversive? Or is it truly that the new guy had an idea and they let him do it?
Watching Beverly Hills Cop has reignited my desire for a Hi Power and I’m wondering if I’m smoking crack for wanting one……and then if I can get extended magazines as flush fit magazines are hard to remove with my limited left hand dexterity
Sigh…….found this & now the marbles are clanking in my head…trying to figure out the budget 🫣🫣🫣🫣
Ordered a pound of the world famous taffy for 4th of July and to see what the wife thinks without telling her 😳😳😱😱😱
It came yesterday while I was napping & she opened the box…..and for someone who does not like traditional salt water taffy…..almost 1/4 of the box was gone 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
We eat very little candy, I love a taffy place up in Estes Park but almost never make the 90 min drive….and now with tourist season in full bloom, it’s more like a 120 min drive…..
![[Image: IMG-2097.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/0KxZ0QbD/IMG-2097.jpg)
![[Image: IMG-2098.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/640cjXvS/IMG-2098.jpg)