James Madison sent this to me and gave me permission to post here.

Have you ever wondered why Congress wants to take away your firearms? Go to your local law library and ask the librarian to show you where the books for the United States Code are shelved. There are 25 books in the set and they are reddish-brown in color. Within Volume Nine you will find the answer in P.L. 87-297.


OPEN VOLUME 9. The page numbers are in the center near the middle binding. The section numbers are along the edges.

TURN TO PAGE 651. Here you will find Public Law 87-297 which calls for the United States to eliminate its armed forces. This law was signed for the United States in 1961. John F. Kennedy signed it and every president since has worked to enact its provisions. The government knows you will not approve which is why they want to take away your firearms. (This is Title 22 USC section 2551)

TURN TO PAGE 652. Here you will find the definition of what the government means by "disarmament. " The disarmament calls for the elimination of our armed forces. It also calls for the elimination of weapons of all kinds.
(This is Title 22 USC 2552 (a).

TURN TO PAGE 654. Here you will find it stated as item (a) "control, reduction and elimination of armed forces..." and as Item (d)" ...Elimination of armed forces...." What you need to know is that your armed forces are being eliminated and relinquished from national control which, in turn, wipes out our sovereignty as a nation. In two stages, we will have no more army, no more navy, no more air force. In the third stage, we shall have a "zero" military. Before Stage I closes, all citizen owned guns are to be banned.
(This is Title 22 USC Section 2571 (a).

Public Law 87-297 is further explained in the State Department Document called Publication 7277. Your librarian can also furnish you a copy. Also ask the librarian to get you a copy of "The Blue Print for the Peace Race." It is a 35-page booklet printed by the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency as Publication No. 4 - General Series 3 - Released May of 1962. Publication No. 4 is the unabridged version of State Department Document 7277.

Both of these booklets explain how our military is to be reduced to 2.1 million men. China and the Soviets are to be reduced to that level also. At this point, we are at Stage I at which time we are to transfer (on a permanent basis) one-half of our armed forces to be merged with the Russian and Chinese armies. In Stage II, the remaining one-half of our armed forces is then turned over to this same Security Council of the United Nations. The person in charge of the merged armies must, by agreement, always be a Russian. The world's smaller nations turn 100% of their armies over to the same under-secretary of the Security, Council in Stage II. President George Bush and Admiral Wm. J. Crowe [have referred] to this process as being "in transition."

TURN TO PAGE 655. On this page in Volume 9 of the United States Code, read "Policy Formation." The directives there (written in 1963 to pacify objectors) are supposedly to restrain anyone from disarmament, reducing or limiting our armaments, or taking guns away from the people unless it is pursuant to the treaty-making power of the president, or if it is authorized by further legislation by the Congress. (This is title 22, Section 2573.)

Every couple of years the House of Representatives votes to appropriate funds for this on-going program. Since P.L. 87-297 was first passed into law in 961, there have been 18 updates to it - all bad - with no deletions of these issues I lay before you now. The Congress knows that the plan includes the policing of the United States by foreign troops. (The world army they are forming in Europe .) The Congress is allowing our military bases to be closed down, except for those that will be used by the world army. You will find that plan in Publication 7277 and in "The Blueprint for the Peace Race."

If the president and Congress can promote a "Constitutional Convention" you will find yourself with two new constitutions (communist in structure) which in one states in Article VIII, Section 12: "No person shall bear arms or possess lethal weapons except the police and members of the armed forces...."

The Congress has praised these documents and is on record in Senate hearings seeking ways to install these constitutions. Ask your librarian for "Revision of the United Nations Charter - Hearings Before a Subcommittee (Foreign Relations) Feb. 2-20, 1950 U.S.Government Printing Office." Nothing has changed since. They are still viable. The ultimate goal to be reached in Stage III of the disarmament process is to "proceed to a point where no state [nation] would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force...."

Anyone who doubts the truthfulness of what has been presented here is free to go to the library and go through the steps which have been outlined above. While you are at it, look up Public Law 101-216.

State Department Publication 7277 is available on the web at:http://www.kobres. com/disarm. html and in electronic form as file PUB_7277.ZIP

Views: 96

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hey Folks,

At the SweetLiberty link you have the option to hit several different " titlexxx Section zzzz" do-bobbys. They all end up on FindLaw.com. I'd be willing to bet, that everytime someone hits one of those links & ends up on the FindLaw website - somebody out there makes a nickle. And it isn't me - dad-jam it. Pretty good hook there, too. Tommygun is correct - Mr.Madison needs to speak up or crawfish - one or the other.

One thing that you can verify with a little asking around. If you know a BATF agent, state cop, a police officer, a deputy or sheriff ; and they are willing to talk to you - ask them about it. The BATF, and other such folks, are in training on the correct techniques and methods of tearing the dry-wall out of your houses; searching for your guns and ammo. The Politicians are all talk and depend on somebody else to do the heavy lifting.

What everyone should be finding out is this: Where does your local Law Enforcement stand on the Gun Confiscation issue?? Will they uphold the intent of the U.S. Constitution; or will they fold under political expediency?? You need to ask that question of every cop you know and every one you run across. You need to ask that question of every member of the U.S. military that you know. If you can't get a simple "yes" or "no" answer, you then need to specifically explain the 1st. 2nd, 5th and 10th Amendments to them and ask them again.

SunTsu had a primary Law for people that were facing any kind of a conflict, to paraphrase that: Know your enemy and you will know your friends. Read the attached article below and give what I have said some thought. Some questions have to asked and asked sooner - rather than later. The article below can be found on Vdare.com

Dwain Cleveland
"Liberty or Death - I shall have one or the other."

May 12, 2009

It Is Getting Very Serious Now
By Chuck Baldwin

First, it was a Missouri Analysis and Information Center (MIAC) report; then it was a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report; now it is a New York congressman's bill. Each of these items, taken on their own, is problematic enough; taken together they portend "a clear and present danger" to the liberties of the American people. It is getting very serious now.

As readers may recall, the MIAC report profiled certain people as being potential violence-prone "militia members": including people who supported Presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself. In addition, anyone who opposed one or more of the following were also included in the list: the New World Order, the U.N., gun control, the violation of Posse Comitatus, the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the Ammunition Accountability Act, a possible Constitutional Convention, the North American Union, the Universal Service Program, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), abortion on demand, or illegal immigration.

The MIAC report prompted a firestorm of protest, and was eventually rescinded, with the man responsible for its distribution being dismissed from his position. The DHS report profiled many of the same people included in the MIAC report, and added returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans as potentially dangerous "extremists."

As I have said before, it is very likely that when all of the opinions and views of the above lists are counted, 75% or more of the American people would be included. Yet, these government reports would have law enforcement personnel to believe we are all dangerous extremists that need to be watched and guarded against. If this was not bad enough, a New York congressman has introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to deny Second Amendment rights to everyone listed above.

According to World Net Daily, May 9, 2009, "A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans a potential 'threats,' could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others--any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential 'extremism.'

"Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any 'known or suspected dangerous terrorist.' The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is 'appropriately suspected' of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general 'has a reasonable belief' that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.

"Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill's language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being 'dangerous.'"

WND quotes Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt as saying, "By [DHS] standards, I'm one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano's terrorists. This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they're all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009."

Pratt was also quoted as saying, "Unbeknownst to us, some bureaucrat in the bowels of democracy can put your name on a list, and your Second Amendment rights are toast." He went on to say, "This such an anti-American bill, this is something King George III would have done."

Now that DHS has established both a list and a lexicon for "extremists," it looks to Congress to confer upon it police-state-style powers through which these individuals may be disarmed and eventually done away with. Rep. Peter King is accommodating this goal with H.R. 2159.

Let me ask a reasonable question: how long does anyone think it would be, after being profiled by DHS and denied the lawful purchase of firearms, that those same people would be subjected to gun confiscation? And how long do you think it would be before DHS began profiling more and more groups of people, thus subjecting them to gun confiscation?

This was exactly the strategy employed by Adolf Hitler. The Jews were the first people denied their civil rights--especially the right to own and possess firearms. Of course, after disarming Jews, the rest of the German citizenry was likewise disarmed. And we all know where that led.

I'm not sure how many of the American people realize that it was the attempted confiscation of the colonialists' cache of arms in Concord, Massachusetts, that started America's War for Independence. Yes, my friends, it was attempted gun confiscation that triggered (pun intended) the "shot heard 'round the world." And now it would appear that, once again, a central government is on the verge of trying to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms.

I am told that as of 2004, 50% of the adults in the United States own one or more firearms, totaling some 270 million privately owned firearms nationwide. I would venture to say that the vast majority of these gun owners would find themselves matching the DHS profile of a potential "extremist." I wonder how many gun owners realize the way they are now being targeted by their government, and just how serious--and how close--the threat of gun confiscation has become?

If one doubts the intention of the elitists in government today to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms, consider what former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is purported to have said just a couple of weeks ago. Kissinger attended a high-level meeting with Russian President Medvedev that also included former Secretaries of State James Baker and George Shultz; former Secretary of Defense William Perry; and former Senator Sam Nunn. Included in the discussions was Kissinger's assertion that the American people were now ready to accept a "New Global Order." He is also reported to have told Medvedev, "By September we'll have confiscated allprivately owned guns so it really doesn't matter what we do, we'll still be in charge." (Even though the national news media has not reported this statement, the Internet is abuzz with Kissinger having said it. Whether Kissinger actually made that statement or not, he, and rest of his ilk, have repeatedly called for a New World Order, in which there will be no constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms.)

This leads to a very serious question: how many of America's gun owners would allow their government to deny them gun ownership? Further, how many would passively sit back and allow their guns to be confiscated?

As humbly and meekly as I know how to say it: as for me and my house, gun confiscation is the one act of tyranny that crosses the line; debate, discourse, discussion, and peaceful dissent cease and desist at that point. I say again, it is getting very serious now.

Dr. Chuck Baldwin is the pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida.

D. Cleveland
Our fight is massive, it didn't just happen. Years of schools teaching democracy, as opposed to a Republic. Our Gov, holywood, the media; we have sat by silent and allowed this to go on for years. Complaining amoungst family/friends about what we are hearing on the radio, seeing on tv, reading in magazines, watching in the news. Years and years of our Constitution being trampled. "They" have had many years, free to promote and advance this socialist agenda, we are so very close to losing our country to tyranny within. We have a huge up hill fight @ this point. Our Founding Fathers saw so well the peril. We were not figilant, we have been complacant; as such our fight will be harder and more arduant. (I apologize for my spelling!) How do we regain our moral fiber?

I have just filled out a survey for the GOP, in which I stated that abiding by the Constitution be a criteria for being a mbr. All others should retract from the party and run as independent. We need God back in our country, and a true Statesman!
The information regarding the books of the U.S. Code, and Public Law 87-297 is factually correct. However I seriously doubt that those volumes are still available, (especially given the information they contain, and the politically polarizing effect this kind of info would have on the general public) in any of the local Public Libraries, unless they're a Main Branch, which would make them a Federal Repository branch as well. BUT, if the Statists have NOT pulled those particular volumes from the shelves, then YES you will find a complete catalogue of ALL of the treason that this current GLOBALIST movement within our government, has been planning to foist upon us over the decades!

Before anyone makes any judgments on the person who began this thread, might I suggest actually GOING to the Main Public Library branch in your area(s) and checking to see if these books are still available to be viewed, and if they are still available....make sure you have plenty of change for the Copy Machines, and make copies of ALL of the pertinent pages of information!

Might I also suggest that at that point, you make the evidence of this premeditated treason BROADCAST to as many freedom loving American Patriots as you can, as well as to your local Sheriff. If for no other reason, than to make a very STRONG case for reinforcing STATE SOVEREIGNTY, and INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS issues.

This is NO TIME to be passing judgments on folks based upon so-called "Conspiracy Theories" or the lack of real information regarding evidence which may very well substantiate the vast majority of these so-called "Theories".

We have a clear and present danger to our freedom, and the freedom of this nation and her future generations, lurking within the White House, and the halls of our own Government! The time for conjecture, cowardice and inaction is OVER!

If you love this country, and your Liberty, then go to the nearest Federal Repository Library near you, check out the Books of the U.S. Code for yourselves, and then decide if you think your freedom, and that of your future generations is in enough DANGER that ACTION on your part is warranted!

God Bless Our Republic..America! De Oppresso Liber!

Just thot I'd throw this in here in case anyone is interested.............

D.C. Attorney General Espouses Unreasonable Anti-Gun Fears
Posted by redboneshadow on May 19, 2009 at 7:20pm in Citizens For The 2nd Amendment

Published by the LearnAboutGuns.com Author

Peter Nickles, the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, recently stated said that presidential and other motorcades will be exposed to high-powered arms fire if D.C. is prevented by congress from continuing to violate citizens’ gun rights, which it is doing in spite of the D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court case.. This idea is an unfounded departure from reality, as I discuss below.

To briefly recap, the District of Columbia had a handgun ban for decades. Criminals consistently ignored this handgun ban, and committed murder after murder, causing D.C. to take turns with Chicago as the murder capitol of the United States. The law abiding, handgun ban obeying citizens were left vulnerable and unable to defend themselves against murderers, rapists, home invaders, and other criminals. A lawsuit was filed in the hopes of striking down this unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment, and in the summer of 2008, the Supreme Court did just that in D.C. v. Heller. While that landmark case is of great importance, the D.C. city council adopted incredibly strict gun control laws, which continue to violate D.C. residents’ gun rights. In response, Congress is considering legislation that would put an end to the D.C. city council’s violations of the Second Amendment.

Getting to D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles’ concern about ending the unreasonable D.C. gun restrictions, I think the logical flaw in his reasoning is readily apparent. That is because the individuals who are sophisticated and/or determined enough to assassinate the president or other governmental officials are going to be more than willing to ignore gun control laws. Indeed, it is laughable to think that a person or group bent on killing world leaders would scrub their plans out of a desire to avoid violating the D.C. gun laws, especially since common street criminals continue to violate those same gun laws every single day. Remember, gun control laws only effect those individuals who conform their behavior to the law - not rapists, murderers, home invaders or assassins.
Go here to see copy of this Public Law 87-297:
Go to your local library and check it out for yourselves.
Twana's post is correct. I know you don't want to believe
it, but that does not make it any less accurate.
ive known of this also for a long time.
because its so old i thought most knew of it, appears they dont.
Hi Zeb,

I was wondering if you could identify the source of the misinformation, on the Sept disarmament comment mentioned in the Vdare column. I am not in any way impugning or doubting you or your post. When ignorant of details on things, I tend to ask the questions and investigate. I like to try to keep up with that sort of thing. Sometimes it works out ok and sometimes it doesn't - but I like to try. For-warned is for-armed.

Back to the original issue. I don't post very often on any site. Seems like the dialogue ends up getting sideways, without doing any appreciable good - in a lot ocases. As far as the U.S. Arms Control & Disarmament Agency goes - they have no teeth if law-enforcement and military members refuse to enforce their decrees. Same for Obama, Holder and anyone else that may decide gun-grabbing is the direction to take next. Mr. Madison provided sufficient links to chase down more information that was needed to clarify that agencys provenance.

That is why, in my opinion at least, we need to try another approach to all this gun confiscation talk. Every time we get an opportunity we need to ask one question of our law-enforcement folks and our military folks; "If you have to make the choice between upholding the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution or confiscating your fellow citizens weapons - what are you going to do??" Will they be offended?? That is not relevant at all. It's a simple question, with a simple answer.

It is also a question that needs to be asked, over and over; it will serve to make the folks in those positions of authority, actually think about the answer they may have to give and the choice they may have to make. Gun confiscation can only occur if the gun-grabbers have people that are willing to enforce their edicts. Without an enforcement arm - Government has no power. We need to be trying to find out who amongst Americas law enforcement & military "sheep-dogs" is in reality a "wolf".

Truth is most people have a hard time walking up to a policeman, or even a soldier and asking this all important question; "What you gonna do if you are ordered to take other American citizens guns". Every individual in America, that might have to make that decision needs to be on record as to where they stand on this issue. Their neighbors and fellows Americans need to know that answer.

All the other stuff - such as have been presently argued & debated here, is interesting to a point; but ultimately irrelevant when compared to the significance of that one, mostly unanswered, question. Withour armed and aggressive enforcement man-power - gun confiscation is an empty threat. Where do our law enforcement and military members stand on the issue?? That is "The Question". We need to ask it until it is answered. At least in my opinion; which like anyone elses opinion, has only that small value granted it by all you other folks.

Dwain Cleveland
Since there is much confusion about this article, maybe we should let the NRA review this to check to see if it is true are taken out of context. One thing for sure there are those who want to take our guns away, for what reason? Only one could assume this story may carry a little weight. Remember every state that has the right to carry law, crime has went down, those are the facts. I am keeping my guns and if someone wants them they will have to take them from my cold dead hands!!! I do believe if this article had merit, the NRA would already be on it.
Join the NRA, the larger we get the better chance we have in defending our rights and constitution. The NRA is allowing 1 year free memberships now, so come on board!
I am not sure what you mean all states that have right to carry laws have gone down? Oklahoma has a right to carry law? I am a life Member of the NRA and like you I would have to think they would be on top of this in a heartbeat; it surely would have come out in their monthly mag. Freedom
Out of 535 people represnting the people of theis country are they all Traitors? Surely they must know this, what on earth would let them allow this?
NEW D.O.D. ......SURPRISE!!!!!!!!!!!
Obviously, this law and many other "laws" are unconstitutional and thusly before MY eyes are null and void. I will NOT recognize ANY law that goes against the fundamental prinicples the CONSTITUTION set forth, and the BILL OF RIGHTS defined. Those are the ONLY laws of the land and should be addressed as such. I just hope I can buy all the guns and armor and equipment and supplies I can before the shit finally hits the fan (pardon the language).



Old Rooster created this Ning Network.

This effort is focused on sacrifice to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Fox News

Tech Notes

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11


1. Click on State Groups tab at the top of the page.
2. Find your State Flag
3. Click on Flag.
4. Look for link to join Your State Group near the top of the State Groups page.
5. Click on it.

Follow the Prompts

How to post "live" URL in posts at PFA............. Adding URLs in blog posts that are not "live" is a waste of everyone's time.....
Here's how....if anyone has better guidance send to me.....
First........type your text entry into the post block to include typing or paste the URL you want us to view........when finished with the text, highlight and copy the URL in the text.......then click the "add hyperlink" tool in the B, I, U box just above the text entry, after clicking, a window will open asking for the URL...paste the URL in the box and click "OK". You have now made the URL "live"...........it shows some code before the post is published, it goes away when you "publish post".......


© 2020   Created by Old Rooster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service