We will represent you in petitioning the court to restore your right to own firearms. At the present time, the federal government (BATF & NICS) will not recognize rights restored by the Washington Courts if the underlying conviction was a non-felony domestic violence conviction.
See Non-felony Domestic Violence convictions.
There is a great deal of safety in relying on the advice of an experienced attorney. We can restore your rights in most cases provided that there is not Class A felony- such as kidnapping- and provided that the prior conviction was not for a sex offense. Your attorney needs to focus in the area of firearms rights in order to understand the complexities and conflicts between the various laws and jurisdictions.
On Tuesday, Mike Van Alstine and I went to Freighthouse Square in Tacoma to a meeting presented by the Freedom Foundation. We were pleased to discover that Brian Borgelt, who owns the building and the range at Bull’s Eye in Tacoma now owns the huge facility at Freighthouse Square. Brian will soon have a new gun store in the building where Bull’s Eye Shooters’ Supply was located before they moved to a new location.
Brian provided the venue for Freedom Foundation’s Trent England to explain to about 15-20 folks how the public employee unions are hijacking our electoral process with campaign funds that are coerced from workers required to join unions and pay dues that get contributed to candidates with who oppose much of what many public employees seek in terms of sound public spending policy. Along with some other Freedom Foundation folks, like Glen Morgan, who also spoke on November 12, Trent is traveling the state to get out the message that Washingtonians can build a firewall of protection between freedom and the forces of legislative tyranny.
The usual scenario of electioneering constantly dominated by public employee campaign funds results in constant spend and tax schemes by lawmakers who only care about expanding the public sector even if they kill private enterprise in the process.
But the most exciting news is that another Freedom Foundation attorney, Dave Roland, is also traveling the state and speaking on the subject of self-defense at meetings all over the state that are being filled to overflowing. I am looking forward to meeting Dave soon and I hear he has a historical grasp of the roots of the Second Amendment that goes back to ancient Rome and classical Greek concepts of government and natural law.
As a former Journeyman Ironworker, in San Francisco Local No. 377, I know that many in the building trades will never give up their right to keep and bear arms. The big question is why so many of those in the building trades continue to pay dues that help elect the gun grab tyrants that run the Democrat Party? I guess it just goes to show that money and power often trump freedom. Nevertheless, if Dave Roland comes to your city, make a point to get out and hear what he has to say. I am going to!
The Seattle Black Panther Party, founded in 1968, was an armed defense group that holds a controversial record in modern American history. The Seattle Black Panthers was the first BPP chapter formed outside California. The Black Panthers based its armed defense for the black community on an understanding of the U.S. Constitution that sometimes led to violent encounters with law enforcement. Nevertheless, the Seattle Panthers avoided the shootouts with police that were often associated with Panthers who also were known for providing lunches to school kids and other worthwhile community service.
On one occasion, several Black Panthers grabbed their guns and drove to Rainier Beach. The Panthers walked into Seattle’s Rainier Beach High School with their weapons and told the principal that he needed to start protecting Black students from being harassed or the Panthers would return. The police arrived but the Panthers left with no further problems.
In 1967, thirty Oakland Black Panthers, concerned that the California state legislature was about to outlaw the public display of guns, had appeared in full paramilitary regalia in front of the capital building- all fully armed! The fact that they were arrested for conspiracy to disturb the peace did not deter the Seattle Panthers.
After the incident at the Rainier Beach High, Seattle Mayor, J.D. Braman pushed to have a gun law passed that would put restrictions upon firearms in the city. In February, 1969, legislators in Olympia were also passing a new law that would make it a gross misdemeanor to exhibit firearms or other weapons in a manner manifesting intent to intimidate others. The Panthers stood on the capitol steps with rifles and shotguns to protest the pending gun legislation. Washington State Patrol officers just told the Panthers to put the guns away. The Panthers complied and no arrests resulted because no laws had been broken.
Some legislators and citizens reacted by proclaiming that the Panthers had demonstrated “open and active anarchy and rebellion.” Governor Evans promoted restraint during the incident and rebuked Lieutenant Governor Cherberg for calling in the state patrol during the Governor’s absence. The Bellevue High School even invited the Panthers to come to a Civics class where the Panthers were able to explain their philosophy of self-defense to the students.
The law enacted at that time by the Washington State Legislature- still in effect- prohibits display of a weapon in “a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.”
The legislature apparently included the language pertaining to display that “warrants alarm for the safety of other persons” in order to discourage further displays of armed force at the state capitol. Lawyers have challenged that language for being vague and arbitrary. In the 1994 case of STATE V. SPENCER, the Washington courts upheld a conviction under RCW 9.41.270 when a man with an AK-47 slung over his shoulder and a loaded magazine walked through a residential area just North of Federal Way with his head down avoiding eye contact.
Like the quotation that came out of one famous U.S. Supreme Court obscenity case- the justices knew obscenity when they saw it- the judges in Washington state seemed to know display warranting alarm when they saw it and held that Spencer had unlawfully displayed his weapon. But every time there is a new attempt to ban certain firearms, some gun advocates come openly armed to the Capitol Building in Olympia. The Washington State Patrol still acknowledges the citizens’ First Amendment and Second Amendment rights and refuses to harass armed citizens sitting and standing in the hearing rooms and corridors of our state legislature. Maybe we can thank the Black Panthers for paving the way!
Ancient Israelites were commanded to carefully obey all the law their servant Moses charged them to keep! They were not to swerve to the right or to the left. Thus, they would be successful in everything they did. The laws revealed through Moses were to never leave their lips:
You must memorize it day and night so you can carefully obey all that is written in it. Then you will prosper and be successful. I repeat, be strong and brave! Don’t be afraid and don’t panic, for I, the Lord your God, am with you in all you do.”
Joshua 1:2-9 (NIV)
God gave a clear order for Joshua to take action to possess the land promised to the Israelites many years before. Action was required to receive the promise. The instruction then was to possess and defend what God had given.
Every step that Joshua took in obedience to the command opened up new windows of opportunity to perform what seemed to be an impossible undertaking. Joshua’s spies received assistance from Rahab, a harlot. Now, of course, harlot is a not too polite way of saying she was a whore. According to Joshua 2: 8 and 9, the spies lay down for the night and Rahab went up on the roof and said to them, “I know that the LORD has given this land to you and that a great fear of you has fallen on us, so that all who live in this country are melting in fear because of you.” Joshua 2:8-9 (NIV).
The Scripture repeatedly demonstrates that people that are oppressed, despised and exploited are on the heart of the Father when they are fighting for the Kingdom and not for the other side.
Rahab stated that the people’s hearts melted when they heard about the power of God after he parted the Red Sea and destroyed the Amorites. The reports of Israel’s exploits while they wandered in the wilderness created a general fear of YAHWEH, the God of Israel, in all the nations that surrounded the Israelite tribes. All that remained was for Joshua to take his people across the Jordan River and claim what God had already given them.
In a leader like Joshua there is a temptation to seek conquest. Consider, for example, men like Alexander and Napoleon. Self-aggrandizing militarism and conquest for the sake of ego gratification is not what Americans desire. Just look at the current polls regarding whether to launch a limited strikes in order to degrade Syria’s capacity to wage war against the rebels, many of whom are aligned with the same Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists our government is trying to detect.
The NSA sifts through our emails and spends billions to break into encrypted messages while the CIA prepares to arm and train the very same operatives the other side of our U.S. intelligence community is seeking to detect!
Even Americans that have no familiarity with the Bible have received a cultural understanding that abhors militarism. In fact, the idol worshipping nations and tribes that surrounded the ancient Hebrews worshipped conquest, sexual lust and militarism. It sounds like both of our major political parties and most of the public officials that live within eighteen or nineteen contiguous zip codes around the Washington, DC area.
Joshua had to remain connected to his Creator and continue receiving instruction every step of the way in order to prevail against the armies of the Canaanites, Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Amorites and Jebusites that stood between where Joshua’s army waited and the peace and security that had already been promised.
To be a successful warrior, God reminded Joshua, “…be strong and brave! Don’t be afraid and don’t panic, for I, the Lord your God, am with you in all you do.”
Thus, Yahweh instructed the ancient Israelites to remain grounded in the Books of the Law. A close relationship with God is necessary for a nation or an individual to succeed. He Trains My Hands For Battle Page 7.
Trusting in the promise of God’s protection was therefore linked to strong action. A similar mindset is necessary in modern times. God has given us a mandate to protect the heritage with which we are blessed and the means for doing so with bold action.
The reason Israel spent forty years in the wilderness is because of the reports of men that Moses had sent with Joshua to survey the promised land. The men came back and gave all the reasons that seeking God’s promises was futile. We see the same thing today in the “mainstream” media and academic elite. They deride the idea that sound principles for conducting public policy can be found in the Bible.
If a student in most university classes advances the idea that Scriptural principles may be a the basis for sound public policy, the professor will treat him or her like an unruly child that has interrupted a serious adult conversation in order to recommend that following the gingerbread crumb trail is the best way to find our way out of the forest.
David was already trained in warfare when he slew Goliath. 1 Samuel 16 demonstrates that he was skilled in warfare and prudent:
One of the servants answered, “I have seen a son of Jesse of Bethlehem who knows how to play the harp. He is a brave man and a warrior. He speaks well and is a fine-looking man. And the LORD is with him.”
1 Samuel 16:15-18
There are others whom God called to lead in times of need – none of whom thought they were any more qualified than the average citizen of today for the task, young men like Jephthah:
Now Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty man of valor, and he was the son of a harlot: and Gilead begot Jephthah. And Gilead’s wife bore him sons; and his wife’s sons grew up, and they thrust out Jephthah, and said unto him, Thou shalt not inherit in our father’s house; for thou art the son of a strange woman. Then Jephthah fled from his brethren, and dwelt in the land of Tob: and there were gathered vain men to Jephthah, and went out with him.
In other words, Jephtah was rejected because his mother was a whore and he joined up with some kind of gang. But the Ammonites made war against Israel. And when the Ammonites made war against Israel, the elders of Gilead turned to Jephthah who was in Tob.
The elders pleaded with Jephthah to be lead them, apparently because he was experienced in fighting. They wanted him to fight the Ammonites. And Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, “Didn’t you hate me, and run me out of my father’s house? and why are y’all coming to me now when ye are in distress?”
The leaders of the community turned to Jephtah and asked him to go with them to lead the fight against the Ammonites, and be head over all the inhabitants of Gilead. And Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, “If ye bring me home again to fight against the children of Ammon, and the LORD deliver them before me, shall I be your head?”
And the elders of Gilead agreed to Jephtah’s proposal. Then Jephthah went with the volunteers from among the people to fight their enemies. Something just like that seems to be happening in Detroit, Michigan where it takes almost an hour for law enforcement to arrive if you call 911. The people have been taking possession of their own communities and keeping watch on things, even cleaning up the garbage and demolishing abandoned houses.
We might be tempted to call them thugs today. Most of these young men probably had suffered rejection that was similar to Jephthah’s experience. What makes Jephthah worthy of special mention in Hebrews 11- a list of men and women that demonstrate mighty faith?.
But despite the fact that he seemed to be motivated by selfish ambition, Jephthah knew the heritage of Israel. He sent messengers to the opposing King of Ammon (the people that inhabited the territory comprising modern day Jordan). The message set forth a legal brief and Scriptural basis for Israel’s historical freedom.
Jephthah’s messengers asked the king of Ammon, “Why are you coming against us to fight in Israel? And the king of Ammon answered the messengers of Jephthah, “Because Israel took away my land, when they came up out of Egypt, from Arnon even to Jabbok, and to Jordan: now therefore restore those lands again peaceably.
And Jephthah sent messengers to the king of o Ammon again and said to him, “Jephthah told us to convey the message to you that Israel did not take the land of Moab or the land of Ammon: But when Israel came up from Egypt, and walked through the wilderness to the Red sea, and came to Kadesh.
Then Israel sent messengers to the king of Edom, saying, Let me please pass through your land: but the king of Edom would not listen. And in like manner they sent to the king of Moab: but he would not consent: and Israel stayed in Kadesh. Then they went along through the wilderness, and compassed the land of Edom, and the land of Moab, and came by the east side of the land of Moab, and pitched on the other side of Arnon, but came not into the border of Moab: for Arnon was the border of Moab. Jephthah’s messengers knew their history and this is how Jephtah demonstrated great faith. He had good lawyers that represented matters in a way that was based on Constitutional rights!
The messengers went on to explain not so diplomatically that, back in Moses time (the times of the Founding Fathers, so to speak) , Israel sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites, the king of Heshbon; and Israel said unto him, Let us pass, please, through your land into the Canaan.
Sihon had then fought against Israel. And the LORD God of Israel delivered Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and Israel smote them: so Israel possessed all the land of the Amorites from Arnon even to Jabbok, and from the wilderness even to Jordan. The LORD God of Israel had taken away the land of the Amorites and given the land to Israel.
The messengers boldly asked the king of a the people that lived in and around modern day Jordan, “And should you possess it? Won’t you possess that which Chemosh your god gives you to possess? So who ever the LORD our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess.”
Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin talked like that to a terrorist warlord in Somalia and the politicians marked him as not sufficiently diverse in his outlook, albeit one of the most respected leaders of the war on terrorism. From 1978-1993 he was assigned in various capacities to Delta Force. A Fort Bragg psychologist almost ended Boykin’s career, wanting to exclude him from Delta Force because he was “too religious". However, he was finally accepted into the Delta Force.
The Bush administration eventually terminated Lt. Ben. Boykin’s military career for wearing his uniform to church and saying things that were not nice about followers of the religion of peace. Gen. Boykin is still fighting the war against terrorism (but is no longer wearing the shiny uniform) and has demonstrated how true believers will always be set outside the camp. The camp of our enemies does not want to listen to truth.
Look at how the Obama Administration has waged a war against American gun owners even while giving firearms to the narco-terrorist cartels in Mexico. It is clear that the Obama Administration has been arming the Muslim Brotherhood, including the factions that tortured, raped and murdered the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi. And now the Adminstration is arming Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria.
And now art thou any thing better than Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab? did he ever strive against Israel, or did he ever fight against them, while Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that be along by the coasts of Arnon, three hundred years? why therefore did ye not recover them within that time?
Wherefore I have not sinned against thee, but thou doest me wrong to war against me: the LORD the Judge be judge this day between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon.
Jephthah is an example of young men that are motivated by a sense of adventure and understand their duty to uphold the heritage of their people. We need an understanding of Biblical history and our American Constitutional heritage in order to be prepared for the times in which we live! Jephthah was a warrior that declared the mighty works of Yahweh from one generation to another.
Anyone that has ever been convicted of domestic violence in Washington State needs to be warned that the NICS and BATFE no longer recognize a Restoration of Rights for Washington state convictions that are non-felony domstic violence convictions. You should also be aware that not all convictions that courts call domestic violence cause a person to lose their right to possess firearms. State and federal laws on the subject of domestic violence and gun rights are very technical and you should schedule a legal consultation in order to look carefully at any convictions that you think resulted from allegations of domestic violence.
Many Washington State citizens with misdemeanor DV convictions who have already followed the laws enacted by our state legislature and Congress for the purpose of restoring firearms rights are now seeing their rights denied by federal authorities. The intent of Congress was that a state court order restoring firearm rights should remove federal prohibitions on posssessing firearms; i.e., the federal statute expressly contains an exception for offenders whose right to possess has been restored under state law:
“A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.”
BATFE and NICS now take the position that a Washington State court order restoring firearm rights to misdemeanants does not remove firearm prohibitions under federal law because the conviction does not result in the loss of civil rights.
The Wyoming Attorney General recently filed a lawsuit in federal district court over the federal government’s refusal to honor Wyoming state procedure for restoring gun rights in domestic violence misdemeanor cases. Perhaps our legislators will soon realize the fiasco created by the Lautenberg Amendment and join the efforts to repeal it. Please contact your representatives and encourage them to become educated about this issue and respond appropriately.
Note that vacating a Washington conviction does not completely expunge or set-aside the conviction as required by federal law. See federal interpretations of the Tenth Circuit in the case of Wyoming ex rel Crank v United States.
It is necessary to petition the Washington State courts for a Certificate of Rehabilition and Restoration of Firearms Rights and merely vacating the conviction or expungement does not meet the requirements of Washington law nor will such procedure satisfy federal criteria for restoration of the right to possess firearms.
In the Crank case, the State of Wyoming sued the BATF because the BATF interpretes the state expungement statute in such a way that federal gun rights are not restored subsequent to a restoration of rights under Wyoming law. Washington is in the Ninth Circuit and our statute, enacted by the legislature to restore gunrights, is significantly different than the Wyoming expungement statute that was the issue in Crank. However, it is not enough to merely vacate the conviction under RCW 9.96.060(3). You must obtain a Certificate of Rehabilitation under RCW 9.41.047.
For now the bottom line is that if you were convicted of most felonies and Washington state restores your right to possess a weapon then the BATFE and NICS will recognize Washington’s restoration of your gun rights.
On the other hand, if your rights are restored subsequent to a DV that is not a felony, the fact that your other civil rights were not taken away under state law is interpreted by federal authorities to dictate that Washington cannot restore your rights in a way that the BATFE and NICS will recognize.
“Peaceful” protests have continued almost nonstop since the jury acquitted George Zimmerman. There are voices from the news media, civil rights leaders and politicians, including the President and U.S. Attorney General, that have subtly fed fires of resentment that might eventually build to widespread violence.
Gangs have inflicted beatings on white and Hispanic people in more than one city, vandalized businesses and broken windshields of occupied vehicles, threatening passengers and punching pedestrians. Police officers are also being attacked.
George Zimmerman was only charged after extreme pressure from thousands of protesters who converged on Sanford, Florida in 2012. We now know that the protests were orchestrated, in part, by the U.S. Department of Justice. We know this because a group that monitors such things obtained DOJ records via a FOIA request.
We also know that the DOJ conducted a separate investigation and probably influenced the City of Sanford in its decision to terminate Chief Lee when he refused to illegally prosecute Zimmerman without probable cause.
In 2004, Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama co-sponsored a bill to make Illinois’ 1961 “stand your ground” law more effective
After the Zimmerman trial, the President proclaimed, “Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago,” and proceeded to call for a “reexamination” of such laws.
Even though a duty to retreat was not an issue in the Zimmerman case, the Presdident stated, “We might want to examine those kinds of laws… to consider if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk, and do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened?”
“I know that there’s been commentary about the fact that Stand Your Ground laws in Florida were not used as defense of the case. On the other hand, if we’re sending a message as society in our communities that someone who is armed has a right to use those firearms even if there’s a way for them to exit from the situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we’d like to see?”
The 2004 Illinois bill (SB 2386), co-sponsored by state Sen. Obama, expanded a 1961 Illinois law by shielding the person who was attacked from being sued in civil court by perpetrators or their estates when a stand-your-ground defense is used in protecting his or her person, dwelling or other property.
According to the Investor’s Business Daily, Florida’s violent crime rate, which fell by 12% in the five years before the stand-your-ground law was enacted in 2005, fell by 23% in the five years afterward.
See also how African-Americans benefit from the Stand Your Ground law in Florida at Investor’s Business Daily.
Law enforcement needs to have zero tolerance for law breakers and obstruction of traffic, rock throwing or vandalism should be treated as a prelude to bloodshed. Additionally, politicians that condone the idea that Zimmerman’s jury rendered an unfair verdict are acquiescing in lawlessness. There is no excuse for lawyers (or politicians) at the state level or the federal government to imply that the outcome of the trial is an injustice, based on race or that the right to defend ourselves should be diminished by a duty to retreat.
A majority of states, including Washington never had a duty to retreat. Many states states like Illinois and Florida that had a duty to retreat have enacted Stand Your Ground laws after their courts undermined the traditional doctrine that self-defense is a God-given, inalienable right. The duty to retreat, which never caught on beyond a minority of states, creates a burden on defendants to show that deadly force is their only option.
Attorney General Holder made public statements after the Zimmerman trial that indicate that he thinks that “standing your ground” is some radical new concept. It has always been the rule in most states and was always the rule under the Common Laws of England and most American case law precedents.
If Mr. Holder would check, a stand your ground instruction is also contained in the federal self-defense instructions presented to juries in United States District Court proceedings where there are U.S. federal charges!
Even though neither the state nor the defense raised Stand Your Ground as an issue during the trial, the jury instructions informed the jury that the defendant had no duty to retreat, exactly like the self-defense jury instructions in Washington state, jury instructions in most other states and federal jury instructions.
But notice how a God-given right and thousands of years of settled law are under attack with a campaign of disinformation from every angle at the highest levels of government. The Progressive elite believes that life belongs to the state and that there is no authority beyond the dicates of what the elite determines will provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people. That is why even the slightest restrictions on abortion are fought in every venue, on every front and with levels of intensity that reveal that the powers and principalities with which we wrestle emanate even from above the President of the United States or the other usual supects.
I am reading the FOUNDERS’ BIBLE. I have already read many of the articles and received fresh motivation to read the Bible because of the articles about the founding of the United States. David Barton- who has an organization called WallBuilders- is a unique historian and he has helped provided article for the Founders’ Bible that put the spot light on the unique way in which the Founders of our nation were very aware of the direct correlation between Scriptural truth and the roots of our American order. Barton believes that history should be told through the lives of great individuals and that men and women catch truth by relating to great historical figures.
The Founders of our nation demonstrate some of the same courage and integrity that we see in Biblical leaders like Samuel and King David. The United States Constitution was inspired by the covenants made with Abraham and Abraham’s descendants; i.e., the Constitution is a covenant between the people of the several states and the federal government. From the time of the earliest colonies in the New World, believers entered into such covenants in order to govern themselves. They took their inspiration from the numerous examples of written covenants in the Old and New Testaments.
In fact the concept of a “testament” itself, as understood by the established usage in the early colonies, was synonymous with the term “Covenant”. Thus, the Calvinistic believers came to the New World in order to establish what they called a New Jerusalem modeled after the Old Covenant Commonwealth of Israel and the early Christian Church in the New Covenant Book of Acts!
The Armed Defense Training Association gave me the beautifully bound and illustrated Founders’ Bible as a gift. Along with the articles from David Barton, the personal messages conveyed with the gift have motivated me to dig deeper into our heritage as a nation based on morality, law and reverence for Scripture.
ADTA President Chad Hiatt’s message in particular was as beautiful as the leather bound gift itself:
“The concept of a “SHOOTING ARTS CENTER” in our home town was outrageous, and it was perfect. You took what you saw as the staus quo and insisted on looking at it from a new angle. That shift, that shared opportunity, formed the core of what we all together built into the Armed Defense Training Association, an organization to which we are now all contributing, and from which we will find creative and community fulfillment.”
I could not be more pleased if the ADTA had given me a 1911 pistol with pearl handles and eagles engraved in gold!
But I want to be careful not to attribute positions to the ADTA that are not consistent with its mission. The ADTA does not have a religious purpose, nor are we political. Nevertheless, neighbors encouraging each other to develop confidence in the use of arms is a tradition of volunteerism reinforcing traditions that go back to Israel. The historical trail leads through the history of England and other European nations, including Rome and Greece.
Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Montesquieu and other noteworthy philosophers have all written on the subject of arms and self-defense. Montesquieu in THE SPIRIT OF THE LAWS (1748) asks, “Who does not see that self-defense is a duty superior to every precept (of personal freedom).” He severely criticized Venice because the Venetian rulers deemed bearing arms a capital offense; such restrictions on self-defense were, in Montesquieu’s opinion, against the nature of things. Incidentally, Montesquieu was one of the thinkers that articulated the concept of keeping the government out of matters that concern religion.
David Barton is a historian that has been reminding folks of the link between the founding of our nation and the heritage of Scripture, ancient Israel and Christian teaching. Barton is very pro-Second Amendment and it comes across in the Founders’ Bible in articles like the one entitled “HE TRAINS MY HANDS FOR WAR”. I heard him talking once on television about how anti-slavery folks were brutally attacked by pro-slavery people in the South and sometimes had to defend themselves with firearms. And his writings and teachings contain many such examples in U.S. history of armed force deployed by volunteers to defend righteousness and suppress evildoers. The Old Testament is also full of such examples and the New Testament authors held such warriors in high regard. See Hebrews 11.
The articles cover subjects like what the Bible says about church-state relations, slavery, the First Great Awakening and quotes from various public leaders, including many presidents up through recent times that have endorsed the Bible.
After the Revolution, one of the first things the new Congress did was to endorse publication of an English language Bible in America. The Founders agreed that democracy can only work in a nation guided by Judeo-Christian precepts of morality, justice and commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord.
Barton’s critics, which are legion, complain that he has misstated the facts concerning the publication of the Aitken translation of the Bible but the WallBuilders website provides a quantity of detail concerning what Congress did and did not do related to the publication of the Bible which was done at Aitken’s expense. See also To Your Tents, O Israel.
David Kopel, a law professor at the University of Colorado, is a well known Second Amendment advocate who has also written some good articles on the subject of how our American forefathers looked to the ancient Commonwealth of Israel for Biblical inspiration before, during and after the Revolutionary War.
Stephen P. Halbrook, also a firearms lawyer, has similarly documented the history of the Second Amendment and how intricately the basic human right of self-defense is bound to the roots of our American order. One of his books entitled The Founders’ Second Amendment (may, 2008) deals with the origins of the Second Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court quoted Dr. Halbrook’s work on the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to Black Freedmen’s civil rights and the Second Amendment after the Civil War in the DC V Heller majority opinion. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2809–10 (2008) (citing generally STEPHEN P. HALBROOK, FREEDMEN, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, & THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, 1866–1876 (Greenwood Publishing Group 1998); reprinted as STEPHEN P. HALBROOK, SECURING CIVIL RIGHTS: FREEDMEN, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS (Independent Institute 2010).
I was particularly moved by David Barton’s article entitled Where the Journey Began. Barton’s account of how he became the signature historian of the Founders’ Bible relates the story of young King Josiah and how he responded when the workmen discovered the Books of the Law while remodeling the Temple. At that time, most of the priests and teachers had fallen away from Scriptural truth and the Commonwealth of Israel was given over to the worship of idols. The amazing things was that Josiah read the Scriptures on his own and immediately repented and started leading the nation of Israel back to truth.
Many of us are troubled by what we see happening in the land today. The Bible does not just speak to issues about God but to every kind of relationship, personal and economic. Most Bible teachers avoid the subject of what the Scripture says about government, warfare and economics because folks are worn out by cultural warfare. Preachers and Bible teachers don’t want to tear down false idols because that gets into political issues! Nevertheless, ubiquitous mass-shootings, especially in our public schools, are evidence that the Progressive cultural crusade is winning the war.
One of the first things King Josiah did was tear down the altars of the false gods. I am convinced that we will see a bold new generation of Americans when young Americans experience what King Josiah experienced. Young people long for an adventure that calls for real challenges, sacrifice and courage. The Bible is a call to perform bold exploits.
David Barton, Shiloh Road Publishers and the other historians that contributed to the Founders’ Bible have declared God’s mighty works for generations to come and have made the call relevant to modern Americans.
Yom HaZikaron laShoah ve-laG’vurah ("Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance Day"), is being celebrated by Jews all over the world as Yom HaShoah. In the U.S. we call it Holocaust Remembrance Day, or Holocaust Day.
Israel is commemorating the millions of Jewish people who perished in the Holocaust carried out by statist ideologues who worshipped the German state and Adolph Hitler in place of God. Inaugurated by David Ben-Gurion and Israel’s President in 1953, Yom HaShoah was to be celebrated on the 14th of Nisan, the anniversary of the Warsaw ghetto uprising (April 19, 1943).
An armed Jewish rebellion started in the Warsaw ghetto in 1943. It was the largest single revolt by the Jews during World War II. Hundreds of thousands of Jews died of starvation and sickness and many Warsaw ghetto residents went to the Treblinka death camp.
The insurgents had little ammunition; more weapons were supplied throughout the uprising, and some were captured from the Germans. Some weapons were handmade by the resistance; sometimes such weapons worked, other times they jammed repeatedly.
The Polish Resistance and the communist People’s Guard attacked the German’s and smuggled weapons, ammunition, supplies, and instructions into the Ghetto. The Polish resistance could not provide many weapons. Nevertheless, the Jewish Military Union (Żydowski Związek Wojskowy, ŻZW) received arms, including several automatic weapons, from the mainstream Home Army (Armia Krajowa, AK).
The Polish Resistance encouraged and assisted the Jews in the ghetto but the armed Jewish resistance was an awakening that fulfilled God’s mandate in the Book of Judges that the generations of Israel coming after Joshua should know warfare!
These are the nations the LORD left to test all those Israelites who had not experienced any of the wars in Canaan (he did this only to teach warfare to the descendants of the Israelites who had not had previous battle experience): the five rulers of the Philistines, all the Canaanites, the Sidonians, and the Hivites living in the Lebanon mountains from Mount Baal Hermon to Lebo Hamath. They were left to test the Israelites to see whether they would obey the LORD’s commands, which he had given their ancestors through Moses.
Today, in the United States, the technology and the ideological underpinnings of Hitler’s statism are on the move again. The racist doctrines of the National Socialist Worker’s Party- foolish religious claims of Aryan-Teutonic racial supremacy- are what we think of first in connection with Germany’s government during the time of the Holocaust. Although we do not see those racial teachings in today’s U.S. government, the seed is present here, in Europe and across the globe. For example, many in our government declare that unborn children do not have rights; i.e., that they are not human beings!
The belief that only certain people should be permitted the means of armed self-defense is another doctrine that is being propagated at the highest levels of government. The underlying premise of such a belief was historically based on a belief on the part of Southern Democrats that Blacks were inherently inferior and violent; such an ideology persists even up through modern times. More importantly, perhaps, there is a more supposedly modern perception that only professionals with specialized training can safeguard life and liberty.
Our nation’s Founders, on the other hand, saw that all the people, as a militia at large, are the best safeguard against statist tyranny in all of its many disguises. Christian thinkers like John Calvin and Francis Schaeffer wrote about the subject of civil disobedience practiced by Christians. In A Christian Manifesto, Francis Schaeffer reviewed the orthodox Christian view regarding civil disobedience. He stated that Christians must obey God rather than human governments when forced to choose between fundamental Christian principles and the dictates of the state:
Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”
See Acts 4:19.
God’s laws are ultimately supreme over manmade constitutional or statutory laws. Allegiance to God’s law requires that we refuse to bow down when human governmental authorities demand that we commit acts that are against God’s Word; i.e., “there is not only the right, but the duty, to disobey the state.” Note well that the U.S. Constitution recognizes that certain unalienable rights (like self-defense) are not conferred by society but are divinely endowed by virtue of the fact that all human beings are made in the image of our Creator. Y-W-H God is a supreme being who loves justice and also loves each of us at a personal level!
He also breathed some of his sovereignty into you and I when He made us in His image. Thus, tyrants hate the Bible and need to reinterpret the Constitution. Every one of us that adheres to the truth is an enemy of the secular Utopian state envisioned by progressives that seek to improve society by eliminating unwanted members of society. The unborn child is an easy target with which to begin the process of elimination. This is because unborn children are the most helpless human beings; very few interest groups will speak out on behalf of the unborn.
Government must never be substituted for the living God. Most Christians in Germany failed to perform acts of civil disobedience. But Schaeffer also pointed out that none of us has the right to decide on our own when a government is so unjust that armed resistance is justified. We should not philosophize about which conditions would need to exist in order to justify armed rebellion against government. This is because discussing such matters creates a certain political environment that exacerbates and leads to violence. Christians are commanded to obey government and live at peace with every man!
The Bible teaches us to pray for leaders in government and does not suggest that Christians should resist tyranny by revolting against authority. Thus Shaeffer did not advocate for abolishing government to form some ideal government envisioned by the nation’s Founders. Knowledge of Scripture and history teaches a thinking person that we cannot seek some abstract ideal while we live in a fallen world. Schaeffer recognized that if each man and woman does what is right in our eyes, chaos will ensue.
However, the severity our forefathers endured in order to enact the Declaration of Independence requires that force might be necessary to protect our families and neighbors against the intensity of violence that occured in societies like Germany under Hitler. The story of Esther is instructive because she stood for her people when an evil conspiracy took hold in Persia to destroy the people of Israel.
Those who hated the Jews were prepared to attack because of a decree that Ahaseurus had enacted when an advisor deceived him. The decree could not be revoked because of the ancient traditions of the Medes. Thus, in order to neutralize the effect of an illegal decreee issued under color of law, the emperor decreed a temporary edict that was like the Second Amendment. The new decree permitted Israelites and their neighbors to deploy armed force in order to defend against Israel’s enemies.
But any Scriptural analysis must focus first on the love of God which encompasses defense of others and Christians should contemplate armed force against government only under the most extreme circumstances!
Schaeffer, along with other traditional theologians going back to the earliest history of the Church, stated that Christians need to always seek a duly constituted magistrate and align ourselves with legitimate authority. This points us to those officials who are under proper authority; i.e., elected and appointed officials that are faithful to their oaths to uphold the United States Constitution and the constitutions of their respective states.
The first thing that genocidal tyrants of the right and left propose is restricting gun rights. Sheriffs in 15 states have recently vowed to defy new state and federal gun control laws. There are 380 (or more) sheriffs that have publicly committed to nullify un-Constitutional gun laws. Several state legislatures have also taken legislative steps toward making it a crime to assist federal agents to enforce illegal laws; i.e.,un-Constitutional statutes and executive orders.
The fact that the laws of our land remove local law enforcement and other local government agencies from centralized control is one of the strongest safeguards against the kind of tyranny that Germany and other modern nations experienced during the Twentieth Century, a century of collectivism and intense genocide over large areas of the planet.
There is now countering legislation proposed to remove any sheriff that does not further enforcement of the proposed new federal gun restrictions. The first effort emerged in Texas. Dallas Democratic Rep. Yvonne Davis proposed a law that would remove any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal laws. The law would remove any elected or appointed law enforcement officer for simply signing any document stating that they will not obey federal orders.
We need to support the growing number of sheriffs across the United States who have vowed to protect the right of citizens to keep and bear weapons for lawful defense of self and others.
Such civil disobedience is Scriptural and legal because the 10th Amendment states unequivocally that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Objections were advanced by some of the Founders that listing certain rights might result in a perception that rights not included in the Bill of Rights might be denied to the people. Thus, the Ninth Amendment retains all rights to the people as individuals:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Resolutions have been introduced in the legislatures of 27 states that would nullify federal authority over manufacture, commerce and possession of firearms within the state, provided that there is not interstate commerce involved. The legislation passed in Montana and Tennessee in 2009 and in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming the following year. in 2010, the South Carolina legislature was considering a new law that would ignore all gun registration laws within the state. Texas and West Virginia filed similar legislation for the 2011 legislative session.
Idaho, Wyoming and several other states are now also considering laws that constrain their officials to uphold their oath to the Constitution regarding the Second Amendment. The Biblical reference to magistrates is a legal term that refers to public officials, including elected and appointed officials. Many of the appointed officials in our land owe their appointments to the elite political-media complex.
The fact is that even the biggest urban counties, where the power of the elite is the most concentrated, encompass large numbers of voters that live in rural areas. These voters, like the elected Sheriffs, understand that everyone’s freedom is at stake if lawmakers enact proposed restrictions on our ability to defend our families.
Elected Sheriffs therefore have emerged as the strongest advocates for the Constitutional because they do not owe fealty to the financial and political interests that are selling our great nation to the highest bidders.
We should pray for all our officials and remember that there are certain interests attempting to divide the people from our law enforcement officials. The Book of Romans states that the magistrate bears the sword in order to suppress evildoers.
There will be difficult conflicts and controversies ahead for law enforcement and other public officials; every American needs to stand with these men and women. A shadow war- conducted under color of law- against decent public order is underway. No American should be deceived into taking matters into our own hands.
There were others, not just Jews, that died in the Holocaust. The Founders kept our government local and recognized that a well armed population is safer than the alternatives. Each of us is called to stand like Esther for our people in such a time as this.
Jerry Galland was running against James Fossos for South King Fire and Rescue Commissioner in 2011. Mr. Galland filed a complaint with the Public Disclosure Commission against Fossos for not making his campaign accounts available for public inspection.
Galland asked Mr. Fossos to inspect his account books during the week before the election and Fossos was required to make the books available. Rather than meet Galland at the Fossos residence which was the address listed with the PDC per the Fossos campaign’s C-1 report, Mr. Fossos began calling and emailing the PDC to express concerns about the safety of himself and his wife.
On Nov. 1, 2011, Fossos emailed the PDC staff, stating, “…due to security concerns I have changed my meeting place for candidate financial view of my books… to the Des Moines Library.”Fossos apparently claimed that his opponent was making an issue about bringing his gun to the records inspection meeting, according to a PDC memo to the Commissioners dated March 21, 2013.
Actually, it was Fossos that made an issue out of guns at the meeting place. He stated that he had asked the Complainant not to bring his gun to the library for the inspection of his campaign records and Galland would not agree to his request.
According to my discussions with Jerry, the only reason for Mr. Fossos to perceive that Mr. Galland might carry a weapon was because of a widely reported episode in 2011 when SKFR Commissioners, which included Fossos, were forced to withdraw an illegal ban on firearms at SKFR Commissioner’s Meetings.
“I neither agreed nor disagreed (to the emailed demand that Galland not be armed at the library). Fossos is practiced at jumping to conclusions, and is usually wrong when he does. In addition to saying Fossos had no right to make the demand, I simply asked if it was against the law to carry in the library.”
Jerry had previously prevailed after SKFR Commissioners tried to ban videotaping of their public meetings and then he also prevailed after a group of open carry folks came to a meeting with their side arms in plain view. The picture below appeared in the Federal Way Mirror after the SKFR Commisioners tried to have the FWPD eject Jim Beal (left) and other open carry advocates from a meeting. James Fossos (right) is wearing the black hat and other black apparel in the picture.
It looks almost like Paladin meeting Yancy Derringer or Wyatt Earp!
Jerry had previously pointed out to the Commission that its ban on firearms was just as illegal as the previous ban on videotaping their meetings. Jerry did not even own a sidearm in 2011. He did, however, bring a video camera to film SKFR meetings in order to back up what he wrote about on his blog. This apprently indicated to Fossos that Galland must also be intent on bringing a gun to meeting places.
Jerry no doubt was concerned that, without a video to record the meeting at the library, Mr. Fossos might allege that Galland became belligerent or worse- exactly what Mr. Fossos actually alleged against Galland as his defense against the PDC Complaint. Many of the PDC charges have been proven to be true and acknowledged by Fossos.
It seems unlikely that the Commission ever saw the videotape and observed for themselves whether Fossos was justified in walking away from the meeting at the library!
“…and when I got there he and his assistant began videotaping our meeting. I asked him to turn off the camera before I would meet with him and show him my books and he refused… I informed him as long as he would not turn the camera off I would not meet with them. After which he became confrontational and belligerent… “
Fossos already had made up a nonexistent threat related to Jerry carrying a weapon. Of course, carrying a gun is something that would have been entirely lawful for Jerry to do. The fact that Fossos even assumed that Jerry would be carrying was based on a false assumption.
Fossos must have reasoned to himself, “Why would anyone fight to uphold the state firearms preemption law unless he wants to bring a gun into a meeting and intimidate others with it?”
Fossos, however, seemed to suspect even more nefarious reasons for Galland to wear a gun upon his person. Fossos felt that Galland might pose a threat of harm! And the most surprising aspect of this whole sordid affair is that the PDC investigator stated that Mr. Fossos made a good faith effort to accommodate the complainant’s request to inspect his campaign books of account during the 2011 general election!
“Under the circumstances, Mr. Fossos substantially complied with the inspection opportunity requirements, and the allegations that he violated RCW 42.17.080 should be dismissed.”
In conclusion, it now seems increasingly likely that people reaching for excuses for bad conduct will raise false allegations concerning intimidation when dealing with someone that is preceived to carry a gun. Mr. Fossos succeeded in getting one of the charges against him dismissed by pretending that he was in fear of violence when he really just did not have his records in order.
There are still other serious allegations on which the Commission will no doubt rule against Fossos because he agreed that they were true. JIm should use racism as his justification the next time he gets caught not reporting campaign contributions. That is the tried and true formula for big spending politicos.
Ironically, Galland has contended all along that some SKFR officials are too free and easy in their spending on things like travel and entertainment. Incidentally, the word is that Fossos gets the bulk of his contributions from public employee unions.
Read more here.
Fossos has been a Commissioner off and on since 1993. The free and easy way that the Fossos campaign failed to timely report expenditures and in-kind contributions for advertising and related campaign expenses raises issues about whether the rest of the old boy network in South King County is too free and easy with taxpayer funds. The PDC found that Fossos also failed to timely disclose monetary contributions.
Despite Mr. Galland’s objections, the false, inflammatory and highly prejudicial allegation that Jerry “raised issues” about a gun at his meeting with Mr. Fossos at the library was included in the report on which the PDC relied. That report is now presumably included with the official record.
Jerry Galland submitted a request to the PDC under the Public Disclosure Act because he wanted to discover why a uniformed Trooper was present at the hearing. The response to his request is unfolding some interesting information and more documents from the Washington State Patrol are expected within the next two weeks.
We now know why the WSP had a trooper at the PDC meeting and paid two hours overtime, plus travel, for a uniformed officer to be present. They requested a “plain clothed officer” on the grounds that a state trooper should be at the March 28 Commission meeting “due to a potentially disruptive participant who has been known to carry an unconcealed gun”
I know Jerry well and he only started carrying concealed recently and does not open carry. Thus, Jerry has never carried anywhere that any person at the PDC meeting or anyone else would have known he was carrying. The fact that he raised the issue of an illegal policy promulgated for SKFR regarding fire commissioner meetings somehow cast him as a dangerous individual in the eyes of Suemary Trobaugh, an Administrative Officer for the PDC.
The emails we have reviewed indicate that the PDC executive director was very concerned about the individual and requested arrangements be made for WSP to cover the PDC meeting.
WHAT IS AN NFA GUN TRUST?
NFA Firearms are guns and other items regulated by the National Firearms Act (the “NFA”). Many people mistakenly refer to them as “Class 3” firearms or weapons.
In Washington, suppressors (or silencers) are now legal to own and shoot. The NFA still regulates these items and individuals, business entities, and trusts are permitted to purchase suppressors and some other items by obtaining permission from the ATF. Transferring or making these items requires completion of a Form1 or Form 4 along with payment of $200 for a tax stamp.
While a traditional trust can be used to purchase NFA firearms, there are many problems with using a traditional trust and therefore only an NFA Gun Trust should be used.
We help individuals and their families educate and protect themselves from unintentional violations of the NFA. The process of creating an NFA Gun Trust involves talking with the Law Office of Mark Knapp PLLC and The Apple Law Firm PLLC to determine what and how the client’s family makeup will influence the structure of the trust.
We will also assist you to limit future legislative and transfer tax risks associated with NFA firearms ownership. Once the NFA Gun Trust is designed an attorney who is licensed in the proper state reviews the trust and forwards the trust to the client. The client reviews the instructions and FAQs and has a phone consultation to discuss any questions or comments on federal and state laws.
If necessary, modifications are made, then all grantors and trustees sign the trust. Once the trust is properly executed, NFA items can be purchased. The entire process takes less than a week and often only 1 – 2 days.
The ATF requires that all individuals obtain approval from their Chief Law Enforcement Officer (the “CLEO”) as part of the application process to obtain a Title II firearm from another individual or Class 3 dealer. Many CLEOs around the country are refusing to sign or even acknowledge the ATF Forms.
No CLEO Signature Required
There is no legal remedy in most states to force the review of these forms. In Washington a NFA Gun Trusts do not require the CLEO’s signature to obtain approval on a Form 4.
No Fingerprints or Photographs are Required
When using an NFA Gun Trust to acquire Title ii firearms, no fingerprints or photographs are required. This is a cost savings and can also significantly decrease the time required to take possession of the items. Often fingerprints have to be retaken because they are not acceptable for the FBi’s criminal database.
Individuals who submit their ATF forms to their CLEO are often concerned about who will have knowledge of their firearms. They also express concerns that they will come under additional scrutiny because the police will have knowledge that they are in possession of these more restricted firearms. In most states when using an NFA Gun Trust, neither the CLEO nor the police are given notice that you will be in possession of or own the NFA firearms.
If you become incapacitated, your family or friends are often the ones to help you. in doing so, they may come in contact with the restricted items and put themselves at risk of violating the NFA without knowledge. An NFA Gun Trust helps protect these individuals from violating the NFA by providing them clear instructions on what they are and are not permitted to do. Many normal trusts actually instruct people to break the law.
When you die your individually owned firearms will be part of your “probate estate.” With an NFA Gun Trust, your firearms are not subject to probate or made part of a public record. Your beneficiaries will be protected because they will receive guidance on how and under what circumstances the items can be legally transferred. if you have children, a NFA Gun Trust has specific provisions to protect them and make sure they do not receive the firearms if they live in a location where it is illegal to possess NFA firearms, and most importantly an NFA Gun Trust can help ensure that your children are mature and responsible enough that you would want them to have the firearms.
Call the Firearms Lawyer or (904) 685-1200.
Co-owners and Authorized Users
When an individual purchases Title ii firearms, he or she is the only one permitted to use or have access to them. Many people incorrectly believe that it is permissible to let others use their NFA firearms when in their presence. However, the NFA would consider this a transfer and be a violation of the law. When your spouse or someone else knows the combination to your firearms safe, you may be violating the law through constructive possession.
Improper possession through constructive possession is a form of an unapproved transfer and a violation of the NFA. If you use an NFA Gun Trust to purchase Title ii firearms, you can designate additional owners and authorized users. if you want to add or change users or owners a NFA Trust can be adapted to reflect your current desires. The risk of constructive possession can be dealt with by adding that person to the NFA Gun Trust so that they can be in legal possession of the Firearms. This can help protect you and your family from the penalties of violating the NFA.
Reducing Risk of Legal Changes
Many groups are attempting to limit the ability to transfer firearms to family members or friends. With an NFA Gun Trust an adult child, family member, or friend can be made a co-owner of the trust. While the ownership of the NFA Gun Trust can be changed, the NFA Gun Trust is still the registered owner of the firearms and no transfer has taken place under the NFA. Penalties for violating the National Firearms Act can be severe.
Each violation of the National Firearms Act subjects the owner to forfeiture of all weapons, 10 years in prison, and fines of up to $250,000. Thus, our NFA Trust provides guidance to family members that rely on the trust after you are gone.
Benefits of a NFA Gun Trust Over a Corporation or LLC
Corporations and LLCs have annual fees associated with them. Business entities are not private and much information about the individuals associated with them is contained in public records. Corporations and LLCs have annual state fees and other costs associated with the maintenance of the entity.
To make a change to an NFA Gun Trust, one simply amends the trust to change who can use, purchase, or possess the firearms without risk of criminal liability for violating the NFA.
The Copyrighted NFA Gun Trust
Our NFA Gun Trust is protected by US Copyright Laws and designed from the ground up to protect the firearms and those who are using or may be in possession of them from the penalties proscribed by state laws and the NFA. The NFA Gun Trust has been rewritten with these principals in mind. This trust instructs the grantors, trustees, successor trustees, and beneficiaries on their rights, duties, and qualifications and guides them through the proper way to purchase, use, and transfer the items under state and federal regulations.
Each NFA Gun Trust comes with a comprehensive instructional memorandum that covers how to purchase, transfer, use, share, transport, store the firearms as well as how to use the trust based on questions and feedback from thousands of clients.
How to Begin the Process of Creating Your NFA Gun Trust
The first step in creating your NFA Gun Trust is to call Mark Knapp at (253) 202-2081.