KC & Associates Investigations Research Associates

Quinault Valley Guns & Blades / Urban Escape & Evasion Course International Relations * Military * Terrorism * Business * Security www.kcandassociates.org orders@kcandassociates.org Kathleen Louise dePass Press Agent/Publicist .360.288.2652 Triste cosa es no tener amigos, pero ms triste ha de ser no tener enemigos porque quin no tenga enemigos seal es de que no tiene talento que haga sombra, ni carcter que impresione, ni valor temido, ni honra de la que se murmure, ni bienes que se le codicien, ni cosa alguna que se le envidie. A sad thing it is to not have friends, but even sadder must it be not having any enemies; that a man should have no enemies is a sign that he has no talent to outshine others, nor character that inspires, nor valor that is feared, nor honor to be rumored, nor goods to be coveted, nor anything to be envied. -Jose Marti

From the desk of Craig B Hulet? How America Breeds Mental Illness from Birth Until Death Police are suspending the handgun permits of people in the state who are prescribed antianxiety medication Giffords and husband still enjoy recreational gun use but would deny you Highway patrol gave feds Missouri weapon permits data Pro-Gun Control Senator to CNN Anchor: 'We Appreciate Your Support' EDITORIAL: Blumenthal uses Sandy Hook to raise campaign cash Biden: Gun Owners Like The Way It FeelsLike Driving a Ferrari Can the U.N. Ban America's Guns? NYC Manhattan District DA Confiscates Legal Knives from Retailers

The New York State Police are suspending the handgun permits of people in the state who are prescribed anti-anxiety medication, according to Jim Tresmond of the Tresmond Law Firm in Hamburg, New York. Tresmond Law specializes in firearm litigation. We are representing a client right now who is impacted by this onerous activity of the government, Tresmond told WBEN, a news talk radio station in Buffalo, New York. We were flummoxed by this whole matter, the attorney said. The HIPPA act is supposed to prevent this kind of thing from happening. Its a gross invasion of our privacy rights. Beln Fernndez

How America Breeds Mental Illness from Birth Until Death Beln Fernndez, contributing editor at Jacobin magazine, is the author of The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work, published by Verso in 2011. She is an editor at PULSE Media and her articles have appeared at the London Review of Books blog and Al Jazeera. The over-diagnosis and over-prescription that dominates the mental health care scene in the US contributes to a system that is better at producing disorders than fixing them. April 10, 2013 In a recent article on the BBC News website, Professor Peter Kinderman - head of the Institute of Psychology, Health and Society at the University of Liverpool - warns that the forthcoming edition of theAmerican Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual "will lower many diagnostic thresholds and increase the number of people in the general population seen as having a mental illness". According to Kinderman, the manual - scheduled for publication in May 2013 - constitutes a dangerous effort to pathologise emotions and other symptoms of human existence and will exacerbate the rampant over-prescribing of drugs that already occurs "despite significant sideeffects and poor evidence of their effectiveness". The practice of attributing emotional distress and other phenomena to alleged cerebral/biological abnormalities rather than to social and psychological causes, writes Kinderman, is particularly problematic: "Standard psychiatric diagnoses do not correspond to meaningful clusters of symptoms in the real world" and can counter-productively result in "further stigma, discrimination and social exclusion" for their recipients. Regarding the impending updates to the psychiatric manual, Kinderman notes that "[t]he new diagnosis of 'disruptive mood dysregulation disorder' will turn childhood temper tantrums into

symptoms of a mental illness", while relaxed criteria for "generalised anxiety disorder" will turn "the worries of everyday life into targets for medical treatment". Normal grief will undergo conversion into "major depressive disorder". Additional cutting-edge maladies will include "internet addiction" and "sex addiction". No guidelines are apparently provided as to how to go about diagnosing societies that obsessively pathologise routine aspects of individual life. Societal diagnostics Incidentally, the tendency toward over-diagnosis and over-prescription that dominates the mental health care scene in the US contributes to a system that is better at producing disorders than rectifying them. For example, it is not difficult to see how anxiety that otherwise would not be present can be generated by inculcating persons with the fear that something is always wrong with them and that it requires purchase of a substance, service, or gadget to fix - a process aided by ubiquitous advertising for antidepressants. The profitable endurance of the depression industry in particular is presumably ensured by the very nature of contemporary society - not least by the isolation of the individual who has been conditioned to believe that self-made success and material gains trump inter-human bonds in importance. To be sure, neoliberal policies dependent on the obstruction of communal solidarity facilitate a mass alienation from human reality and deprive individuals of psychological support networks enjoyed in certain other cultures. It could be argued that alienation in the US begins at birth, an event too often characterised by scheduled Caesarean sections, the immediate removal of newborns from the vicinity of their mothers in defiance of natural bonding needs, and hospital distribution of infant formula encouraging mothers to simplify their lives by administering expensive and potentially toxic material to their offspring rather than the free nutrition that is generally located in their own breasts. And it is pretty much downhill from there.

The "socialisation" process of children increasingly involves fundamentally anti-socialising activities such as video games and other technological distractions, the all-pervasiveness of which renders the proliferation of attention deficit disorder somewhat less than surprising. Of course, this does not stop ADD from being treated by and large as an individual mental defect rather than a societally induced condition. Energetic children are reformed into automatons via the fanatical prescription of pharmaceuticals with side effects ranging from depression to sudden death, while a cultural insistence on individual triumph and competition over collaboration likely contributes to such manifestations of emotional insecurity as the institutionalised practice of bullying at US schools. Luckily for drug companies and other entities that profit from mental disturbance, the New York Timesreported in February with regard to victims of bullying and bullies themselves that "researchers have found that [an] elevated risk of psychiatric trouble extends into adulthood, sometimes even a decade after the intimidation has ended". Disconnecting from the human condition My own personal experience with mental health issues in the US includes a prolonged panic attack I suffered in high school in the late 90s. Convinced for a period of six months that I was on the verge of spontaneous death, I would hyperventilate, unceasingly check my pulse, and hide in bathroom stalls. After later living abroad for many years in locations less estranged from reality, I concluded that the attacks had been hypochondriac fallout of extreme anxiety over the possibility of stigmatisation by society for exhibiting any indication of physical or psychological weakness such as anxiety itself. Of course, the structure and habits of other societies and cultures can also have adverse effects on the human nervous system; however, the position of the US as global superpower means that its acute unhinging from humanity contains worldwide ramifications. For example, the mass production of isolated persons lacking empathy naturally facilitates the frequent military devastation of populations abroad - a hobby that has been deemed more lucrative than, say,providing health care to US children.

The agricultural imperialism of US-based corporations like Monsanto, patron saint of the genetic modification of food, has also proved an effective means of global population control, facilitating thesuicide of hundreds of thousands of farmers in India. Obviously, a nutritional reliance on modified and artificial ingredients and other materials that do not technically qualify as food does not bode well for biological - and therefore also psychological - processes. The quest for profit at the expense of the functioning of the body is further evidence of the US disconnect from the human condition, which is reinforced by schizophrenic electronic multi-tasking and the general reduction of interpersonal relations to a barrage of mobile phone beeps and Facebook notifications. In my interview last year with renowned Indian essayist Pankaj Mishra, he commented on the contemporary deterioration of the human essence: "Our capacity for uncritical love has been expended recklessly in recent years on the free market This was the false god we were instructed to worship during the era of globalisation and most of us duly obliged, even the least resourceful and economically underprivileged peoples, dazzled by our new goods and gadgets, the routinely updated models of mobile phones [Now] we can see more clearly how a tiny minority has enriched itself, leaving many others feeling cheated, and exposed to deprivation and suffering." Professor Kinderman notes in his BBC News article on mental illness that therapy constitutes a "humane and effective alternative to traditional psychiatric diagnoses". Any truly effective therapeutic approach, however, would require a thorough examination of the inhumane context in which minds function - and, presumably, a comprehensive systemic rewiring.

Giffords and husband still enjoy recreational gun use By Daniel Strauss - 04/09/13 Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) sometimes watches her husband shoot guns recreationally. CNN released a taped interview with Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, where Kelly is shown shooting a Glock 9 millimeter handgun at pots and bottles while Giffords watches on a patio at her mother's house in Arizona. The Glock 9 millimeter is the same gun that was used in the shooting massacre in Tucson, Arizona in early 2011 where Giffords suffered a gunshot wound to the head. Kelly notes that the Glock he fires recreationally holds 17 rounds while the one used in Tucson held 33 rounds. Kelly and Giffords have become some of the most prominent proponents of strengthening gun laws. They run the group Americans for Responsible Solutions which advocates policies meant to reduce gun violence. Americans for Responsible Solutions recently released a video of Kelly buying a Sig Sauer .45 in Tucson, Arizona. The video argued that it's currently too easy to buy a gun. President Obama has urged Congress to pass new gun laws. On Monday Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced that he would block a package of gun-control measures Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) hopes to bring to the Senate

Read more: http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/292577-giffords-and-husband-still-enjoyrecreational-gun-use#ixzz2QBKkIlBC Biden: Gun Owners Like The Way It FeelsLike Driving a Ferrari Apr 11, 2013

Vice President Joe Biden this morning said that the cultural norm about gun ownership has changed, arguing that many people buy guns, not for protection or hunting, but because its like driving a Ferrari. It used to be we were dealing almost exclusively with hunters, Biden said on MSNBC. Theres a whole new sort of group of individuals now who, I dont know what the numbers are, that never hunt at all but they own guns for one of two reasons: self protection or they just like the feel of that AR-15 at the range. They like the way it feels. You know, its like driving a Ferrari, he said, raising his arms as if shooting a gun. As Congress prepares to vote today on whether to proceed to debate a gun control bill, Biden said the issue is one where the people have been far ahead of the politicians. I mean so far ahead, he said of public support for gun control proposals, including expanded background checks. You saw it in immigration, you saw it in marriage issues. Youre seeing it now, the public has moved to a different place. READ MORE: After Newtown Shootings, Most Back Some Gun Controls, Poll Shows

The vice president spoke passionately about the need to continue to push for a ban on assaultstyle weapons and high-capacity magazine clips, saying certain weapons of war just dont belong on the street. He argued that smaller clips would have saved lives in the December massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. If there had only been ten bullets in each clip, [the shooter] would have had to change the clip an additional three to five times. One of those kids would be alive. Somebody would be alive, he said. What is the inconvenience? What are we doing? What are we doing to impact on a gun owners right if he only has a clip with ten rounds in it instead of 30 rounds in it? he asked. Highway patrol gave feds Missouri weapon permits data List was sent out two times. By RUDI KELLER Highway patrol gave feds Missouri weapon permits data Rudi Keller Thursday, April 11, 2013 JEFFERSON CITY Missouri's database of concealed weapon permits was twice given to federal authorities investigating Social Security disability fraud in a move that has enraged lawmakers already angry over potential abuses in a new driver's licensing system. Missouri State Highway Patrol Col. Ron Replogle was questioned for nearly an hour this morning by the Senate Appropriations Committee after he revealed to Chairman Kurt Schaefer yesterday that his agency had turned over the data. Share on emailFont Size: The delivery of the information to federal authorities has become a huge issue for lawmakers since they began raising questions about new driver's licensing procedures. A lawsuit from Stoddard County challenged the procedures that require all supporting documents including certificates granting concealed weapon privileges to be scanned and retained. In November 2011 and again in January, Replogle said, an agent of the Social Security Administration Office of the Inspector General received discs with the data. Each time, the agent was unable to read the encryption format and destroyed the discs, Replogle said. "They said no names were retrieved," Replogle told the committee this morning. "They do not have those names. They did not disseminate that information, and all that information has been destroyed. We have asked for that documentation of what has happened."

The data was turned over because the Office of Inspector General is a law enforcement agency, Replogle said. It was done by a mid-level supervisor at the patrol. Replogle said he was not informed of the transfer until four weeks ago. The intention was to cross-check the names on the concealed carry list with the agency's list of those with disabilities attributed to mental illness to find possible evidence of fraud in the system. New procedures are being put in place to make sure a similar data release does not happen again without his approval, Replogle said. Lawmakers also have been frustrated by what they view as an attempt by department officials to obscure the facts as much as possible. Replogle promised he would be open, and he answered each question directly. "I am here to give you full disclosure, and I know a lot more than I did at 3 o'clock yesterday afternoon," he said. The frustration level rose again when Andrea Spillars, deputy director of the Department of Public Safety, arrived to explain why she thought what the patrol did was legal and could be done again for federal law enforcement officials. "Under state statutes the legislature passed, it is a lawful, permissible disclosure," she said. State law bars the Department of Revenue from implementing the federal Real ID Act. The procedures adopted for Missouri licenses mirror Real ID Act requirements. State law also mandates that concealed weapons permit data is confidential. Gov. Jay Nixon has denied that concealed weapons permits were turned over to a "magical database" for federal agents to "mess with" Missourians. The requests from Social Security were revealed yesterday in an appropriations committee hearing, and Replogle gave incomplete information to Schaefer yesterday. "There is nothing magical about the name Real ID," Schaefer said after this morning's hearing. "It is the things that go along with it, the giving up of personal data, the subjecting yourself to identity theft without any due process of law before that information is given up." For weeks, he said, the department has denied it was implementing Real ID or turning over concealed weapons permit information. "What we now know is we were lied to about the process, how it is implemented, how it is funded, and we were lied to about the fact that the Department of Motor Vehicles or the state of Missouri did or did not give out a list of concealed carry holders to the federal government," Schaefer said.

The delay for several weeks between Replogle being informed and him revealing the information and investigating how it happened also angered the committee. "How are we supposed to know to ask if no one indicates you are involved?" Sen. Ryan Silvey, R-Kansas City, asked. "For four weeks you knew this was going on, and you let us chase the rabbit trails at the Department of Revenue." Sen. Rob Schaaf, R-St. Joseph, asked the questions during a hearing yesterday that revealed that federal requests for data on concealed weapons had been honored. When he was told today that no one in particular was a target of the federal investigation of potential disability fraud, he said it was difficult to believe. "I am stunned by that," Schaaf said. Texas Bill Criminalizing Airport Pat-Downs Is Back April 10, 2013 11:59 PM View Comments

File photo of a passenger getting patted down at the airport. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images) AUSTIN, Texas (AP) A contentious proposal to criminalize excessive touching by agents during airport security pat-downs returned Wednesday to the Texas Legislature, along with

concerns that the federal government could ground all flights into and out of the state if it ever becomes law. The House State Affairs Committee heard testimony on a bill by Rep. David Simpson of Longview that would make intentionally touching travelers private parts by security officials illegal without probable cause. The tea party Republican introduced a much-ballyhooed measure in 2011 making it illegal for anyone conducting searches to touch travelers privates, even though clothing, while prohibiting searches considered offensive to a reasonable person. That bill passed the full House but died after federal officials threatened to close all Texas airports amid concerns that Transportation Security Administration personnel could face criminal charges just for doing their jobs. Simpson promised to renew his efforts when the biannual Legislature opened in January, though his new proposal is somewhat softer. It clarifies that security agents must be deliberately touching inappropriately rather than doing so incidentally during pat-downs. Simpson said his bill was more necessary than ever because traditional metal detectors at airports have increasingly been replaced by full-body scanners that basically allow people to be viewed naked. He said he and others who object to that now often have no choice but to endure patdowns. The problem is this effort at security is really treating travelers, innocent people, as criminal suspects and making them submit to unreasonable, very intrusive searches, Simpson said. He added of security agents: Theyre violating peoples most sacred areas of their bodies. The committee could have sent the bill to the full House for consideration but instead left it pending. It also invited TSA representatives to testify, but they declined. Simpson acknowledged that existing Texas official repression laws already prohibit groping and inappropriate touching by airport screeners or any other security official, but said it was necessary to further spell out restrictions because abuse of power during pat-downs is so common. He provided a packet showing security officials performing exaggerated pat-downs on travelers and noted that a wounded Texas military veteran going through airport security was recently forced to remove his prosthetic legs.

Its not only offensive, its insane, Simpson said. Rep. Harvey Hilderbran, a Kerrville Republican, said of the security officials in the pictures Simpson provided, some of them seem to be enjoying the groping.

Democratic Rep. Rene Olivera of Brownsville said this years version is more legally sound than Simpsons 2011 bill because it includes language on officials intending to grope during a patdown. But he said it could still run afoul of federal regulations and may lead airports statewide to be shut down. If that happens you destroy the Texas economy, you destroy our business growth, Olivera said. We would be paralyzed. Simpson responded that theyve threatened to basically make a no-fly zone. It was just a threat, he said. I doubt they would do that. But Olivera noted that the states conservative elected officials often pick fights with the Obama administration and wondered if this one might go too far. I frankly get tired of Texas playing chicken with the federal government all the time, he said. Im not sure I want to tempt that giant beast. The committee also heard but didnt yet vote on a separate bill that would compel every airport in Texas to apply to opt-out of having their security duties performed by federal agents in favor of local private contractors though the contractors would still have to follow TSA guidelines and report to TSA supervisors. Its sponsor, Rep. Larry Phillips, said that would make it easier to fire screeners quickly for inappropriate behavior, rather than have them protected as federal employees. If you did some ridiculous behavior that weve seen, you could be terminated immediately, said Phillips, R-Sherman. He said 16 mostly small airports around the country had already chosen to opt-out of TSA services.

Pro-Gun Control Senator to CNN Anchor: 'We Appreciate Your Support'

None of this is should come as a surprise. Tuesday, CNN came out of the closet with an open declaration that "The Most Trusted Name In News" would use two full days of programming as a propaganda push for legislation tightening background checks. CNN has been so good about keeping that promise that, this morning, a pro-gun control Senator thanked a CNN anchor for his support. Wednesday morning on "Starting Point," anchors John Berman and Christine Roman hosted Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), one of the two senators responsible for the compromise legislation on background checks. The segment was disgraceful. Neither anchor challenged the Senator about a single concern Second Amendment activists have with the legislation. Instead we saw clips of Newtown families (on Piers Morgan, naturally) pleading for gun control and Roman using the old "some say" ploy to claim the legislation wasn't tough enough. The only mention of the NRA was their opposition to the bill. And then, appropriately enough, the segment ended with Manchin thanking Berman for his support: Berman: Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, you've been working around the clock for a compromise deal. I think you have a very busy few weeks ahead of you still. Manchin: We appreciate your support, too, this is very, very important. Or maybe Manchin was thanking the CNN network as a whole? What an indictment of "The Most Trusted Name in News" that we will never know. How shameful that an entity that describes itself as a "news" network would create the kind of environment where a Senator involved in controversial legislation would feel so much love and support he felt the need to say thank you. By the way, Berman didn't even flinch after being thanked for taking a side.

EDITORIAL: Blumenthal uses Sandy Hook to raise campaign cash

Were glad that U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy and Gov. Dannel Malloy are talking in detail about the victims of Sandy Hook as part of a push for federal gun control legislation. Members of Congress need to know that Dylan Hockley loved jumping on trampolines and watching movies and that he died in his teachers arms. They should meet Benjamin Wheelers parents and know what theyve lost. What Murphy and Malloy are doing is not politicizing a tragedy. Its an important part of the discussion around restricting the kind of mass murder weaponry used to kill 20 children and six educators on Dec. 14. They are helping give voice to the victims families. Malloy went so far as to send public Twitter messages to U.S. senators who were blocking a vote on gun legislation, asking that they return phone calls from the daughter of murdered Sandy Hook Elementary School Principal Dawn Hochsprung. The issue took a disgusting political turn on Thursday, though, when U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., used Sandy Hook to raise money. The money is not for one of the relief funds set up to help victims families, or to fund mental health services, or to support autism research. In the wake of the horror of the December 14, 2012, massacre of 20 beautiful children and 6 dedicated educators, Blumenthal is asking supporters to send money to his 2016 re-election campaign!

As your senator, I will continue fighting for the rights of all the people, not the special interests. But I need your help, Blumenthal wrote in an email to supporters Thursday morning. Please contribute $5 now as the Senate debate continues on common-sense gun reform legislation this week. Constant fundraising and the recent trend of fundraising off real-time reaction to the news of the moment have officially jumped the shark, courtesy of Blumenthals tasteless auto-appeal. Senators are elected every six years in part to give them some time to legislate without an eye on the next campaign. But the campaign - and its drive for money to buy elections - is constant. There are lots of ways and lots of time for Sen. Blumenthal to raise money for his re-election campaign before 2016. Using the horror of the massacre of 20 beautiful children at a time when critical legislation honoring their memory is at stake to beg for $5 for your next political campaign is as tasteless as it gets. Can the U.N. Ban America's Guns?
By Claire Wolfe

The rumor flashed across the Internet last winter: the Obama administration is going to use a United Nations arms treaty to get around the Second Amendment and ban all guns. In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings and the renewed push for "gun safety" (the current politically correct term) the rumor was all too believable. But was it true? At the time the panic started, the answer was "no." The U.N. had been working on an anti-gun treaty for years but had never actually produced a result. Last fall, Obama gave his support to the next step of the process. That was enough to set the rumor mill churning. But as of April 2, 2013, the long-rumored treaty finally exists. All Second Amendment supporters should be aware of it but need not panic. It's dangerous of course. The Obama administration and long-time anti-gunners in the Senate would love to use it to curtail firearms. But whether this treaty will ever affect U.S. gun owners is up to us. What's the treaty really about? The Arms Trade Treaty, or the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, as it's variously known, has been in planning stages since 2001. The U.N. general assembly formally endorsed the idea of creating of a treaty in 2006. A conference to come up with final, agreeable terms fell apart in July 2012. A

second special conference in March 2013 also fell apart after some remarkably juvenile squabbling. However, this time the negotiations didn't collapse until the final day at which point representatives from UN countries had finished drafting a treaty. Unable to get the unanimous vote from all 193 member nations required at the conference, treaty supporters took the draft to the full General Assembly of the UN, where it could pass on a simple majority vote. On Tuesday, April 2, it happened. The treaty received 154 "yes" votes, three "nos," and 23 abstentious. The United States (a sponsor of the treaty) voted in favor. It's still not time to panic. But it's certainly time to go on alert. Before the treaty can take effect, several things have to happen:

50 UN member nations have to ratify it 90 days have to pass after that before anyone at all is bound by it Even then, the treaty binds only those nations that have ratified it

The Obama administration cannot legally just impose the treaty on Americans. First, 2/3 of the U.S. Senate must vote to ratify it and that is going to be a tough hurdle to get over. Second, even after Newtown, politicians are aware that Americans don't submit easily to anti-gunnery and that we're likely to punish those who vote against the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Third, the Republican party has finally shown signs of growing a spine where firearms are concerned. Very few Republicans would be likely to vote for the treaty, and some (especially the Young Turks led by Rand Paul) would fight hard against it. Still, the political climate can change overnight and politicians are experts at doing things behind our collective backs (as they did when a coalition of four R & D senators covertly and notstrictly lawfully passed the Brady Bill when no one was looking). We must never allow this treaty to be imposed on us. Its terms have frightening implications, not only for American gun owners, but for anyone anywhere who ever has to fight tyrants. But what's in this treaty that we need to be so leery of? After all, supporters claim that the treaty's only aim is to better regulate the import and export of these arms between countries to ensure that weapons don't get into the hands of pirates, warlords, drug cartels, and other organized forces that terrorize innocents. In fact, there's language in the treaty that specifically says it isn't supposed to ban guns or override any country's own laws. However, it doesn't take a genius to see straight through this claim. First, illicit trade is by definition illicit. Criminals ignore laws. They ignore treaties. Look at international drug smuggling. Making import/export illegal has done nothing but attract ever more ruthless and clever criminals who have built global enterprises strong enough to challenge (or utterly corrupt) governments. The same will happen with weapons. Criminals will get weapons by raiding

military depots, by smuggling, by black-market trading, through bribery, by killing police and soldiers, or in dozens of other ways. In fact, that's already how most bandits, drug lords, and warlords get their weaponry. In 2012 a study from Routledge Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution concluded that very few arms were coming to bad guys through the import/export trade. Instead they were getting weapons through the "the diversion or misuse of officially authorized transfers" and other forms of theft. No treaty will prevent that; a treaty will only interfere with those who obey laws. Also, the U.N.'s view has always been that government control of trade is inherently good and trade that is not directly controlled by government is always bad. Any international arms sales not explicitly authorized by governments would be illegal. A country could be under the thumb of a monstrous dictator, but according to the U.N. it's a good thing for that dictator to be able to prevent his opponents from arming themselves. Had an arms treaty been in effect in the 1930s and 1940s, the United Nations would have sided with Hitler over his disarmed victims. Those are the broad outlines. And they're bad enough. But for Americans, there is an even more pervasive danger. According to the UK newspaper, The Guardian: The treaty will not control the domestic use of weapons but requires countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components and to regulate arms brokers. It covers battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large-calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, as well as small arms and light weapons. (Emphasis mine.) Countries are required to have mechanisms in place "to prevent conventional weapons reaching the black market." In other words, if the U.S. Senate ratifies and Barack Obama (or any future president) signs this treaty, the United States government will be required to register and track every sale or other transfer of every firearm, component, and (presumably) round of ammunition ever sold in the country. There is simply no other way even to pretend to be meeting the requirements of the treaty. Only when every sale is tracked can a government claim it's trying to "prevent" weapons from reaching the "blackmarket." Furthermore, if the U.S. failed to set up these draconian registration and tracking methods, other countries might cut off sales to us. As the the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action said about an earlier draft of the treaty: "If you bought a Beretta shotgun ... the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. ... If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S." And of course anyone who is aware of how government operates understands full well that registration enables eventual confiscation.

A final datum on the real intentions of the U.N. is contained right in the name of the agency that's in charge of the treaty. It's called the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. Yes, the U.N., the old opponents of guns, and the Obama administration do indeed want to disarm us. Can a treaty overrule the U.S. Constitution? Let's say that the worst happens. The Senate and the president impose its terms on the United States. Can a treaty really override the Second Amendment? Unfortunately, that's a fuzzy area. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states in part, "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." But what happens if a treaty conflicts with something in the Constitution? For many years now, it's been common for alleged experts say that treaties are above, or can alter, the Constitution. This began around the early 1950s, when Eisenhower's Secretary of State John Foster Dulles (who should have known better) outrageously claimed, "... congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty laws can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the states and give them to the Federal Government, or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given the people by the Constitutional Bill of Rights." Such has been the "common wisdom" among D.C. wonks ever since. But that "wisdom" is based on nothing except statements from ... well, authority figures like Dulles and others who've come in his wake. Federal courts have ruled on treaties a multitude of times since the nation's founding and the hodgepodge of rulings is complex. But one of the most substantive rulings came from the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1957 landmark case of Reid v. Covert. The language of that ruling is very clear. The decision states: "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." So no. Treaties do not overrule the Constitution. But the legal climate in the U.S. has degenerated dramatically since 1957. Government supremacists reign. Courts rarely restrain federal authority. More and more, the federal government clutches the nation in an iron fist, not using the Constitution but basing its power on unconstitutional executive orders, laws no legislator ever reads, thickets of bureaucratic regulation, secret agreements, and sheer overwhelming force. The Constitution increasingly looks like a dead letter. There is one constitutional argument left, though. It's an argument that, if we ever have to pursue it in the real world, will shake the ground under our feet.

Everyone knows that, no matter whether treaties are equal to or above the Constitution, amendments to the Constitution are above the body of the Constitution. Furthermore, the first 10 amendments the Bill of Rights were passed as one. And the Constitution itself was ratified only on the condition that the Bill of Rights be added to it. The body of the Constitution primarily defines the structure and authority of the federal government and lists certain things that it is and is not authorized to do. The Bill of Rights, on the contrary, is entirely dedicated to placing strict limits on federal power while preserving (or attempting to preserve) the inborn rights of individuals and the powers of state governments. Although the Bill of Rights has been badly abused and is hanging on by a few frayed threads, the ultimate Constitutional argument is this: The Constitution was allowed to exist solely because of the Bill of Rights was added to it. Without the Bill of Rights, the entire Constitution is void. If the Constitution is void, the entire federal government is without authority. In Reid v Covert, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "The concept that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections against arbitrary government are inoperative when they become inconvenient or when expediency dictates otherwise is a very dangerous doctrine and if allowed to flourish would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our government." Unfortunately, lesser lawyers can "prove" that night is day and day is night. They can argue (perhaps successfully) that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" really means "government can regulate your guns right out of your hands." However, millions of American gun owners know what their rights really are. Should the federal government or the United Nations push too far, it's a solid bet that millions of American gun owners will conclude that the powers in Washington, D.C. have finally overreached all bounds and are truly, absolutely without legitimate authority. Call to Action: NYC Manhattan District DA Confiscates Legal Knives from Retailers (March 1, 2011) AKTI has not been made aware of any more retailers who have been approached by the Manhattan District Attorney regarding their knife inventory, or any where else in the state of New York. (December 8, 2010) AKTI continues to monitor this situation as well as knife issues around the country in other states. (October 15, 2010) At this time we are not recommending any Call to Action. Stay posted. Review the information below. (July 2, 2010) AKTI members should be aware of a new assault on retailers who carry legal knives, happening now in New York Citys Manhattan District.

The Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance, Jr., has targeted knife retailers including Eastern Mountain Sports, Home Depot, Paragon and Orvis and has confiscated these stores inventories including legal knives, which they claim are outlawed switchblades and gravity knives. At a press conference on June 17, Vance stood in front of tables displaying the 1,300+ knives his office has taken from retailers. AKTI has identified many of those knives, and determined that they ARE NOT opened by gravity. Vances claim is a blatant distortion of the intent of the statute and a total misunderstanding of the knife design mechanisms involved. What the DA is not telling the public is that his offices interpretation of a gravity knife is ANY folding knife that can be opened with one hand no matter how difficult. Instead of understanding that such knives are used daily for activities including hunting, fishing and other outdoor activities as well as by electricians, construction workers and emergency personnel, New York City is presuming all knives are carried only as weapons for unlawful use against another person. The DAs office claims homicides and knife use in non-fatal stabbings to be a serious problem in Manhattan. Yet according to the National Safety Council in your lifetime you have a greater chance [1 in 81,701] of getting killed by lightning than residents of Manhattan had last year of getting killed with a knife [1 in 90,503]. Whats worse: The retailers have been forced by the DAs office to pay more than $1.9 million an estimate of their profits on sales of these knives in the past four years times 10! in exchange for deferred prosecution. Failure to make these contributions also would mean that the targeted retailers would have almost certainly been made to turn over to the government their customer records and detailed sales records for each knife from their inventories. As part of the agreements and Office policy, nearly $1.9 million will be distributed to the City and State: 10 percent will be given to the State ($190K); 51 percent will be given to the City ($969,000); and the remainder ($741,000) set aside for our law enforcement partners, reads a press release sent by Vances office. Those funds will be available to other DAs offices who want to partner with the Manhattan DAs Office to continue this fight against illegal (sic) knives. (Quote from Cyrus Vance Jr.s press release dated June 17, 2010.) We strongly urge AKTI members to review the entire press release from the DAs office, available at http://www.manhattanda.org/whatsnew/press/2010-06-17.shtml) But this doesnt just impact New York-area knife advocates! AKTI has been in contact with an Internet retailer in a Western state who has been contacted by the New York County DA and told to make a contribution to the DAs office or face being reported to the federal government for possible violation of interstate commerce laws. What can you to do help stop this government grab for control and funds from legal knife sales?

First, the American Knife and Tool Institute is actively seeking methods to counter-act these actions. We will be looking for sponsors for a legislative solution along the lines weve been successful with in other states and in the 2009 Federal Switchblade Amendment. These steps require time and money to implement effectively, and we need your help. Please contribute to our efforts and support what we do by becoming a member of AKTI, if you are not already. Our website also accepts contributions for this and other important work we do to stop on-going assaults on knife rights throughout the United States. See www.akti.org/membership for more information. Second, if you are a citizen of New York state, we ask that you flood the office of the Manhattan District Attorney with letters, emails and phone calls of protest and outrage.

Protest that government resources are being used against legitimate businesses selling knives to law-abiding citizens who use them as tools, instead of finding fiscally responsible ways to solve their financial problems. Outrage about the tactics used to intimidate and extort from New York citizens.

We also have a sample letter available that may help you draft your own communication. Please see www.akti.org/action/sample-letter-manhattan-knife-confiscation for the letter. Individual letters played a major role in our success in defeating U.S. Customs effort to classify over 90% of all folding knives as switchblades last year. The Chief Assistant District Attorney supervising this case is Daniel R Alonso. His email is: alonsod@dany.nyc.gov. Assistant District Attorneys involved in the investigation: Dan M. Rather ratherd@dany.nyc.gov Hilary Rosenburg rosenburgh@dany.nyc.gov Mike Kitsis kitsism@dany.nyc.gov District Attorney of New York County (Manhattan) Cyrus R. Vance Jr. vancec@dany.nyc.gov. The main office phone number is: 212-335-9000. Mailing Address is: New York County District Attorneys Office One Hogan Place New York, NY 10013 These emails, phone calls and letters will make it obvious that the American people are not going to take this kind of abuse of power without fighting back. Want to learn more?

We recommend these links for more information about the case.

New York Post: www.nypost.com/p/news/local/the_honed_depot_hW62UJ4nGJsohGk7E096kM NY1 (video clip): www.ny1.com/content/120560/manhattan-d-abusts-illegalknives-ring Manhattan DAs Office full press release transcript: www.manhattanda.org/whatsnew/press/2010-06-17.shtml Current New York Gravity Knife Statute Current New York City Administrative Code Regarding Knives AKTI Newsletter of John Irizarry v. United States New York-based Federal Court Case Husky NOT a Gravity Knife Vol. 10, No. 1 2008

Responsible and law-abiding knife owners and sellers need your help to overcome the abuse of an overzealous government agency. Please join AKTI in fighting against the Manhattan DAs office misinterpretation of the law. We will continue to update you about this situation; please also bookmark and come back to our page devoted to this issue..

Craig B Hulet was both speech writer and Special Assistant for Special Projects to Congressman Jack Metcalf (Retired); he has been a consultant to federal law enforcement DEA, ATF&E of Justice/Homeland Security for over 25 years; he has written four books on international relations and philosophy, his latest is The Hydra of Carnage: Bushs Imperial War-making and the Rule of Law - An Analysis of the Objectives and Delusions of Empire. He has appeared on over 12,000 hours of TV and Radio: The History Channel De-Coded; He is a regular on Coast to Coast AM w/ George Noory and Coffee Talk KBKW; CNN, C-Span ; European Television "American Dream" and The Arsenio Hall Show; he has written for Soldier of Fortune Magazine, International Combat Arms, Financial Security Digest, etc.; Hulet served in Vietnam 1969-70, 101st Airborne, C Troop 2/17th Air Cav and graduated 3rd in his class at Aberdeen Proving Grounds Ordnance School MOS 45J20 Weapons. He remains a paid analyst and consultant in various areas of geopolitical, business and security issues: terrorism and military affairs. Hulet lives in the ancient old growth Quinault Rain Forest.