January 5th, 2013

Georgia Sheriff Stands Tall On Citizen Gun Rights


Dana Safety Supply

Dana Safety Supply


At Guns Save Lives dot Net -


Dana Safety Supply Stops Selling Semi Auto Rifles to Civilians So Sheriff Pulls His Business

January 03, 2013

Well, another vendor has joined the ranks of those that fail to completely honor the Second Amendment.

Dana Safety Supply has stated that they will no longer sell AR-15 style rifles to civilians and will reserve those rifles for sale only to “law enforcement” only. DSS defines law enforcement as Law Enforcement Officers, Public Safety, LE Academy Cadets, EMT/Firefighters/Paramedics, Military Personnel, Corrections Officers, State Licensed Armed Security Officers, Court Judges, District Attorneys, and Deputy D.A.s.

According to numerous reader reports and other reports around the net, Dana Safety Supply has issued the following statement which suspends their sale of semi automatic rifles to civilians.

An email to DSS remains unanswered and a request for comment on their Facebook page was deleted without comment.


This would put Dana in the company of several other companies who have adopted the same policy in recent days.

One Sheriff in Oconee County wasn’t too fond of the new policy. Sheriff Scott Berry tells us:

Well, I have done business in the past with DSS and found them to be an excellent source of products that we buy…however, I just sent them this email

It is my understanding that you have stopped selling self loading rifles to members of the general public in favor of selling them to law enforcement officers only.
I deeply regret that decision. As such, this agency will no longer seek bids from or purchase from DSS.
Thank you for your time and attention to this email.
Sheriff Scott Berry
Oconee County Georgia Sheriffs Office


Sheriff Scott Berry Oconee Georgia

Sheriff Scott Berry Oconee County Georgia


Kudos to Sheriff Berry for standing up for the civilian right to bear arms.

If anyone is interested the following companies are also owned by the same people who own Dana Safety Supply:

Dana Safety Supply, Atlanta, GA
Southern Firearms, Greensboro, NC
Palmetto Firearms, Columbia, SC (NOTE: This is NOT Palmetto State Armory!)
Central Firearms, Tampa, FL
Dana Safety Supply, Miami, FL
Duval Honda
Duval Ford
Duval Acura
Duval Mazda at the Avenues
Mercedes-Benz of Gainesville
Subaru of Gainesville
Tampa Honda Land
Countryside Ford of Clearwater
Countryside Mazda of Clearwater
U.S. Auto Credit
Scott-McRae Advertising
Cause to Communicate
Commercial Landscape Solutions


Read entire article with embedded links at Guns Save Lives  -


While you’re there, enjoy a lot of good material at Guns Save Lives.


Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath

Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!

 Read More Posts

Comments posted belong to the commenter alone, and are not endorsed by Oath Keepers or the administrators for this site. We will remove offensive, racist, or threatening comments.

9 Responses to “Georgia Sheriff Stands Tall On Citizen Gun Rights”

  1. 1
    Cal Says:

    That is another company that is supporting Domestic Enemies of the USA. When we get them arrested for prosecution, we should let that company know they are not welcome here in the USA – which will let an American Constitutonal business take over their clients.

    My opinion on this is all media, all businesses that support the takeover of the USA by treasonous domestic enemies and are assisting them in this need to be kicked out of our country when we start prosecutions. Any other ideas from anyone else?

    I also believe (and we already have the laws) that all politicians in office or out that do not get jail time, all those bureaucrats who have bee implementing UN’s Agenda 21 and other unAmerican policies also need to be arrested and prosecuted – those at EVERY level. Why every level? Because if they did not keep doing the job of destroying our nation (”just doing their job” = “just following orders”) then a lot of what has been going on, and will go on, would not be able to happen.

    Do we need people here who have PROVEN that they will support the destruction of the USA in labor, following orders, doing their job, etc – or am I just so upset at this time that I am going too far myself?

    If those in support positions within the federal gov refused to do unconstitutional things – the DHS would not be buying so many hollow points. They cannot function if there are not people tocarry out those deeds for them; be it bureacrats, military, law enforcement, cooks, clerks, assistants, janitors, etc.

    Without them, they would have NO standing, no way to implement those policies. If everyone who just did their job, stopped doing it – the “spies” who illegally listen to us, track us, etc – they are committing treason and supporting the destruction of our government.

    TSA, if they just said “no”, they would no longer be criminals that we will have to prosecute for their actions later. Those who do the literal taking care of the WH – if they stopped, if they left them to cook, clean, mow, run the equipment, etc for themselves – this would no longer br going on. They are willingly assisting them in this treason.

  2. 2
    Cal Says:

    This Sheriff deserve a medal when we get this invasion of our country by domestic enemies over with. When we remove foreign troops from OUR nation.

    The UN has no standing here beyond the constitutional agreements we have with them. Nor does any other foreign nation of group of nations who want to inundate the USA with foreign laws. Not only that, but any judge who uses other then constitutional law as per the legally binding oath REQUIRED of them, no longer meets the REQUIREMENTS of the position they are occupying.

    As does the judge who declared the NDAA unconstitutional. All who are still supporting our nation need to be supported! The ones like the judge who illegally overturned her constitutional decision needs to be removed from office and this nation. Let him commit treawson elsewhere.

    Something that all of us must remember: just because Obama, or the DHS, or ?? says it is law does NOT make it so. ALL laws, bills, etc MUST be in pursuance of our US Constitution. If they are not, they are illegal, “null and void”.

    Does that mean that there are people out there who will enforce them if told to do so? Sure. But by their actions they make themselves a criminal (Remember, those who “followed orders”, “did their jobs” in Germany are still be hunted down for prosecution). We can, and will, hunt them where ever they go and bring them here for prosecution for their crimes against the USA and her people, treason, etc.

    Let’s start with Treaties, like those we have with the UN.

    Article 43 Paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that all resolutions or agreements of the United Nations Security Counsel “shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.”

    All treaties are subservient to the exclusive congressional power to commence war.

    Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18, the United States Supreme Court held: There is nothing in [the Constitution’s text] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.

    November 19, 1919, in Section II of his Reservations with Regard to Ratification of the Versailles Treaty, TO PRESERVE THE BALANCE OF POWER ESTABLISHED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION FROM EXECUTIVE USURPATION, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge resolved as follows:
    The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations – whether members of the League or not – under the provisions of Article 10, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress, which, under the Constitution, has the sole power to declare war or authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide. (caps are mine)

    Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, the Supreme Court of the United States held: The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.
    Unconstitutional usurpations by one branch of government of powers entrusted to a coequal branch are not rendered constitutional by repetition.

    The United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional hundreds of laws enacted by Congress over the course of five decades that included a legislative veto of executive actions in INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919.

    Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 clarifies Presidential authority to undertake military action as follows: The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

    United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192, Supreme Court Justice William Paterson, a delegate to the Federal Convention from New Jersey, wrote on behalf of a federal circuit court: There is a manifest distinction between our going to war with a nation at peace, and a war being made against us by an actual invasion, or a formal declaration. In the former case it is the exclusive province of Congress to change a state of peace into a state of war.

    In his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 642-643 (1952), which rebuked President Harry Truman’s claim of unilateral war powers in the Korean War, Justice Robert Jackson elaborated: Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of a war is entrusted only to Congress. Of course, a state of war may in fact exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation’s armed forces to some foreign venture.

    In their dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia recognized the “Founders’ general distrust of military power lodged with the President, including the authority to commence war:
    “No fewer than 10 issues of the Federalist were devoted in whole or part to allaying fears of oppression from the proposed Constitution’s authorization of standing armies in peacetime. Many safeguards in the Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress’s authority “to raise and support Armies” was hedged with the proviso that “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.”

    U.S. Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton explained, the President’s military authority would be “much inferior” to that of the British King…” (Federalist 69)

    The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government.

    Breaking their Oath means they no longer meet the legal REQUIREMENTS of the office or position they are occupying. Here are the laws applying:

    Clause 2 of Article VI of the ORIGINAL Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT the federal government.

    The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

    The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

    Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

    They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure.

    Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

    Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”
    Bound – “Being under legal or moral obligation; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”

    Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.

    Consideration: According to “Black’s Law Dictionary,” consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.

    Require, Requirement, Required: “to claim or ask for by right and authority; Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation.”

    “Blacks Law Dictionary” states that a contract is
    1. An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.

    The Framers placed the Oath of Office Clause BETWEEN preceding clauses that set forth the organization of the executive department and succeeding clauses that specify the contours of the President’s executive power. The President takes the oath after he assumes the office but before he executes it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised.

    The Framers placed “Oaths of Office” in the Constitution. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations.

    Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches. The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government. And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist No. 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials.

    Article VI, clause 2, says the Constitution, and the Laws & Treaties authorized by the Constitution, are the “supreme Law of the Land”.

    Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says for “Constitution”: “…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.”

    If any Branch fails to obey the “supreme Law”, then, in order to preserve the Rule of Law, the other Branches, or failing that, the States or THE PEOPLE, must overrule them”.

    Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.

    5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.

    5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law,

    5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.

    The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

    The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311.
    One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”

    Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States.
    Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

    President Truman relieved MacArthur because MacArthur did not support the requirements of the Constitution and did not faithfully discharge his duties. Precedent.

    Washington court-martialed Thomas Dewees, finding him guilty of two offenses: (1) not taking the oath of office… Another precedent.

    Also, any business or agency advocating and assisting UN’s Agenda 21 is committing treason – by altering our form of government by other then amendment. Anything done by those serving in any branch of our government that alters our type of government by other then amendment is illegal also. That covers the Patriot Act, the NDAA, all this warrantl less spying, trackig, etc going on,; and a mulitude of other crimes both civil and criminal.

    Happy New Year, Everyone! Stay Safe and Detention Free!

  3. 3
    Deborah Says:

    Great to see. Before I saw this I sent an email to my Sheriff. I copied to paste here, and elsewhere. I hope my pen is mightier than the sword, that I still have freedom of speech and didn’t hang myself. I am helping all I can as I cannot leave this earth with my grand babies in such duress. How their eyes light up when they smile I hold in my heart.

    Dear Sheriff,

    I need no response to my inquiry. I only hope to put in my thoughts on my recent research from the internet the government wants so much to censor, like the TV news.
    In reviewing oathkeepers.org, plus other sites and even old video tapes of all Presidents from 1990 praising that we will be a part of the New World Order, they are puppets to the U.N.

    Now I am awake and see We the People, everyone threatened by Martial Law to take our country down. Why would anyone in the world but us want us to be FREE?

    The Agenda 21 in our government and cities for past 15 years or so must be something they voted on AGAIN without reading all the details that include depopulation. We have more Fema Camps than we need if they intended on arresting illegal immigrants, plus the CIA being so good at what they do can arrest Al queda and let our military handle them, without touching the Bill of Rights.

    NDAA, a mask is being used against this country. I see our government has been setting up for a staged event declaring war against the American people as Feinstien said in a 1995 video disarming Mr. and Mrs. America. What is it with these people that have reaped freedom their entire lives but want to destroy it for the rest of us.
    They are not oath keepers but have broken their oaths. I believe it.

    As the Sheriff in Lubbock intends on honoring his Oath, and protect his citizens from domestic and foreign tyranny, can we expect the same in Harris County even from the State of Texas, and avoid gun confiscation and gun bans, which is illegal and unconstitutional. The Constitution is the Law of the Land. England, the oath was to the King. Our great Fathers of the USA, were smart in creating a soveriegn nation with an oath to the Constitution not to any person or any President, that the people would be a milita, a guardian. This attempt to ban weapons is clearly an attempt to have America to put down their weapons. 300 million people in the last 100 years across the world have been murdered right after gun confiscations. Or is it time to think about relocating?

    Thank you for your time, and congratulations on your election.

    Houston TX

  4. 4
    Michael Says:

    My question to everyone is: How many people have died so you could be here today? We owe all the people that stood and defended our rights and freedom and as history tells us that was alot of people most of us never knew. Ask yourselves what would have happened if they had decided to just lay down and give up, would you or I be alive now and if so what kind of nation would this be? Being born an american means you were not born a slave and by the rights of the people that died before you, you have an obligation and that obligation is to not die as a slave and not allow future generations to die as slaves. Your an american that means you STAND FOR YOUR COUNTRY AND FOR ITS FREEDOM!! I served 5 years for this country and I will be one of the many to tell you, if you dont stand for your country, your family, your freedom [Deleted by Elias Alias, editor] why? cause your not an american. United We Stand! Divided We Fall!

  5. 5
    Deborah Says:


    This should be up front as a post. This man is recently back from war and walks into all this.
    He is not alone.

  6. 6
    GoldenBB Says:

    I love my state of Georgia and its constitutional sheriffs. Feds MOLON LOBE! For those who don’t speak Greek, that means ‘come and get it’.

  7. 7
    Rod Callahan Says:

    Freedom is never given
    It can only be taken!
    When the day comes and someone knocks on your front door, demands you to surrender any and all of your guns and ammunition, will you give them up? I can tell you that this Army Vet will go down gladly defending my Constitution and my right to bear arms. Beware of “False Flag” attacks of terrorism disguised as “foreign” invasions. Keep your shelves stocked and your weapons locked and loaded. Come GIT some!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  8. 8
    Mike Austell Says:

    Below is the letter I wrote to Sheriff on behalf of Florida Oath Keepers:

    Sheriff Scott Berry


    Oconee County, Georgia

    Dear Sheriff Berry,

    On behalf of Florida Oath Keepers and Oath Keepers and liberty-loving Americans everywhere, we would like to thank you for standing up for the Second Amendment.

    Whenever our God-given rights are threatened, whether by would-be tyrants in our government or by foreign threats, it is imperative that we have Oath-sworn, Constitutional sheriffs standing ready to interpose themselves on behalf of their citizens.

    If businesses do not share our deep-seated founding values, why should they benefit from our tax dollars? I think this is a perfect way for us to make our voices heard and I will encourage everyone to use this as a model. I will not do business with any company that is owned by the same parent, Scott-McRae Group, headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.

    We will be posting that list of companies to all our members.

    You, sir, have given us a blueprint to follow.

    We salute you!

    In Liberty! FloridaOathKeepers.org

    Mike Austell
    Oath Keepers
    Florida State Chapter President
    (904) 864-4968

    Carol Rubadou
    Oath Keepers
    Florida State Chapter Vice President

  9. 9
    peck Says:

    Only four words…I WILL NOT COMPLY.

Leave a Reply

© 2012 www.oathkeepers.org | Oath Keepers Corp Address: 5130 S. Fort Apache Rd - Las Vegas, NV 89148