|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Send me your questions now for Patrick ‘Tate’ Adamiak
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
When I first started writing about Patrick “Tate” Adamiak’s plight about 21 months ago, I never thought he would be an honored guest at the Second Amendment Foundation’s Gun Rights Policy Conference, or that I would be able to interview him about his undeserved four years behind bars, but that, friends, is exactly what is going to happen.
As almost all of you know, Tate recently received a “full and unconditional” pardon from President Donald Trump after he was sentenced to more than 20 years in federal prison following his arrest for illegally possessing a toy machine gun and other legal gun parts by Biden-era ATF agents. At the time of his arrest, Adamiak was an active-duty Navy E-6 who had been accepted to BUD/S (SEAL training). |
| Comment by:
jimobxpelham
(9/17/2026)
|
| A GOOD QUESTION SHOULD HAS THE ATF AGENTS INVOLVED IN THIS ILLEGIAL GOVT ACTIONS RESULTING IN HIM BEING INDICTED AND FOUND CONVICTED BEEN INDICTED OR CHARGES WITH THIS PHONY TRIAL, THEY NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS HAVE THEY DONE IT BEFORE?????? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
