Activism Discussion: Obama's Gun Ban List Is Out

Obama's Gun Ban List Is Out
Posts: 14

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

R. L.
2009-03-24 00:57:49 EST

------------------------------

How long until Canada follows suit?
============================================================
http://www.congresscheck.com/2009/03/13/obama's-gun-ban-list-is-out/

Obama's Gun Ban List Is Out
By Congress Check in Uncategorized on March 13th, 2009
Alan Korwin
Infowars
March 13, 2009

Here it is, folks, and it is bad news. The framework for legislation is
always laid, and the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they want to
impose upon us. They really do not believe you need anything more than a
brick to defend your home and family. Look at the list and see how many you
own. Remember, it is registration, then confiscation. It has happened in
the
UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that for
some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know that
you did.

Remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the
citizens.

Gun-ban list proposed. Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term
memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under
the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of
passage
(HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the
Brady's plan to introduce shortly. I have an outline of the Brady's current
plans and targets of opportunity. It's horrific. They're going after the
courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out
effort to restrict we the people. They've made little mention of criminals.
Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun
bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process,
confiscated property, states' rights, free speech, right to assemble and
more, in addition to the Second Amendment. The Democrats current
gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
M1 Carbine,
Sturm Ruger Mini-14,
AR-15,
Bushmaster XM15,
Armalite M15,
AR-10,
Thompson 1927,
Thompson M1;
AK,
AKM,
AKS,
AK-47,
AK-74,
ARM,
MAK90,
NHM 90,
NHM 91,
SA 85,
SA 93,
VEPR;
Olympic Arms PCR;
AR70,
Calico Liberty ,
Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,
Fabrique National FN/FAL,
FN/LAR, or FNC,
Hi-Point20Carbine,
HK-91,
HK-93,
HK-94,
HK-PSG-1,
Thompson 1927 Commando,
Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
Saiga,
SAR-8,
SAR-4800,
SKS with detachable magazine,
SLG 95,
SLR 95 or 96,
Steyr AU,
Tavor,
Uzi,
Galil and Uzi Sporter,
Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).

Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110,
MAC-10,
MAC-11, or MPA3,
Olympic Arms OA,
TEC-9,
TEC-DC9,
TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,
Uzi.
Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG,
SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
Striker 12,

Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see
below),
(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.

Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).
A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a
detachable magazine, and has:
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
10
rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine
capacity
of more than 5 rounds, and
(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.
Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the
proposal,
the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun
originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based
on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for
sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."

Note that Obama's pick for this office, Eric Holder, wrote a brief in the
Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a
working
firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says,
"there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by
the United States military or any law enforcement agency is not
particularly
suitable for sporting purposes, and a shall not be determined to be
particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is
suitable for use in a sporting event." In plain English this means that ANY
firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable
for the public.

The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a
sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose - is that
devious or what? And of course, "sporting purpose" is a rights infringement
with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by
domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause
of disarming the innocent.
Respectfully submitted, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America
http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm

(_@Forward_or_send_to_every_gun_owner_you_know).

Watch This, If You Want More Proof:
YouTube - CNN- Obama To BAN Guns SPREAD THIS FOLKS, PLZ!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv3p2lLmjGk

A partial list of gun rights groups:
Gun Owners of America
http://gunowners.org/

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
http://www.jpfo.org/

FREEDOM=GUNS
http://www.tcsn.net/doncicci/freedom.htm

National Rifle Association
http://www.nra.org/

Second Amendment Committee
http://www.libertygunrights.com/

Second Amendment Foundation
http://www.saf.org/

Second Amendment Sisters
http://www.2asisters.org/

Women Against Gun Control
http://www.wagc.com/

------------------------------
--
Triad Productions-Fantalla~EZine~ParaNovel
National Hand Gun Association (nhga)
(http://*remove*members.fortunecity.com/vampire34/htmlconc.html)

James Hatten
2009-03-24 04:04:57 EST
Seems like the Congressional Democrats shut it down hopefully for good.


"R. LaCasse" <maj-ic@MJ12.info> wrote in message
news:316hs4dhepceumqdjair1g3n72jemhd63g@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:57:49 -0800, R. L. <rkba@castle_doctrine.info>
> wrote:
>
> |>
> |>------------------------------
> |>
> |>How long until Canada follows suit?
> |>============================================================
> |>http://www.congresscheck.com/2009/03/13/obama's-gun-ban-list-is-out/
> |>
> |>Obama's Gun Ban List Is Out
> |>By Congress Check in Uncategorized on March 13th, 2009
> |>Alan Korwin
> |>Infowars
> |>March 13, 2009
> |>
> |>Here it is, folks, and it is bad news. The framework for legislation is
> |>always laid, and the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they want
> to
> |>impose upon us. They really do not believe you need anything more than a
> |>brick to defend your home and family. Look at the list and see how many
> you
> |>own. Remember, it is registration, then confiscation. It has happened in
> |>the
> |>UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that
> for
> |>some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know
> that
> |>you did.
> |>
> |>Remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the
> |>citizens.
> |>
> |>Gun-ban list proposed. Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term
> |>memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even
> under
> |>the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of
> |>passage
> |>(HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the
> |>Brady's plan to introduce shortly. I have an outline of the Brady's
> current
> |>plans and targets of opportunity. It's horrific. They're going after the
> |>courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out
> |>effort to restrict we the people. They've made little mention of
> criminals.
> |>Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical.
> Gun
> |>bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process,
> |>confiscated property, states' rights, free speech, right to assemble and
> |>more, in addition to the Second Amendment. The Democrats current
> |>gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):
> |>
> |>Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
> |>M1 Carbine,
> |>Sturm Ruger Mini-14,
> |>AR-15,
> |>Bushmaster XM15,
> |>Armalite M15,
> |>AR-10,
> |>Thompson 1927,
> |>Thompson M1;
> |>AK,
> |>AKM,
> |>AKS,
> |>AK-47,
> |>AK-74,
> |>ARM,
> |>MAK90,
> |>NHM 90,
> |>NHM 91,
> |>SA 85,
> |>SA 93,
> |>VEPR;
> |>Olympic Arms PCR;
> |>AR70,
> |>Calico Liberty ,
> |>Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,
> |>Fabrique National FN/FAL,
> |>FN/LAR, or FNC,
> |>Hi-Point20Carbine,
> |>HK-91,
> |>HK-93,
> |>HK-94,
> |>HK-PSG-1,
> |>Thompson 1927 Commando,
> |>Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
> |>Saiga,
> |>SAR-8,
> |>SAR-4800,
> |>SKS with detachable magazine,
> |>SLG 95,
> |>SLR 95 or 96,
> |>Steyr AU,
> |>Tavor,
> |>Uzi,
> |>Galil and Uzi Sporter,
> |>Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).
> |>
> |>Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
> |>Calico M-110,
> |>MAC-10,
> |>MAC-11, or MPA3,
> |>Olympic Arms OA,
> |>TEC-9,
> |>TEC-DC9,
> |>TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,
> |>Uzi.
> |>Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
> |>Armscor 30 BG,
> |>SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
> |>Striker 12,
> |>
> |>Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
> |>A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
> |>(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
> |>(ii) a threaded barrel,
> |>(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip,
> see
> |>below),
> |>(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
> |>
> |>Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
> |>10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).
> |>A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a
> |>detachable magazine, and has:
> |>(i) a second pistol grip,
> |>(ii) a threaded barrel,
> |>(iii) a barrel shroud or
> |>(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
> |>(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more
> than
> |>10
> |>rounds.
> |>A semiautomatic shotgun with:
> |>(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
> |>(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
> |>(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine
> |>capacity
> |>of more than 5 rounds, and
> |>(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
> |>
> |>Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion
> kits.
> |>Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the
> |>proposal,
> |>the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun
> |>originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm
> based
> |>on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for
> |>sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."
> |>
> |>Note that Obama's pick for this office, Eric Holder, wrote a brief in
> the
> |>Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a
> |>working
> |>firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says,
> |>"there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use
> by
> |>the United States military or any law enforcement agency is not
> |>particularly
> |>suitable for sporting purposes, and a shall not be determined to be
> |>particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm
> is
> |>suitable for use in a sporting event." In plain English this means that
> ANY
> |>firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not
> suitable
> |>for the public.
> |>
> |>The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't
> have a
> |>sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose - is
> that
> |>devious or what? And of course, "sporting purpose" is a rights
> infringement
> |>with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by
> |>domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their
> cause
> |>of disarming the innocent.
> |>Respectfully submitted, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America
> |>http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm
> |>
> |>(_@Forward_or_send_to_every_gun_owner_you_know).
> |>
> |>Watch This, If You Want More Proof:
> |>YouTube - CNN- Obama To BAN Guns SPREAD THIS FOLKS, PLZ!
> |>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv3p2lLmjGk
> |>
> |>A partial list of gun rights groups:
> |>Gun Owners of America
> |>http://gunowners.org/
> |>
> |>Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
> |>http://www.jpfo.org/
> |>
> |>FREEDOM=GUNS
> |>http://www.tcsn.net/doncicci/freedom.htm
> |>
> |>National Rifle Association
> |>http://www.nra.org/
> |>
> |>Second Amendment Committee
> |>http://www.libertygunrights.com/
> |>
> |>Second Amendment Foundation
> |>http://www.saf.org/
> |>
> |>Second Amendment Sisters
> |>http://www.2asisters.org/
> |>
> |>Women Against Gun Control
> |>http://www.wagc.com/
> |>
> |>------------------------------
>
> Depending on your browser, the cite
> (http://www.congresscheck.com/2009/03/13/obama's-gun-ban-list-is-out/)
>
> is better found with the full expanded URL......
> (http://www.congresscheck.com/2009/03/13/obama%e2%80%99s-gun-ban-list-is-out/)
>
> Bob


R. LaCasse
2009-03-24 04:24:48 EST
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:57:49 -0800, R. L. <rkba@castle_doctrine.info>
wrote:

|>
|>------------------------------
|>
|>How long until Canada follows suit?
|>============================================================
|>http://www.congresscheck.com/2009/03/13/obama's-gun-ban-list-is-out/
|>
|>Obama's Gun Ban List Is Out
|>By Congress Check in Uncategorized on March 13th, 2009
|>Alan Korwin
|>Infowars
|>March 13, 2009
|>
|>Here it is, folks, and it is bad news. The framework for legislation is
|>always laid, and the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they want to
|>impose upon us. They really do not believe you need anything more than a
|>brick to defend your home and family. Look at the list and see how many you
|>own. Remember, it is registration, then confiscation. It has happened in
|>the
|>UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that for
|>some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know that
|>you did.
|>
|>Remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the
|>citizens.
|>
|>Gun-ban list proposed. Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term
|>memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under
|>the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of
|>passage
|>(HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the
|>Brady's plan to introduce shortly. I have an outline of the Brady's current
|>plans and targets of opportunity. It's horrific. They're going after the
|>courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out
|>effort to restrict we the people. They've made little mention of criminals.
|>Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun
|>bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process,
|>confiscated property, states' rights, free speech, right to assemble and
|>more, in addition to the Second Amendment. The Democrats current
|>gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):
|>
|>Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
|>M1 Carbine,
|>Sturm Ruger Mini-14,
|>AR-15,
|>Bushmaster XM15,
|>Armalite M15,
|>AR-10,
|>Thompson 1927,
|>Thompson M1;
|>AK,
|>AKM,
|>AKS,
|>AK-47,
|>AK-74,
|>ARM,
|>MAK90,
|>NHM 90,
|>NHM 91,
|>SA 85,
|>SA 93,
|>VEPR;
|>Olympic Arms PCR;
|>AR70,
|>Calico Liberty ,
|>Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,
|>Fabrique National FN/FAL,
|>FN/LAR, or FNC,
|>Hi-Point20Carbine,
|>HK-91,
|>HK-93,
|>HK-94,
|>HK-PSG-1,
|>Thompson 1927 Commando,
|>Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
|>Saiga,
|>SAR-8,
|>SAR-4800,
|>SKS with detachable magazine,
|>SLG 95,
|>SLR 95 or 96,
|>Steyr AU,
|>Tavor,
|>Uzi,
|>Galil and Uzi Sporter,
|>Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).
|>
|>Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
|>Calico M-110,
|>MAC-10,
|>MAC-11, or MPA3,
|>Olympic Arms OA,
|>TEC-9,
|>TEC-DC9,
|>TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,
|>Uzi.
|>Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
|>Armscor 30 BG,
|>SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
|>Striker 12,
|>
|>Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
|>A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
|>(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
|>(ii) a threaded barrel,
|>(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see
|>below),
|>(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
|>
|>Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
|>10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).
|>A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a
|>detachable magazine, and has:
|>(i) a second pistol grip,
|>(ii) a threaded barrel,
|>(iii) a barrel shroud or
|>(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
|>(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
|>10
|>rounds.
|>A semiautomatic shotgun with:
|>(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
|>(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
|>(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine
|>capacity
|>of more than 5 rounds, and
|>(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
|>
|>Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.
|>Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the
|>proposal,
|>the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun
|>originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based
|>on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for
|>sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."
|>
|>Note that Obama's pick for this office, Eric Holder, wrote a brief in the
|>Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a
|>working
|>firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says,
|>"there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by
|>the United States military or any law enforcement agency is not
|>particularly
|>suitable for sporting purposes, and a shall not be determined to be
|>particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is
|>suitable for use in a sporting event." In plain English this means that ANY
|>firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable
|>for the public.
|>
|>The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a
|>sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose - is that
|>devious or what? And of course, "sporting purpose" is a rights infringement
|>with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by
|>domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause
|>of disarming the innocent.
|>Respectfully submitted, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America
|>http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm
|>
|>(_@Forward_or_send_to_every_gun_owner_you_know).
|>
|>Watch This, If You Want More Proof:
|>YouTube - CNN- Obama To BAN Guns SPREAD THIS FOLKS, PLZ!
|>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv3p2lLmjGk
|>
|>A partial list of gun rights groups:
|>Gun Owners of America
|>http://gunowners.org/
|>
|>Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
|>http://www.jpfo.org/
|>
|>FREEDOM=GUNS
|>http://www.tcsn.net/doncicci/freedom.htm
|>
|>National Rifle Association
|>http://www.nra.org/
|>
|>Second Amendment Committee
|>http://www.libertygunrights.com/
|>
|>Second Amendment Foundation
|>http://www.saf.org/
|>
|>Second Amendment Sisters
|>http://www.2asisters.org/
|>
|>Women Against Gun Control
|>http://www.wagc.com/
|>
|>------------------------------

Depending on your browser, the cite
(http://www.congresscheck.com/2009/03/13/obama's-gun-ban-list-is-out/)

is better found with the full expanded URL......
(http://www.congresscheck.com/2009/03/13/obama%e2%80%99s-gun-ban-list-is-out/)

Bob

R. LaCasse
2009-03-24 09:46:55 EST

They shut the list down where??? any references??........ although
you're proly right....hopefully,........Site
(http://www.congresscheck.com/2009/03/13/obama%e2%80%99s-gun-ban-list-is-out/)
is still there....

This list has been going around for about a decade in-out, just a
lot of Democratic idealism, but the "ball" is in their court to pass such
*insane legislation*.....

Bob

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:04:57 -0700, "James Hatten" <Mollwitz> wrote:

|>Seems like the Congressional Democrats shut it down hopefully for good.
|>
|>
|>"R. LaCasse" <maj-ic@MJ12.info> wrote in message
|>news:316hs4dhepceumqdjair1g3n72jemhd63g@4ax.com...
|>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:57:49 -0800, R. L. <rkba@castle_doctrine.info>
|>> wrote:
|>>
|>> |>
|>> |>------------------------------
|>> |>
|>> |>How long until Canada follows suit?
|>> |>============================================================
|>> |>http://www.congresscheck.com/2009/03/13/obama's-gun-ban-list-is-out/
|>> |>
|>> |>Obama's Gun Ban List Is Out
|>> |>By Congress Check in Uncategorized on March 13th, 2009
|>> |>Alan Korwin
|>> |>Infowars
|>> |>March 13, 2009
|>> |>

Nraclaptrap
2009-03-24 11:12:24 EST
On 23 Mar 2009, you wrote in talk.politics.guns:

This poster <vampire@istar.ca> didn't want us to reply to his little
screed via newsgroup but rather to secretly email our responses just to
him personally. Well it's a public newsgroup so if you don't anybody
responding publicly, don't post.

> Gun-ban list proposed. Slipping below the radar (or under the
> short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban
> list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it
> had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a
> framework for the new list the Brady's plan to introduce shortly. I
> have an outline of the Brady's current plans and targets of
> opportunity. It's horrific. They're going after the courts, regulatory
> agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to
> restrict we the people. They've made little mention of criminals. Now
> more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical.
> Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due
> process, confiscated property, states' rights, free speech, right to
> assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment. The Democrats
> current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):

Where is the leaked press release or new bill? HR 1022 was apparently
quashed by Republicans along with anything else Democrats proposed.
Also, you should read DC v. Heller because it says almost all gun control
is perfectly constitutional.

The NRA wants to infringe on our Constitutional right to make tough gun
control laws. Looks like you took your list of to-be-banned-guns from
the old Chapter 44 definitions of assault weapons. Just tell us who told
you that these weapons would be banned and what the bill numbers and name
would be.

And if you accuse Obama if wanting to ban these guns, cite Obama saying
he wants to ban these guns. You don't have to sneak around. Just say
it.


--


NRACLAPTRAP

Ernie
2009-03-24 12:40:39 EST

"nraclaptrap" <nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9BD867CFC61C9piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131...
> On 23 Mar 2009, you wrote in talk.politics.guns:
>
snip
>
> Where is the leaked press release or new bill? HR >1022 was apparently
> quashed by Republicans along >with anything else Democrats proposed.
> Also, you should read DC v. Heller because it says >almost all gun control
> is perfectly constitutional.
>
You can assert what you please but it doesn't make it factually correct.
This is an incorrect reading of the Heller case. First, the American
judicial system is adversarial. One MUST assert each and every issue
challenged and it cannot be raised after you get started in the case.
Plaintiff Heller did NOT contest in his challenge registration or licensing,
for example, just gun bans thus no decision on those issues were made. The
two challenges he did make were "sustained" and the bans were lifted as they
should have been.

Is it, then, a lawful act to require license and registration of privately
owned arms in accordance with the Second Amendment?

Before colonial settlement in America began those coming here to settle were
guaranteed, in writing, all the rights of free born Englishmen. (I'll omit
cites of common knowledge unless specifically requested. Send me an email if
you want those posted)

Prior to 1688 there was the common law right to keep and bear arms for self
defense and self preservation as well as the right to use armed force to
preserve the rule of law against the king or parliament itself. See
Blackstone.

In 1688 the Glorious Revolution came about in large measure because of gun
license and registration, prohibition and confiscation.. Charles I
complained of arms seizures by Parliament and Parliament complained of arms
seizures by Charles I., etc. Partliament authorized searches for arms then
adopted arms registration and dissarms the opposition. "Forewarned was
forearmed, and from 1642 Englishmen learned to hide their firearms and to
stockpile weapons." (J. Malcolm, 10 Hast. Con. L. Q. 285, 294)

More like the 1968 Gun Control Act than one would think "Gunsmiths were
ordered to produce a record of all weapons they had manufactured over the
past six months together with a list of their purchasers. In the future they
were commanded to report every Saturday night to the ordinance office the
number of guns made and sold that week. Carriers throughout the kingdom were
required to obtain a license if they wished to transport guns, and all
importation of firearms were banned." (Malcom, supra, at 299-300)

The 1671 Hunting Act caused disarmament of all but the major landowners.
James II continued the arms seizures begun by charles then he extended the
confiscations to Ireland.

Eventually it just became enough and the king was run out of England.
Parliament, sitting as a 'convention' then was ready to establish a new king
but they weren't about to just give way to an absolute monarch without some
guarantees of personal liberty. Not one chance. Members of the 'convention'
had themselves been disarmed and all the other nonsense of the
confiscations, registration and license.

Therefore, then, a 'Declaration of Rights' which would define the basic
rights of Englishmen was written and became known as the Bill of Rights. The
House of Commons version insisted that the arms seized be returned and then
the House of Lords focused purely on the rkba as an individual right. The
English 1688 rkba was thus worded " That the subjects which are protestant
may have arms for their defense suitable to their condition and as allowed
by law."

Thus, William signed off and agreed no more attempt to confiscate, register
or license arms of the people or in any manner restrict the type or quantity
of arms. Such power as was still allowed would rest only with Parliament.
Thus 'gun control' was completely reversed as a matter of personal right.

In Colonial America no restriction as to particular religious faith was ever
attempted or enforced; it was not acceptable here. As far as a person's
"condition" was concerned no attempt was ever made to determine what an
individual might own soley on the basis of personal wealth. Parliament never
restricted the type or quanity of arms until well after the United States
was born. Nor did American common law replicate here exactly as the right
was much broader in our country.

Even so, as Madison noted, there were some fallacies concerning personal
liberty. One was that the 1688 Bill of Rights [only two btw] fully extended
to all branches of government: it applied only to the King. Here, it would
apply to executive, legislative and judicial branches or all the government.
Additionally, it would be broadened and expanded.

Initially, Madison wanted to interlineate or place the amendments in the
body of text of the constitution. This would, where he intended placement,
mean it would apply only to the Federal Government. He did support extension
to the States. Roger Sherman's major contribution was to put amendments at
the end and one can readily see then that they would apply as written. What
became the first amendment applied only to the federal government but all
the rest, written in universal form, were obviously applicable to both from
the moment of passage.

Watson v. Stone, 4 So. 2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1941 struck down law requiring
license to carry a pistol as contrary to Second Amendment and Florida
constitution.

And of course the obvious "The language of the Second Amendment is broad
enough to embrace both Fedeeral and state governments---nor is there
anything in its terms which restricts its meaning.... Is this a right
reserved to the State or to themselves? Is it not an inalienable right,
which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that,
because the people witheld this arbritrary power of disenfranchisement from
Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This
right is too dear to be confided to a... legislature."

And "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and
not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such
merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed or
broken in upon, in the smallest degree...[A]ny law, state or Federal, is
repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right..."
Nunn v State 1 GTa. 243 (1846)

Since the SCOTUS did not address the obviously unlawful requirements of
registration and licensing we can go back and assert these violations. The
Court has noted "The Constitution is a written instrument. Its meaning does
not change. That which it meant when adopted it means now." South Carolina
v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

And last but not least the legal point "That an unconstitutional action has
been taken before surely does not render that same action any less
unconstitutional at a later date." Powell v. Mccormack, 395 U.S. 486, 546-47
(1969)

Therefore, then, in answer to the question, "Is it a lawful act to require
license and registration of privately owned arms in accordance with the
Second Amendment?" it is NO.



Ernie
2009-03-24 12:40:57 EST

"nraclaptrap" <nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9BD867CFC61C9piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131...
> On 23 Mar 2009, you wrote in talk.politics.guns:
>
snip
>
> Where is the leaked press release or new bill? HR >1022 was apparently
> quashed by Republicans along >with anything else Democrats proposed.
> Also, you should read DC v. Heller because it says >almost all gun control
> is perfectly constitutional.
>
You can assert what you please but it doesn't make it factually correct.
This is an incorrect reading of the Heller case. First, the American
judicial system is adversarial. One MUST assert each and every issue
challenged and it cannot be raised after you get started in the case.
Plaintiff Heller did NOT contest in his challenge registration or licensing,
for example, just gun bans thus no decision on those issues were made. The
two challenges he did make were "sustained" and the bans were lifted as they
should have been.

Is it, then, a lawful act to require license and registration of privately
owned arms in accordance with the Second Amendment?

Before colonial settlement in America began those coming here to settle were
guaranteed, in writing, all the rights of free born Englishmen. (I'll omit
cites of common knowledge unless specifically requested. Send me an email if
you want those posted)

Prior to 1688 there was the common law right to keep and bear arms for self
defense and self preservation as well as the right to use armed force to
preserve the rule of law against the king or parliament itself. See
Blackstone.

In 1688 the Glorious Revolution came about in large measure because of gun
license and registration, prohibition and confiscation.. Charles I
complained of arms seizures by Parliament and Parliament complained of arms
seizures by Charles I., etc. Partliament authorized searches for arms then
adopted arms registration and dissarms the opposition. "Forewarned was
forearmed, and from 1642 Englishmen learned to hide their firearms and to
stockpile weapons." (J. Malcolm, 10 Hast. Con. L. Q. 285, 294)

More like the 1968 Gun Control Act than one would think "Gunsmiths were
ordered to produce a record of all weapons they had manufactured over the
past six months together with a list of their purchasers. In the future they
were commanded to report every Saturday night to the ordinance office the
number of guns made and sold that week. Carriers throughout the kingdom were
required to obtain a license if they wished to transport guns, and all
importation of firearms were banned." (Malcom, supra, at 299-300)

The 1671 Hunting Act caused disarmament of all but the major landowners.
James II continued the arms seizures begun by charles then he extended the
confiscations to Ireland.

Eventually it just became enough and the king was run out of England.
Parliament, sitting as a 'convention' then was ready to establish a new king
but they weren't about to just give way to an absolute monarch without some
guarantees of personal liberty. Not one chance. Members of the 'convention'
had themselves been disarmed and all the other nonsense of the
confiscations, registration and license.

Therefore, then, a 'Declaration of Rights' which would define the basic
rights of Englishmen was written and became known as the Bill of Rights. The
House of Commons version insisted that the arms seized be returned and then
the House of Lords focused purely on the rkba as an individual right. The
English 1688 rkba was thus worded " That the subjects which are protestant
may have arms for their defense suitable to their condition and as allowed
by law."

Thus, William signed off and agreed no more attempt to confiscate, register
or license arms of the people or in any manner restrict the type or quantity
of arms. Such power as was still allowed would rest only with Parliament.
Thus 'gun control' was completely reversed as a matter of personal right.

In Colonial America no restriction as to particular religious faith was ever
attempted or enforced; it was not acceptable here. As far as a person's
"condition" was concerned no attempt was ever made to determine what an
individual might own soley on the basis of personal wealth. Parliament never
restricted the type or quanity of arms until well after the United States
was born. Nor did American common law replicate here exactly as the right
was much broader in our country.

Even so, as Madison noted, there were some fallacies concerning personal
liberty. One was that the 1688 Bill of Rights [only two btw] fully extended
to all branches of government: it applied only to the King. Here, it would
apply to executive, legislative and judicial branches or all the government.
Additionally, it would be broadened and expanded.

Initially, Madison wanted to interlineate or place the amendments in the
body of text of the constitution. This would, where he intended placement,
mean it would apply only to the Federal Government. He did support extension
to the States. Roger Sherman's major contribution was to put amendments at
the end and one can readily see then that they would apply as written. What
became the first amendment applied only to the federal government but all
the rest, written in universal form, were obviously applicable to both from
the moment of passage.

Watson v. Stone, 4 So. 2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1941 struck down law requiring
license to carry a pistol as contrary to Second Amendment and Florida
constitution.

And of course the obvious "The language of the Second Amendment is broad
enough to embrace both Fedeeral and state governments---nor is there
anything in its terms which restricts its meaning.... Is this a right
reserved to the State or to themselves? Is it not an inalienable right,
which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that,
because the people witheld this arbritrary power of disenfranchisement from
Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This
right is too dear to be confided to a... legislature."

And "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and
not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such
merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed or
broken in upon, in the smallest degree...[A]ny law, state or Federal, is
repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right..."
Nunn v State 1 GTa. 243 (1846)

Since the SCOTUS did not address the obviously unlawful requirements of
registration and licensing we can go back and assert these violations. The
Court has noted "The Constitution is a written instrument. Its meaning does
not change. That which it meant when adopted it means now." South Carolina
v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

And last but not least the legal point "That an unconstitutional action has
been taken before surely does not render that same action any less
unconstitutional at a later date." Powell v. Mccormack, 395 U.S. 486, 546-47
(1969)

Therefore, then, in answer to the question, "Is it a lawful act to require
license and registration of privately owned arms in accordance with the
Second Amendment?" it is NO.



Bill Smith
2009-03-25 11:07:10 EST
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:57:49 -0800, R. L. <rkba@castle_doctrine.info>
wrote:

>
>------------------------------
>
>How long until Canada follows suit?
>============================================================
>http://www.congresscheck.com/2009/03/13/obama's-gun-ban-list-is-out/
>
>Obama's Gun Ban List Is Out


I don't think the Democrats will try to outlaw these rifles until they
can get a Supreme Court more to their liking. Look for an attempt at
licensing before that. If a ban fails, and licensing fails, look for a
direct assault on the 2nd amendment itself. This fight will NEVER end.

Bill Smith



Nraclaptrap
2009-03-25 18:57:25 EST
"Ernie" <ErnieDec151791@aol.com> wrote in
news:MKCdnQIyAJ55Y1XUnZ2dnUVZ_oiWnZ2d@giganews.com:

> And "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and
> boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every
> description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not
> be infringed, curtailed or broken in upon, in the smallest
> degree...[A]ny law, state or Federal, is repugnant to the
> Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right..." Nunn v State
> 1 GTa. 243 (1846)

"We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837
seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons
secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive
the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his
constitutional right to keep and bear arms."

So if Nunn carried had been charged with carrying his gun secretly, and
convicted of that crime by the evidence, the Georgia Supreme Court would
have affirmed his conviction.

Let it be so now as it was then...

POINT PROVEN!


--


NRACLAPTRAP

Ernie
2009-03-26 03:55:14 EST

"nraclaptrap" <nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9BD9B6AAFA7B0piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131...
> "Ernie" <ErnieDec151791@aol.com> wrote in
> news:MKCdnQIyAJ55Y1XUnZ2dnUVZ_oiWnZ2d@giganews.com:
>
>> And "The right of the whole people, old and young, >>men, women and boys,
>> and not militia only, to keep >>and bear arms of every description, and
>> not such >>merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed,
>> >>curtailed or broken in upon, in the smallest degree... [A]ny law,
>> state or Federal, is repugnant to the
>>Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right..." >>Nunn v State 1
>>GTa. 243 (1846)

> "We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of >1837 seeks to
> suppress the practice of carrying certain >weapons secretly, that it is
> valid, inasmuch as it does not >deprive the citizen of his natural right
> of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms."
>
> So if Nunn carried had been charged with carrying his >gun secretly, and
> convicted of that crime by the >evidence, the Georgia Supreme Court would
>have affirmed his conviction.
>
> Let it be so now as it was then...
>
> POINT PROVEN!

Not actually and you didn't fully respond so I take that to mean you concede
all the other points except this one. So agreed. As far as this is
concerned, however...

Nunn held that both Federal and State government are bound by the Second
Amendment. You agree to this since you do not challenge it. The ruling was
that it could regulate how weapons were borne [no new surprise; always could
never brandish] but not prohibit the bearing. The statute, void for
ambiquidity now without question, forbid the concealed carry of breast
pistols but did not prohibit the bearing concealed of horseman's pistols. It
seems the legislature wanted to be sure that any concealed weapon carried by
an individual be as powerful as technology allowed so you would have enough
firepower to take care of any problems you might run into. More or less not
having enough of a gun concealed was prohibited but you could carry
concealed if you had a mind to as long as you took care to take enough gun
on your person with you. I don't have a problem with that kind of
regulation.

(Point of information: at adoption of the Bill of Rights concealed carry was
part of the right to keep and bear arms and protected from laws prohibiting
or requiring license to carry concealed. This new exception was judge
created but even Heller admitted it was beyond the power of the judiciary to
rewrite it. Adding a ban for concealed carry is itself a judicial
ursurpation of the right to keep and bear arms but more on this at another
time.)

And, as Heller concedes, one may carry openly [or concealed if you carry
enough gun and place faith in Heller's reliance on Nunn] throughout the
United States on every street or car even in Chicago or D.C. . So far, even
the SCOTUS has agreed each individual has a right to keep and bear arms
openly on his person and a qualified right to carry concealed weapons [or as
in Nunn if they are enough of a gun]. Or so the ruling holds.

In Heller the limitiations or restrictions you like to think are legal
aren't. The Court said" presumptively" because the issues had not been
raised and brought before the Court. A fiction in law is that every act by
the legislature is considered valid until challeneged. If you know it is
unlawful, first, there is no duty to obey and second you have a right to
challenge in court etc. The factual record destroys all "gun control"
leaving only the legitimate limitations in effect in America per local,
state and National government.

"That an unconstitutional action has been taken before surely does not
render that same action any less unconstitutional at a later date. Powell v.
Mccormack, 395 U.S. 486, 546-47 (1969)

The Consitution does not grant police power to the Federal government. The
First, Second, Ninth prohibit "gun control" by both Federal and State
government.The 10th Amendment reserves the police power to the States.
Therefore, on 10th Amendment gounds alone, the entire federal regulatory
scheme runs afoul of that protection. This is common knowledge. Except the
Federal government has a duty and right to prevent gun control in the States
under the 14th Amendment and did so until the end of Reconstruction. We'll
discuss this in the future, too.

But remember the legal standard for the entire Constitution and Bill of
Rights at all times is this "The first and fundamental rule in the
interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the
sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties" 1 J. story,
COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION &400(2d ed. 1851)

But then as you said earlier
> Let it be so now as it was then...
>
Agreed


Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron