End of the Year Assault Weapons Ban

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: eisegesis

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

-Ayn Rand

Excellent quote.

And when I'm sufficient enough to peacefully and without detriment to the rest of society, remove myself from the confines of the law in attempt to reinstate any semblance of natural sovereignty, the law morphs and becomes predatory. They smoke you out with subpoenas, manipulate the courts and cause you to go bankrupt.

Thankfully, I have some form of protection left when they start coming for the rest of what they can't have.

*turns around*

Hey, what the...

Where's my rifle!!!

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Here's a link to all the cosponsors of the bill if anyone is interested. I found one senator from my state. Unfortunately they're not in my district...

Cosponsors: H.R.4269 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)

Looks like something like that would have passed when Democrats had control of Congress and a "friendly" President with a well-inked pen.

This is the very first sentence from the bill:

To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.

That just goes to show how much regard these politicians have for our constitution and the 2nd amendment.

After the supreme court refused to hear France v US, an assault weapons ban case in Chicago, your "unlimited" guns rights have never been more at stake. And nobody is talking it.

That's the Scotus for you.

Apparently those constitutional 'scholars' pick and choose when the constitution applies.

Maybe if was a gay gun owner they would have.

After all they can't read the second.

We know they can read the 14th amendment that says the STATE shall not make or enforce ANY laws that abridge the rights of one group over another.

Meaning apparently the Anti gunners think they are MORE equal than the pro gunners.

Won't happen.

Most people are against a new awb anyway.

originally posted by: projectvxn
Won't happen.

Most people are against a new awb anyway.

That's what they said in 1986, and again in 1993.

They are like a dog with a bone Project.

They are never going to give up their 'jihad'.

a reply to: neo96

We know they can read the 14th amendment that says the STATE shall not make or enforce ANY laws that abridge the rights of one group over another.

Meaning apparently the Anti gunners think they are MORE equal than the pro gunners.

Huh?
Is it easier for anti-gunners to obtain weapons than it is for pro-gunners? That's interesting. Easier for them to get married?

a reply to: Phage

Troll some where else.

Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We know the anti gunners nor the Scotus can't read that.

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

We know the anti gunners nor the Scotus can't read that.

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

We know the anti gunners nor the Scotus can't read that.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And we know the anti gunners nor the Scotus can't read that.

www.archives.gov...

And we know that the 14th only applies part of the time.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

www.law.cornell.edu...

The bacground checks, and ALL 'regulation' violate ALL of the above.

But hey WHO CARES!

Apparently some people are more equal than others, and the ones who are MORE equal have to fill out a form ATF form 4473 and according to a given set of rules of PERFECTION.

They might be granted the 'honor' of practicing their constitutional RIGHT.

Not entirely unlike a marriage 'license'.

a reply to: neo96

The bacground checks, and ALL 'regulation' violate ALL of the above.

That argument was proven fallacious long ago. As have others.

But sure...guns for all! Yay!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neo96

The bacground checks, and ALL 'regulation' violate ALL of the above.

That argument was proven fallacious long ago. As have others.

But sure...guns for all! Yay!

By who?

'Proven fallacious'

That was hilarious.

a reply to: neo96

By who?

By those who are given the authority to do so. Like it or not.

a reply to: Phage

That argument was proven fallacious long ago. As have others.

There is a legitimate argument to be made for the violation of the 4th Amendment as a result of these background checks. The language and history of the 2nd Amendment does not place any conditions on the person enjoying the right, but on the government to not infringe upon it.

Regardless of what the SCOTUS says, the debate was settled long before they ever took their seats.

a reply to: projectvxn

Regardless of what the SCOTUS says, the debate was settled long before they ever took their seats.

Regardless of how you choose to look at it, it is the law of the land until the SCOTUS says otherwise.

a reply to: Phage

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Constitutional law if you believe that the SCOTUS, or congress have that kind of authority.

a reply to: projectvxn

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Constitutional law if you believe that the SCOTUS,

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the assigned role of the SCOTUS.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Phage

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Constitutional law if you believe that the SCOTUS, or congress have that kind of authority.

They don't.

The constitution was created as limitations placed on the legislative,executive, and the judicial branches.

Seems ALL three are making it up as they go along now.

Picking and choosing when it matters.

a reply to: neo96

They don't.

False.
The SCOTUS has the authority to determine which laws (created by legislation) are legal under the Constitution.

a reply to: Phage

I certainly do not.

Nowhere in the Constitution, nor in the language of the second Amendment in particular, is the authority for banning certain firearms, nor is it the role of the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution, but to place Constitutional scrutiny upon the laws of the Congress and certain actions of the Executive.

Your notion what roles these governmental branches fill is fundamentally at odds with the language and intent long established by the history of the Constitution itself.

a reply to: projectvxn

nor is it the role of the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution, but to place Constitutional scrutiny upon the laws of the Congress and certain actions of the Executive.

Yes. That's right.
And, whether you like it or not, whether you agree with the decisions or not, the SCOTUS has ruled that some (not all) gun regulation is constitutional. Therefore, those laws are the law of the land.

I dislike repeating myself.

a reply to: Phage

No.

The 'job' of the Scotus is to play referee. That's it.

Refusing to hear cases is not part of that job description.

Application of equal usage of the limitations place on the STATE is their JOBS.

The Scotus has no more power than the other two.

The system was designed that way.

When the legislative failed.

It was up to the executive.

When those two FAILED.

IT was suppose to be up to those over paid lawyers in black robes to uphold the constitution.

THE HIGHEST LAWS in the land.

The legislative. The Executive, and the Scotus are NOT above that blanking piece of paper.

And that is why THEY FAIL.