It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Mississippi Passes Legislation Protecting Gun Owners During Martial Law

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:57 AM
The scariest part to this bill is that it is talking about Martial Law. Well, the way I see it is if Martial Law was not a possibility there would not be any need for this proposal.
TPTB are just preparing for Martial Law and letting folks keep their firearms so that they can identify who is going to be a "terrorist" and who will be a "patriot" If you are deemed to be a "patriot" you will be enlisted to control the "terrorist" that could very well be your fellow neighbor.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by Muundoggie]

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 01:27 AM

Originally posted by Wehali
Do you people really think, that a gun will do you any good when Martial
Law is put in place? The military has fully automatic assault rifles, flash
bangs and all kind of other grenades, many of them lethal.. fighter jets,
bomber planes, artillery, rocket launchers, missile pods, war helicopters,
the monstrous Active Denial System that is able to cook people from
half a mile away to death, 'dragon scale' vests, kevlar protection and
who knows what other kinds of terrible weaponry.

Do you really think that you will even be able to kill a single soldier when
they storm into your house, the way they have been doing in the Middle
East? They are trained to destroy civilians, you will never stand a chance
to resist by force. People like Ghandi have showed us how to overthrow
an evil empire without any force, learn from him and use his techniques.

[edit on (12/2/09) by Wehali]

I agree, you have to be insane to fight the US military no matter who you are. You can only hope the US military either A. sits this one out B. the leadership understands and supports you or C. makes you death painless.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 01:33 AM

Originally posted by bigdog36
reply to post by Retseh

What's illegal about protecting my property from illegal confiscation by force?

So then you are telling me that if agents come to your house, violate your rights, explicitly defy state law, you are going to hand over your firearms and do the fetal position in the corner?
We'll that's your decision. NOT MINE

Remember what G. Gordon Liddy said back in the day. When they come in shoot for the head, they will be wearing body armor. ATF is a nice target, but thats what they want you to shoot at. Head shots.

I don't think violence is the answer, but thats what he said. I was listening the day that he said it.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 02:08 AM
great news..I hope more states follow suite..Has any one else noticed that a great number of states seem to be preparing for something major in the future..States wanting succeed in times of M-Law..and then this???Is this the second page of the writing on the wall??

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 04:45 AM
reply to post by Redpillblues

If Violence Escalates in Mexico, Texas Officials Plan to Be Ready

I HOPE this doesn't have anything to do with other things going on...

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 05:03 AM
reply to post by Hx3_1963

The thing is, the US governments excuse for building the FEMA concentration camps is "influx of immigrants or refugees" and that bothers me because of this snippet from the article you linked:

"Do you strengthen the borders so people cannot get in by the thousands every day, or do you create detention centers where people are held until their status is determined?" asked state Sen. Dan Patrick. "This is a potential refugee problem..."

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 05:15 AM

Originally posted by gaslaugh123
Well its coming down to a civil war. Miss is not the only state "Fed" up with this bull# central gov. we call a gov of the people. Hah and up your a** you dead beat elected pieces of total aboslute sh**. Over my dead body and I know their are many others ready and willing to make a final stand. Life is no longer sweet as we are facing lies and deceit in very high places. No chiping my skinny a** and you ain't going to take my 9 mil without me first sharing my amo with you lieing bastards.

wow, too much coffee... look, i tend to partially agree with you about feeling the feds have just too much power. but it seems to me you would be one of those guys that would start rushing a convoy with an m-16 blazing away, all the while yelling "YOU AIN'T GONNA TAKE ME YOU BASTARDS"

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 05:17 AM
reply to post by projectvxn

All Good Cover if your the Gov...sounds Good to Citizens...Either Way they Win with a Statement Like this...Unless you See "The Whole Picture" as Many of Us Do...

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 06:56 AM

Originally posted by spinkyboo
It's just a really good sign that states and people - are taking responsibility for protecting themselves as much as possible - against the agenda/s that might be brewing by those who may not have our best interests at heart.

That's how I feel about it too, because the people in higher positions have family and friends among us civilians, they are not callous robots.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 07:30 AM

Originally posted by djvexd
They will use thier usual tactic and claim federal law trumps state law.

According to the explanation of armed citizens given by Madison in the Federalist Papers, such Federal action is unconstitutional. What happened in Louisiana just sad. Where do they get officers that enforce this stuff?

Having armed federal mercenaries tromping about the several states doing as they will is just the type of thing states are supposed to defend themselves against per the opinions of Madison who was by the was the real constructor of the constitution.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 07:47 AM

Originally posted by bamaoutlaw
its just a law passed to let everyone drop their guard thinking the state gov. is behind them. but the law clearly says if the state cannot handle the emergency the feds will step in and do what they want to who they want, trumping all state laws. however its good to see mississippi passing a law giving us a heads up on what is coming.

You bring up a point here. Just becouse the Feds are "called in" to pass out food and whatever DOES NOT mean that the state laws have to take a side step.

What kind of power is this that comes in to help out and starts collecting weapons as if were a state of war or after an armed conflict? Or that conducts itself as if the entire state constitution is suddenly on hold? This is the price of aid?

Besides this most state constitutions are based on the larger binding constitution.

They are collecting weapons, they are suspending the 2nd amendment arbitrarily on the spot?! What state government or people would let this hydra do anything for them?

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Wehali

Originally posted by tyranny22

You have to put these numbers into context. I'll wager that we have a lot less per capita than many countries.

. The times that a person ever gets to
defend himself with a gun against a home invader, is so tiny that it is less
than a weak argument.

[edit on (12/2/09) by Wehali]

Yes but the 2nd amendment was never intended to insure that persons could protect their homes that goes without saying.

The 2nd amendment is are requirement for the self governed and is intended in its measure to insure good government.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 08:04 AM

Originally posted by Boston Tea Party
In california they can seize your guns for any reason and you have to go to court and the burden is on you to explain why you should get your gun back. If it turns out there was absolutely no reason for them to take your gun, you get it back. But that is it there is no recourse and no apoligy and they can turn around and take it again the next day.
I hate this state so much.

This is a violation of the Federal constitution but we wont hear them complain.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:47 AM
Read the full amendment.

It says the governor can declare martial law and define the rules about who can do what.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Does that apply only to state government declared disasters and martial law or to federally declared? So if the governor ordered the state national guard to confiscate arms they would be in violation but what if the order came from the federal level?

It says that citizens could keep firearms if martial law or a state of emergency is declared UNLESS peace officers feel that the gun is a threat to other people or the gun is being used in a criminal act or was obtained illegally. If they arrest you, you can get your gun back after they release you (unless it's being held as evidence.)

Ditto ammunition.

And that the local authorities MUST do what the governor tells them.

War with the fed and the state?

In order for that to happen, the state would have to declare itself an independent nation and declare war on the rest of the states. Texas probably wouldn't be pleased.

And what's a "peace officer"?

Definitions can vary from state to state. Look up the laws that regulate peace officers for your state (the Texas Rangers are also peace officers here in Texas.)

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Byrd
Read the full amendment.

It says the governor can declare martial law and define the rules about who can do what.


So what do we have here but a reaffirmation that your guns can be taken under a loosely defined "threat to others"?

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 04:47 PM
While the liberals in Washington work at ways to erode away at the 2nd Amendment, there are many conservatives who are stocking up on munitions and accessories not to mention buying up every firearm they can afford.

Myself? I will declare on this day, 13 February 2009, as I've done so in the past, that I will take up arms against the governmnet should they make any changes against the constitution in any way that would take away our ONLY means of keeping our elected officials in line. On this day, I will declare that a war will be initiated and there will be mass casualties. During this time, should it ever happen, I will take aim at anyone who tries to confiscate my arms and shoot to kill. This is not only a promise. This is my duty.

Whoever said that the only reason that we have the right to bear arms is to hunt for food to survive should be named the King of Idiots.

This is a misconception and should never stand to reason.

[edit on 13/2/09 by Intelearthling]

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:21 PM
I changed my mind, even though I detest firearms, I realized that there
are already far too many laws in this world. I've always wanted people
to be free from control imposed on them from the outside, I've wanted
that the only control to be within the family setting, such as parents and
their children.

Native North American communities proved that such a society is the
best working and most advanced system there can be. There is a
leadership, but the members of it only advise people, they never tell
people what to do.. everyone should be free to do whatever he wants,
but if he acts against the group, in the way of attacking group members
for no reason, he gets the choice of either changing his destructive
actions, or leaving the group. Theft doesn't exist, because all property
is shared among all group members, the only possible crimes would be
assault and murder.

This is the perfect system.. I've always known this, right now I do not
understand why I was against people having firearms.. it should be
their right.. americans especially have already so many freedom taken

People should definitely have the right to own and purchase firearms,
I can't believe I didn't realize this before.. otherwise it'll be just yet
another freedom taken away. I should smack myself for not having
realized this before, argh.

My God, in my country there is a complete ban on firearms and melee
weapons and knives of almost all kinds.. that went in two years ago,
and no one protested against it.. I can't believe we've let them take
our rights away without a fight..

[edit on (13/2/09) by Wehali]

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 01:03 AM
Some more scary legislation that doesn't make any sense...

Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009

See the full text of this new bill HERE . PDF can be found HERE ..

A co-worker sent me this and it is pretty damn scary.. You read just part of this and feel like waterboarding politicians.

A preview.. This thing is 26 pages even in PDF format..

`(aa) Firearm Licensing Requirement-

`(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license--

`(A) under title I of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not been invalidated or revoked under that title; or

`(B) pursuant to a State firearm licensing and record of sale system certified under section 602 of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not been invalidated or revoked under State law.

`(2) APPLICABLE DATE- In this subsection, the term `applicable date' means--

`(A) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person before the date of the enactment of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 2 years after such date of enactment; and

`(B) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person on or after the date of the enactment of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 1 year after such date of enactment.'.


(a) In General- In order to be issued a firearm license under this title, an individual shall submit to the Attorney General (in accordance with the regulations promulgated under subsection (b)) an application, which shall include--

(1) a current, passport-sized photograph of the applicant that provides a clear, accurate likeness of the applicant;

(2) the name, address, and date and place of birth of the applicant;

(3) any other name that the applicant has ever used or by which the applicant has ever been known;

(4) a clear thumb print of the applicant, which shall be made when, and in the presence of the entity to whom, the application is submitted;

(5) with respect to each category of person prohibited by Federal law, or by the law of the State of residence of the applicant, from obtaining a firearm, a statement that the individual is not a person prohibited from obtaining a firearm;

(6) a certification by the applicant that the applicant will keep any firearm owned by the applicant safely stored and out of the possession of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;

(7) a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination, which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding--

(A) the safe storage of firearms, particularly in the vicinity of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;

(B) the safe handling of firearms;

(C) the use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use;

(D) the legal responsibilities of firearms owners, including Federal, State, and local laws relating to requirements for the possession and storage of firearms, and relating to reporting requirements with respect to firearms; and

(E) any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate;

(8) an authorization by the applicant to release to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant;

(9) the date on which the application was submitted; and

(10) the signature of the applicant.

(b) Regulations Governing Submission- The Attorney General shall promulgate regulations specifying procedures for the submission of applications to the Attorney General under this section, which regulations shall--

(1) provide for submission of the application through a licensed dealer or an office or agency of the Federal Government designated by the Attorney General;

(2) require the applicant to provide a valid identification document (as defined in section 1028(d)(2) of title 18, United States Code) of the applicant, containing a photograph of the applicant, to the licensed dealer or to the office or agency of the Federal Government, as applicable, at the time of submission of the application to that dealer, office, or agency; and

(3) require that a completed application be forwarded to the Attorney General not later than 48 hours after the application is submitted to the licensed dealer or office or agency of the Federal Government, as applicable.


posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 08:00 AM
What if it's all intentional? What if the states hollow gestures are merely smoke and mirrors? If we can all agree that the government propagates UFO's phenomenon as a guise for their own operations, then what says they aren't doing the exact same thing when it comes to state succession from the Union. Forgive me for who I am about to quote but Hitler once said that "It's possible to tell a lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously". States renouncing statehood does nothing but reinforce the implied power that the government has over us. We all have to remember that our country has the biggest inferiority complex on the planet. The same might hold true in regards to the economic crash. Our leaders will die before they admit that the crisis might very well have blindsided them. So they throw out a few bits here and there ( NAU, AMERO, Martial Law, & so on.....) all of which amount to nothing more than circumstantial evidence in the end. But back to the original point. If the states "take away the governments implied power" all it does is give the national government a reason to take it back or rewrite the definition of their roll in our day to day lives all together. We spend so much time looking at Conspiracy Theories all wrong. Not that they don't exist, It's just that the stuff we rack our minds with is simply the wrong ultimate truth. Take Putin for example, we are so worked up over him passing his fleet through the Panama canal as gesture of war, but that's all wrong.

Follow me on this. We have shipped tons of private contractors / private occupiers to both Afghanistan and Iraq. What says Putins fleet isn't headed here for the exact same reason we are in Iraq. To enforce a totalitarian regime change in the guise of martial law. Also, the "Amero" - we are so worried that the dollar will collapse and we will get stuck with pennies on the dollar in the form of an Amero. Also wrong. What if the 800 Million in " Amero's " are really 800 Million in US Dollars to be converted and safe guarded while America falls to pieces. Making it the biggest heist in world history. It's also funny that the Stimulus package total amount is eerily close to the total amount shipped to china. Just a thought. -J

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 08:02 AM
reply to post by BlasteR

IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license--

Just love that line "qualifying firearm"

They are going to make you get a license on an amendment of the constitution.

Soon you will have to have a license to speak.

For all of us that got into the fight for the 2nd amendment back in the 90's, its time once again.

Renew your NRA membership for starters.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in