It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Noose tightening around 2nd Amendment? Long gun purchase denied because of 30-year-old misdemeanor.

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 


Once your state give up the dirt on you to NICS you'll see what is going on. Sorry to say, but it's the truth. Just a matter of time. Start looking into expungement and or a pardon. Seriously.




posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


The Firearms Freedom Act could be helpful in this. If the states have the b_lls to stand up to the feds.

I believe AZ has passed this also.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by VAPatriot2
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 


Once your state give up the dirt on you to NICS you'll see what is going on. Sorry to say, but it's the truth. Just a matter of time. Start looking into expungement and or a pardon. Seriously.


That is no excuse. The 2nd Amendment is at stake and there is no reason that a person with a 35 year old disturbing the peace charge should be considered a threat of any kind, especially when they've not been charged with anything else since.

Not to mention the gun he wanted to purchase was a .22 rifle. Denied? Really??

It's infringement of rights, plain and simple.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by AwakeinNM]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


I agree 100%. This is a direct assult on our rights.


The NICS Improvement Act of 2007 (H.R.297) is a gun control measure which was introduced in the House on January 5, 2007 by Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) with co-sponsor John Dingell (D-Mich.). It would amend the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.


Guess who supported this....



Wait for it....

The NRA! Not surprised, me either.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by VAPatriot2
 


It shouldnt come as a surprise. The NRA is the biggest gun CONTROL organization in the country.

If you want to back a true gun rights group, check out the Gun Owners of America.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 05:36 AM
link   
There are numerous constitutional conflicts. Among these are: 1–it is ex post facto—a law passed after the fact to affect former actions, explicitly prohibited in the Constitution (Art. 1, Sec. 9); 2–it impacts the right to keep and bear arms (2nd Amendment); 3–legally owned items become subject to seizure (4th Amendment); 4–it holds people accountable to a felony without a Grand Jury indictment, represents a second punishment for a single offense creating a double jeopardy, and it requires dispossession of personal property without compensation or due process (5th Amendment); 5–the right to be informed of an accusation, and to counsel and a public jury trial is abrogated by making an existing state misdemeanor the automatic precursor to a federal felony (6th Amendment); 6–using a misdemeanor instead of a felony to deny civil rights may be cruel and unusual punishment (8th Amendment); 7–federal authorities enter an arena historically governed exclusively by the states (10th Amendment); 8–it denies due process, abridges the rights of U.S. citizens by state law and denies equal protection under the law. (14th Amendment).




Some have been challenged with poor results.



In his motion, defendant argues that the indictment should be dismissed because. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because of lack of jurisdiction based on the federal commerce clause.

Challanging the commerce clause

In his motion, defendant argues that the indictment should be dismissed because. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because of ex post facto.

Challanging ex post facto

Are you an ineligible person?

Will § 922(g)(1) trigger on you day?

This needs to be widely known. A vast amount of people have already lost their 2nd Amendment rights already. They just don't know it yet.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by VAPatriot2]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Wow and he was turned down in Az huh!? I had been so proud of my hime state (AZ) for doing so many positive things with the gun laws lately too (not talking ab the darn immigration law). Then they go and do something silly like this. Well first thing I'd do if he hasn't already is just try a different store. Then I'd start kicking ass and taking names!

Also don't be surprised as things get worse folks. I read in another thread and on few other sites that the scumbags in the Bilderberg group wants to focus on removing guns from American's hands from their most recent meeting. I'm sure they will be using that garbage UN small arms treaty as part of (or their first step) in trying to take away our 2nd amendment rights.

Be ready folks, this is where things start getting really bad because I can't speak for anyone else but they ain't getting my guns. No way no how! Unless of course I guess they want them one round at a time as they say....



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Redwookieaz
 


You really should read further into this tread. The Federal government is the reason he was denied. I have posted the laws that are being triggerd to take you 2nd amendment rights away.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by VAPatriot2
I am 100% positive. I have been living this nightmare for a year and a half now. The only remody is expungement or a pardon.


This is why we are now seeing this happen.

The NICS Improvement Act of 2007 (H.R.297)
The measure would amend the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 to require the head of each federal agency that has records relating to persons for whom receipt of a firearm would violate federal or state law to provide that information to the Attorney General for inclusion into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). In addition, it would require the agency, upon being made aware that the basis under which a record was made available no longer applies, to correct the record and notify the Attorney General and the the Secretary of Homeland Security. It would also have to make available to the Attorney General records relevant to a determination that a person is disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm and information about a change in such person's status for removal from NICS, where appropriate.[1]

The bill would also direct the Attorney General to make grants to states and Indian tribal governments to[2]:

Establish or upgrade information and identification technologies for firearms eligibility determinations
Improve the automation and transmittal to federal and state record repositories of criminal history dispositions, records relevant to determining whether a person has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, court orders, and mental health adjudications or commitments.[3]

[edit on 9-6-2010 by VAPatriot2] typo

[edit on 9-6-2010 by VAPatriot2]


Details



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Yes, this should be top of the page stuff. Not sure how you get it there, but this is serious. He was able to buy a gun before but now he isn't?

The misdemeanor in question was either a D&D or disturbing the peace in 1964 when he was a kid. 1964!!!!!!!! He might have gotten a couple traffic tickets since then. It is utter BS.

I have been able to purchase also, and I have a misdemeanor on my record from 10 years ago or so, not for domestic violence. Does this mean I will be denied also? I am going to try when I get the cabbage for a little carry heater.

The anti-gun agenda is still very much in play and people need to know about this.


The PTB will stop at nothing to take our constitutionally guaranteed means of protection from tyranny, whether that of the gov't or our fellow man.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


The dealer was WalMart. Why would they even care?



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
In some states you must by cleared by the feds, the state AND your local law enforcement.
If you are under investigation for a major crime you can be denied.

But as some local police department do not want there suspect to know they are under active investigation and to flee they will have the state check cover the denial on some other reason.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by VAPatriot2

Wow. This is crazy - the form 4473 + misdemeanor = felony arrest threat

I am the most peaceful person around, I'm quite chill and don't send off bad vibes if at all possible. I certainly am nonviolent. But I'm glad that I purchased a revolver earlier this year because of the impending implosion of the good ol' USA. I've never even fired a gun before (taking classes in a couple weeks though), but uh I don't want the military coming into my state/city/house and treating Americans (or anybody else) like they have treated peaceful Iraqis and Afghans and Iranians and Koreans and Vietnamese and so on and so forth.

I feel like the govt is cracking down on all potential forms of resistance. Now the new policy of calling people with anti-current-US-govt feelings terrorists, and all the crap about detaining without rights/trial/charges those who are suspected of terrorism... I downloaded the wikileaks insurance file and stuff, too. I'm patriotic as fsck, love the USA (the PEOPLE, the LAND, not the govt!), I'm no terrorist. I'm a soldier of truth and compassion fighting ignorance and hate. I don't want to terrorize this country.

The only people that are threatened by good people like myself and sooooo many other like-minded, patriotic, compassionate Americans are those with #tons of cash and power. The vast majority of us don't have much to lose besides our liberties and family. I'm ready to fight for my natural rights and yours too. This crap has got to stop.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
I have a friend who owns several guns. He is an avid hunder and outdoorsman. He is a clean-living, law-abiding citizen who purchased a handgun last year, the only one he has purchased for many years, and he went through the federal background check just fine.

He recently went to purchase a small-caliber gun for plinking, and was denied. DENIED. Why? Because of a 30+ year old misdemeanor.

What?? When did this happen? Since when is a misdemeanor, especially an ancient misdemeanor grounds for denial? Does anyone have a similar experience? There is absolutely no reason this person should have been denied, but he was.

I don't like this one bit. Is this a recent development that was snuck past us while we were all talking about the oil spill?


I am not sure about NM but most states privates sales require no paper work. So Check your state laws and start looking in classifieds for what he wants. There are a few misdemeanors that can be used to deny firearms sales. Like domestic violence is one I believe. He can contact them and request an explanation the gun store should have given him a form.

If NM requires private sales to go through a dealer then go to a neighboring state that doesn't. I believe Nevada, Arizona, and Utah do not.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: AwakeinNM a few years ago, I was delayed a firearm purchase by the feds, and was given a number to call, the reasons were very unclear, and it never went past the delay stage, I have no felony,no domestic crimes, but, 1966 for a non violent misdemeanor I was sent to a state youth authority, for 6 months. that's all I can think of, well, a few weeks ago, my juvenile records were sealed, so tonight I sent an email to the feds, asking if I am still to be delayed,. when I hear something I shall follow up here.



posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Things like this is why you pick the state you want to live in very carefully.

I think many are afraid to move, and just live in some hell hole in the US or in a state that is not even close to the personal and moral convictions they may have.
edit on 5-12-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
From what I understand, the Lautenburg Amendment which is the law that takes second amendment rights away from people convicted of misdemeanor has been challenged several times and even had a showing at the Supreme Court. Each challenge has been unsuccessful so far. Some states do not allow for expungement, such as New Mexico. Repeal does not seem likely since it targets domestic violence and repealing it will be considered anti woman. No politician will want to be viewed as anti woman, that would end their career very quickly. I really don't see this law going away any time soon. Just the idea that a "Right" can be taken away seems unrealistic. If it is a Right granted by the Creator, no law should be able to take it away.




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join