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.


FR Doc. 2011-10355 Filed 4-28-11; 8:45 am: Obama Admin Wants to know if you buy a rifle!

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Obama and his people need to fix the rectal-cranial inversion they seem to be having, and enforce the laws on the books instead of making new ones. By all means though, lets waste time on crap like this instead of fixing the 14 trillion in debt.

Economic Collapse -> Riots -> National Security / State of Emergency -> Martial Law -> Weapon Seizures

One way or the other its coming - its not a question of if but when in my mind. I think thats partially why in their minds a weak USD is good.

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 08:31 PM
Well, they hoped the background checks would keep people away, then magazine size limits, barrel diameter limits, wait periods, excise taxes on components, environmentally "friendly" bullets, and size restrictions. Still they couldn't kill sales. Now this.
Those knuckleheads won't rest until it's either too expensive or too much red tape to buy one.
Guns are for sale at the flea markets every week and they don't go through the ATF, illegal but it happens.

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 08:33 PM
reply to post by ararisq

Again already occured during Hurrican Katrina when ONOPD went door to door collecting weapons. NOPD had their butts handed to them by the Supreme Court, who ruled that move unconsitutional and illegal. They not only had to return those wepaons, they paid out the ass as well.

Also, people seem to use the term Martial Law incorrectly, as well as not understnading how that stuff works. Only the Govenor of a State can decalare an emergency / disaster. The FEDS have no authority to just waltz into a state and take over with one exception - A Chemical/Bio/Nuclear incident.

A Govenor must request assistance from the FEderal Government, and the only way that is approved is when the PResident signs off on it. Thats when FEMA coordinates with SEMA (State emergency management). They are suborndinate to the State, not the other way around.

The only way the President can send FEderal troops into an area (and this occured during Katrina when the Govenor refused to allow it) is for the Preisdnet to declare a state of Insurrection, which allows the suspension of Posse Commitatus.

The other failue in the argument is people assume that if something like this were to happen, that the Government would have the unequivical support of the Military and Police.

They wont.

Like I said, there are laws on the books already. The wheel is being reinvented.

posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:06 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

There is one other Federal level move, I think, invasion by foreign forces. But that should be somewhat obvious as it would be in line with insurrection. Which curiously enough, insurrection has been used several times but with and without a Governor's permission. Forced integration in Little Rock comes to mind as does The Battle of Blair Mountain. And it was the Whiskey Rebellion that caused the Articles of Confederation to be dropped in favor of the Constitution in the first place.


There was an earlier comment on some anti-gunners trying to use the Second as a right retained solely to the States, simply untrue. All ten amendments of the Bill of Rights are specifically retained by the People. They are the enumerated rights of the People, but unlike the Local, State and Federal Governments, the People also have unenumerated rights.

The purpose of the Constitution as a whole is the entire scope of Federal power. If it is not in the Constitution, the Federal Government is not supposed to do it, legally speaking. And there is some limits placed on the States in the Constitution as well. I did a thread on the Bill of Rights a while back. That thread is directed more towards the HCR issue but the core information is very applicable here as well.

posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:17 AM
reply to post by Ahabstar

Yeah that was one of my suggestions in another thread. To view any person illegally entering the country while in possession of a fire arm should be viewed as an armed incursion. Designating that though would allow the shoot first and ask questions later situation.

Im alos in favor of making the entire southern border a military training free fire zone. They might think twice about crossing when the order of come left 5 degrees and fire for effect is given to the military.

As a side note, and no offense intended at all. Not all 10 amendments are applied to the people.

The 4th amendment, protection against search and seizure, applies to the Government and not the people. If you search someone for no reason, its an assault. If Law enforcement does it, its an illegal search, a violation of the 4th as well as 42 USC 1983.

The 7th amendment, which is a guarantee of trial by jury in some civil cases, has never been incoroperated and applied to the States.

Either or, SCOTUS ruled the Government can regulate the sale and manufacturing of weapons. I just see this legislation, coupled with the ATF fiasco and the attempt to restrict guns because of the Rep Giffords incident, as being ripe for abuse.

Its difficult to put pandora back in the box.

new topics

<< 1   >>

log in