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.

 

CIVIL WAR: Senate To Go For Handguns

page: 21
81
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


And your fingerprints.




posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


They have not ruled on the full act. They have only ruled on select clauses. I read the decision. While I don't like it, I believe it was sound. Here's the deal. As long as the SCOTUS is interpreting law and not making law, I'm going to live by their rulings. When they step out of interpretation and start making law...then we've got a problem. Obamacare's myriad of requirements/restrictions/mandates, etc. have NOT been ruled on by SCOTUS.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 

What is the Constitutional Challenge procedure for Administrative Actions (Executive Orders by the Executive Branch; POTUS, DOJ, BATFE)? Judicial Review is the procedure to challenge the constitutionality of legislation but the end around will be Executive Orders. Where was the challenge to the BATFE under Clinton when certain shotguns were relegated to "Destructive Device" status (in the class of hand grenades not machine guns) simply because they did not have a "sporting purpose" according to them? And now that "sporting purpose" requirement is about to be applied to all semi-autos (thru executive action not legislative acts).



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by paulvh
 

I can guarantee that there are many canadians that would be helping if it came to that. There are so many ways to cross the northern border way off the beaten trail it isn't even funny. ATV, offroad equipped trucks, and snowmobile will be making supply runs for sure.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


The shooter in the Sandy Hook massacre was more like a hunter than a warrior, in my opinion.

There isn't a problem with having a warrior mindset. Plenty of books have been written on how to use that mindset in business. The problem is with uncivilised people in society.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


The same procedure. The SCOTUS rules on anything that is considered a binding "law". He can EO away all he wants, but the SCOTUS still has the right to hold up what he orders to see if it passes constitutional muster. No branch of the government is exempt from review by the other branches.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 

Wait til they roll out the RFID chips: First all police, military and first responders. Then all gun owners (the "militia" get it?)....not to make anyone paranoid but rfid chips are in the agenda. The technology will eventually be that they can turn on your chip's gps function and not only see your current location but also where you have been. Crime solving will be used for that: imagine if we could play the OJ tape backwards and see his location at the crime scene...and then add to that the use of satellite cameras that can image every square meter on earth.

edit on 29-12-2012 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


I am not as confident in the SCOTUS if the ban is worded as a tax. After all they accepted Obamacare as Congress exercising their right to tax despite it plainly being Congress acquiring the power to dictate manditory purchases (in this case medical insurance policies).

That said, if pushed as a "gun owners tax" on a significant number of firearms, it could be easily argued as a prohibitive tax to a fundamental and specifically enumerated right held by the people. Which makes it worse than the discriminatory acts of poll taxes used in various states to discourage voting, because voting is not an enumerated right but an implied one covered under the 9th.

It could also be argued that CCW permits required by the various states (sorry Illinois but you have to wait until May 2013 and I think it will be a "may issue" state) are also a "poll tax" to the 2nd Amendment and the natural right of self defense. I am sure Feinstein would blanch at the thought of that being argued before the courts as a result of her heightened attention she has given firearms.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 

Excellent point as the Congress does have the power to levy taxes....and we do have "represenation" (unlike with the use of Executive Orders which are their trump card).



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
During the last "ban", in upstate Ny at the range I frequented, I saw literally hundreds of those banned guns on any given weekend putting rounds down range. Keep in mind, in the middle of nowhere, even sheriffs and state troopers went to shoot there, and even they thought of the ban as a joke. They would check out and even ask to shoot the cooler of the "banned" guns. I am willing to bet it was pretty similar in other areas of the deep country as well.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


That was what worries me about the scotus and the tax thing. If they issue a ruling that is obvious affront to our Constitution, what would our recourse be, other than rebellion?



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 

It makes sense but I dont remember that being covered in school. WHY then has not the "sporting purpose" requirement being arbitrarily applied to shotguns by the (then) BATF (now BATFE) been challenged as Unconstitutional and an egregious infringement on the right to keep and bear arms?



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 



Well, the SCOTUS did cover such issues as CCL's, etc. at the State and local level. And they did a good job of explaining why those added requirements in order to carry a weapon OFF your property are constitutionally okay for state and local jurisdictions to enforce. In referencing extraneous writings of the founding fathers, their drafts for the amendments, etc. the SCOTUS found that the Second Amendment's intent appears to be to ensure we can keep and bear arms ON OUR OWN PROPERTIES. So it is okay (and several SCOTUS's have said so) to put other requirements on bearing arms OFF your property. Hence the CCL permit requirements, etc.

Now, yes, they can put a "tax" on guns and ammunition. Damned straight,skippy. But the tax cannot be so burdensome that it is viewed as restricting the U.S. Citizen's ability to keep and bear arms. So that will be the question....what level of "tax" is okay and what level isn't?



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


Would you happen to have a link to the EO you are referencing? I'm not familiar with it. Apparently I've gotten by for several decades ignoring it and even being ignorant of it. So its legs must be pretty weak.


edit on 12-29-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 





..what level of "tax" is okay and what level isn't?
If we must give the poor free phones, then I am of the opinion that any level of taxation is too much.

I mean, if the poor deserve phones, paid for by tax dollars , we shouldn't have our 2nd Amendment taxed at all. It isn't there is an amendment regarding paying for an individuals right to communicate.
edit on 29-12-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
Banning some guns does not mean banning all guns, and as for the Second Amendment bit I'm pretty sure that I saw that somewhere. I need to check. However I did find this on Senator Feinstein's website: “On the first day of the new Congress, I intend to introduce a bill stopping the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of assault weapons as well as large ammunition magazines, strips and drums that hold more than 10 rounds,” Feinstein said. “I am in the process of gathering support for the bill in the Senate and House.”

“I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation,” Feinstein added. “It will be carefully focused on the most dangerous guns that have killed so many people over the years while protecting the rights of gun owners by exempting hundreds of weapons that fall outside the bill’s scope. We must take these dangerous weapons of war off our streets.”


I see that my aid in helping you resolve your reading comprehension has not helped.


A Ban, is a Ban, is a Ban. Do you understand that? Let me help... I give you 20 M&Ms - 18 are red and 2 are green. I then notify you that red M&Ms are to be banned. Do you still have 20 M&Ms? Did I not take something from you that prior to the ban you were allowed to possess? So you see, when you ban something, you take that right of ownership away from someone. Make sense?

Feinstein has "Been in the process of gathering support" for a number of draconian initiatives that will never see the light of day. I believe this is simply another Don Quixote quest. I have to seriously question the mentally deficient who keep returning her to office each election cycle - They CERTAINLY should not be permitted to own guns - or even pointy sticks for that matter!



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


Oh, I found it. Look at 921 - B

www.atf.gov...

In the definitions for "destructive devices" the following exemption is put in place for shotguns and shotgun shells


any type of weapon (other than
a shotgun or a shotgun shell which
the Attorney General finds is generally
recognized as particularly suitable
for sporting purposes) by
whatever name known which will, or
which may be readily converted to,
expel a projectile by the action of an
explosive or other propellant, and
which has any barrel with a bore of
more than one-half inch in diameter;
and


So they do have a "sporting purpose" exemption.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Touche...lol Hope that argument holds up in court.

Of course, Obama will just pass a the Obama-arms Act and all the rest of us will be taxed to make sure the poor can pay their tax on their guns and ammo.

Right? Isn't that how it works? lmao



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
And a word on "registered guns". There is no Federally Registered Guns database. At least not a legal one, except the full automatics. The form you fill out is retained by the FFL holder making the sale. So any federal law requiring the registration of a firearm akin to registering a car in which there is an easy to identify database moves the spirit of the 2nd from a right to a privilege, which can be revoked more readily.

States require the registration of cars because you don't actually own your car. You do not have a bill of sale when you buy the car (even if you pay cash in full at the time of purchase). You have a bill of transfer. The title of car is issued by the state and is transferred state to state as you move, but the state owns the title and the car. Which is why you pay a yearly tax on the registration of your car.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


I think you're misinterpreting the sporting purpose exemption. It ALLOWS the use of shotguns, it doesn't prohibit the use of them.



new topics

top topics



 
81
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join