Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Executive Order On Gun Control, Even Possible? Reality Check

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   
In my opinion this is obviously way overstepping boundaries. The 2nd ammendment is very straight forward, and the thought that they are even considering this is very upsetting. As far as the supreme court goes........lets just say i have very little faith in them.

Reality Check Executive Order

Feel free to give me your opinions on the matter.
edit on 11-1-2013 by solongandgoodnight because: spell




posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
If the Patriot Act was possible, ANYTHING is possible!

I was lolling so hard last night after watching how two TOWIE types from the UK got detained on their arrival to America for tweeting "I'm going to destroy America".

A common turn of phrase in the UK for drinking your self silly.

LMAFO, they got deported right back!

Now I'm afraid to even holiday in the USA! Aha.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
america has been under martial law since the civil war, so anything is possible, if 'they' think they can get away with it.

remain vocal - it's a great deterrent!



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
the civil war would automatically resume in some parts of the country. i also think a large portion of the military would quit



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Let me be perfectly frank here:

The people in charge do not seem to care about the Constitution or the rule of law too much these days. If it will give them what they want, they will find a loophole. And considering that the President was a constitutional law lecturer for Harvard, I'm pretty sure that he's plenty well qualified to find that loophole.
edit on 11-1-2013 by AnIntellectualRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 
i agree with you 100%. things are really getting out of hand quick. come to think of it, they've been out of hand for a while.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Even possible yes , by using the term "in the interest of national security" This is one way the POUTS could ban the sale, owner ship of, and or use of semi auto weapons.

Would it mean a gun grab door to door confiscation? NO, to many out there, but it would mean that after the fact no one could , with out the hoop and loops to jump through, be able to own or buy one, just like full auto or mil type collective weapon ie mg 42 or a thompson45 or a BAR, not everyone has one but then if you have the $$$ the back ground checks and the will to fill out mounds of paper work you too can own one.

Is this right? 1968 gun act says so will you still have the right to bear arms yes bolt action and six shooters Want to know the real ban issues read this and then say they took my fire arms away.
www.saf.org... from the link

The National Firearms Act of 1934, after the handgun registration provisions were deleted, was a concentrated attack on civilian ownership of machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, silencers, and other relatively rare firearms that had acquired reputations as gangster weapons during the years preceding its passage. Modeled on the Harrison Narcotics Act,[32] the N.F.A. based its regulatory powers on a tax imposed on traffic in the weapons, thus generating federal jurisdiction for intrastate as well as interstate transactions. The tax rate, $200 per transfer, did not seem calculated to encourage extensive commerce in these weapon.[33] The Act also provided for the immediate registration of all covered weapons, even if illegally owned¾a provision altered in 1968, after the United States Supreme Court held the 1934 provision to be an infringement on the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.[34] [Page 139]
so you see the gun ban grab has been around for a long time it is nothing new,
It is just a tax and only the rich can and will be able to defend them selves.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   
To even have the ''color of law'' an Executive Order has to be based on an Existing Law and be limited to the interpretation of same. Even FDRs EO (#6102) to basically ban citizen's from holding gold (with some exceptions) was based primarily on the Trading With The Enemy Act.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by solongandgoodnight
In my opinion this is obviously way overstepping boundaries. The 2nd ammendment is very straight forward, and the thought that they are even considering this is very upsetting. As far as the supreme court goes........lets just say i have very little faith in them.

Reality Check Executive Order

Feel free to give me your opinions on the matter.
edit on 11-1-2013 by solongandgoodnight because: spell


Any Executive Order will be directed towards Executive branch departments (Homeland Security) to handle a policy in regards to arms.

You should actually have faith in the Supreme Court on this one. The current makeup has a very good track-record in regards to protecting individuals' rights. Heller and McDonlad are two that specifically come to mind in regards to both the Federal Government and States' attempts at limiting persons 2nd Amendment rights.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by tinhattribunal
america has been under martial law since the civil war, so anything is possible, if 'they' think they can get away with it.

remain vocal - it's a great deterrent!


Plus Americans themselves have been considered the enemy since Public Law No. 65-91 (40 Stat. L. 411) was amened in 1933 to include americans as 'the enemy.'
Nice. We are taxed to the hilt yet still considered the enemy of the US

Public Law No. 65-91 (40 Stat. L. 411)
Patriot act
NDAA
FEMA camps.

The noose is tightening.
If you have guns keep them I have a feeling it is going to get hot.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 
this is true, but then we are at war the US is a Battle field, the Pact and NDAA act will play a part something along the lines of mil style weapons ie ar15 and mags that hold more than 10 rounds. Make no mistake they the Current Gov wants you not to have a AR15 style, or type of rifle and no more than 10 rounds with out reloading.
If the Gov had their way, we would all have no fire arm,or would be only allowed to buy sell muzzle loaders.






top topics



 
5

log in

join