Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'

Discussion in 'Firearms' started by hacon1, Jan 7, 2009.


  1. hacon1

    hacon1 Monkey+++

    WEAPONS OF CHOICE
    Congress' plan would let Ag 'ban guns at will'
    2nd Amendment critics are 'ready to run wild'

    Posted: January 06, 2009
    10:05 pm Eastern

    By BOB Unruh
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily
    [​IMG]

    A perfect storm is developing for Second Amendment opponents that could allow President-elect Barack Obama's choice for attorney general – Eric Holder – to "ban guns at will" despite the 2008 affirmation from the U.S. Supreme Court that U.S. citizens have a right to bear arms.
    The situation was described with alarm by Alan Korwin, author of Gun Laws of America, in a recent commentary.
    He cited Holder's known support for gun bans – the former Clinton administration official endorsed the District of Columbia's complete ban on functional guns in residents' homes before it was overturned by the Supreme Court.
    And Korwin pointed to overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress as well as Obama's known support for gun restrictions and his presence in the Oval Office.

    Thirdly, Korwin, one of many Second Amendment advocates raising concerns, cited a proposal already submitted to Congress at a time when its backers could not reasonably expect it to succeed.
    The submission is H.R. 1022 by New York Democrat Carolyn McCarthy and 67 co-sponsors. It was introduced in February 2007 and the next month referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, where it has stayed.
    But that could change in the 111th Congress, sworn in today. And Korwin said the plan would allow the U.S. Attorney General – possibly Holder – to add to the list of guns banned to the public any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."
    "Note that … Holder … wrote a brief in the (District of Columbia) Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home," Korwin said.
    In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."
    "In plain English," Korwin said, "This means that any firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public. That presumption can be challenged only by suing the federal government over each firearm it decides to ban, in a court it runs with a judge it pays. This virtually dismisses the principles of the Second Amendment.
    "The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose – is that devious or what? And of course, 'sporting purpose' is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent," he said.
    Korwin told WND a new proposal to replace H.R. 1022 is not expected to be less draconian.
    "Remember – these bans were proposed when the congressional anti-rights crowd had no chance of success. Now they are ready to run wild, or according to Sarah (Brady) herself, 'I have never been so confident,'" Korwin wrote, referring to the champion of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, which requires background checks on purchasers of handguns.
    Korwin said the Democrats listed in H.R. 1022 a framework for guns to be banned that includes originals, copies or duplicates of a wide-ranging list of shotguns, pistols and rifles.
    One of the red flags for semiautomatic rifles would be "anything" that can serve as a grip, and as set up now, the Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee "are all sworn enemies to the Second Amendment and are unlikely to be swayed at all by any firearms related arguments," he said.
    The Republicans all "need to be pressed hard to do everything they can to block the appointment."
    Further, with the expectation that Obama will appoint at least one or two Supreme Court justices, further damage could be just a vote or two away, he said.
    "If he can get a 5-4 or 6-3 majority who dislike gun rights, you could find that your [Second Amendment] rights aren't what they've been for 200 years," Korwin said.
    John Snyder assembled a list of prominent critics of the Holder nomination.for the Firearms Coalition.
    "A former Ohio secretary of state, (Ken) Blackwell notes that, 'despite Obama's new lip service to the Second Amendment, Holder signed onto a brief earlier this year (2008) reaffirming his long-held position that the Second Amendment confers no rights whatsoever to private citizens, and that the Supreme Court should have upheld D.C.'s absolute ban on handguns, even in homes."
    Snyder also cited comments from Brian Darling, director of U.S. Senate Relations at the Heritage Foundation, that Holder's position "strongly suggests that Holder is hostile to private gun ownership and will work to restrict gun rights."
    Shotgun News columnist Jeff Knox wrote, "The gun rights community should make every effort to see to it that Holder's nomination is withdrawn or rejected."
    According to Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb, Holder has supported handgun licensing and mandatory trigger locks. He also lobbied for limits on gun shows.
    "This is not the record of a man who will come to office as the nation's top law enforcement officer with the rights and concerns of gun owners in mind," Gottlieb wrote.
    "America's 85 million gun owners have ample reason to be pessimistic about how their civil rights will fare under the Obama administration," Gottlieb said. "Mr. Obama will have a Congress with an anti-gun Democrat majority leadership to push his gun control agenda. Gun owners have not forgotten Mr. Obama's acknowledged opposition to concealed carry rights, nor his support for a ban on handgun ownership when he was running for the Illinois state senate."
    The issue of gun rights is more important than many believe, wrote Joseph Farah, WND's founder and editor, in a recent column. He cited a study from the University of Maryland and University of Michigan that uncovered a beneficial link between gun shows and crime.
    "We find a sharp decline in the number of gun homicides in the weeks immediately following a gun show," the study concluded. Furthermore, in Texas they found "gun shows reduce the number of gun homicides by 16 in the average year."
    "Holder’s appointment to be AG must be approved by the Senate," wrote David Codrea in the Examiner. "While it is highly unlikely that opponents could muster the 51 votes needed to reject Holder's appointment, a single senator can place a 'hold' on the confirmation and effectively lock up the system just as Democrats did with a number of President Bush's judicial appointments and the appointment of John Bolton to be Ambassador to the U.N."
    The Supreme Court decided in the D.C. vs. Heller case that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to own firearms, not just the right for states to form armed militias.
    The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Justice Antonin Scalia said in the majority opinion.
    Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in dissent, said the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
    Scalia said the ruling should not "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
    Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Joining Stevens in dissent were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
    The amendment, ratified in 1791, says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
     
  2. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    The amendment, ratified in 1791, says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    --The problem is, that there are no longer any "free states", and the constitution operates exclusively at the sufferance of the Emergency War Powers, as it can only be paid lip service at this point and has no actual application to a People who are now enslaved to their government.

    If we seriously want to "fight" this...I can already guarantee you that this deck is stacked -and that only violence will stand any hope of deterring a dictatorship. Do I advocate violent action toward a tyrannous government? I can only respond with: "Doesn't everyone?" But am I saying, RIGHT NOW, that "we" should violently oppose our current government? No. There is still time to continue believing that there is yet a small hope for victory, even if it is completely useless. I can already tell you right now that most people will not even see this coming, either. When the confiscations begin, most will be too busy and too scared to even care. When small groups organize and protest -they will be quickly put down. Any hope for others to join cause will be deterred, or will have too much at stake to risk being caught. What is the ratio now for citizens with criminal records vs. those without? Increased "terror" = increased Police Enforcement, greater restriction on travel, added roadside checks and barricades. As we near 2012, we will see a significant increase in violent weather. More "emergencies" = more of the above PLUS Homeland Security and FEMA running the show making door to door searches and seizures for your "safety" of course.

    Gah -now I am rambling again.

    Focus on survival. It's good to stay up to date with these political happenings because the more awareness and the greater the controversy -the more time we buy...but that can only be stretched SO FAR.
     
  3. SLugomist

    SLugomist Monkey++

    Well when the confiscations begin that's when you cache your stash.
     
  4. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    For what? If you have to stash a weapon, what possible good is it? How can a pistol buried in your back yard possibly defend your life? How can a M16 buried in barn defend against attacking troops? If it becomes necessary to hide my weapons, we'll have a fire-fight. I have officially "Just said NO!"
     
    Brokor likes this.
  5. hacon1

    hacon1 Monkey+++


    Amen! [sawgunner]
     
  6. Dawg23

    Dawg23 do or do not, there is no try

    Guns? what Guns? All of my guns were lost in a horrible boating accident, in the Gulf of Mexico... All of my weapons were on board and are now at the bottom of the gulf...
     
  7. Blackjack

    Blackjack Monkey+++


    Very Well Said!
     
  8. mobilus

    mobilus Monkey++

    Why? If we don't fight back when confiscations begin, is there any reason to stash your weapons?
     
  9. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Yes, sure is a good reason. After the initial cofiscation and the sheep wake up, you'll be able to contribute to the retaking of society. Cache early and often.
     
  10. SLugomist

    SLugomist Monkey++

    Well if they take it, or take your life or freedom then you certainly won't need it either.

    Better to say ain't got one. then they search, find none. then check you off the list. the next night you dig it back up and you're good to go.
     
  11. hacon1

    hacon1 Monkey+++

    I'm glad that our founding fathers didn't think that same way!
     
  12. BAT1

    BAT1 Cowboys know no fear

    I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I will tolerate them; If I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. Robert Heinlein
    Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. JFK
    Those who choose to be free will have to make sacrifices, I would rather fight for my country trying to save future generations, than fight for someone elses. Me
    Never mess with an old man, he'll just kill you. ?
     
  13. InjunScout

    InjunScout Monkey++

    If its time to bury'em, then its time to use'em.
     
  14. toemag

    toemag Monkey++

    Bury em, do what you like, but when the internments start you'll not be able to get to them fast enough, and the confiscation teams will arrive with metal detectors and excavators.....

    The other thing that worries me is that the individual's who are prepared to defend their rights will fall one by one.....Makes it easier for the take down, and what a shame that they all perished in the ensuing gunfight, just means that the truth will die with them.....

    I left the UK as a proud 17 year old Soldier willing to do the deeds of the UK government back in 1984, because it was a country that was worth fighting for and protecting, nowadays at 40+ I have other opinions.

    Tony
     
  15. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    "Somebody " andI really don't know who to attribute the quote to once said:"If its time to bury'em its time to digem up".
    I'm remindedof Claire Wolfe'squote:"It's too late to work within the system but too early to shoot the bastards."

    I am not advocating anyone take direct violent action; but I can see the shackling logic of using uncertainty as a weapon of restraint.

    If Martial law were to be imposedwith travel restrictions etc,,We would be reassured( by co-opted clergy no doubt) " its only temporary, lets get through this thing"

    How many life long upstanding, law abiding peaceful citizens would be willing to throw that status away and be declared criminals and enemies of the great "obama-nation" ( ?)If they believed all they had to do was just go back inside, sit on your hands and wait another month,or season or even two? for it all to go away?

    I read this stuf ffrom the "brady bunch" and I can't believe we are even citizens of the same country...[loco]people so willing to put handcuffs on themselves then kick the key as far away as they can (to some politicians with their own interests first in mind).[loco]
     
  16. toemag

    toemag Monkey++

    Which is basically what the gun owners in the UK thought, and look at them as a classical example, they are still minus their guns while the criminals are all armed.

    Tony
     
  17. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    I'm not saying its a good thing but it's the psychology of how we got this far. (next month, next election , next congress; it'll be better).
     
  18. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    So what would it take for your countrymen to take butter knives into the street? You guys are already hammered with cctv.and from what we've seen(on video) over bearing "policing".
     
  19. SLugomist

    SLugomist Monkey++

    actually I'm sure the minutemen hid their weapons from the redcoats inorder to avoid prison and confiscation. Isn't that one reason the 2nd amendment was added, so that ownership would be legal and they wouldn't have to cache their weapons until use?

    YEah they're going to run a metal detector across the entire countryside. SO bury the cache 4 feet deep and at 1 foot put a pie pan. And do that in your neighbors yard so if they do find it they cart him off instead of you. lol
     
  20. toemag

    toemag Monkey++

    England is doomed, no going back or reversing the clocks to regain their rights, in fact quite the opposite has happened the majority have been brainwashed enough by the press and politicians that they believe that they don't need or want guns back in the hands of target shooters. I always laugh when I read about the armed robbery's that are committed in the UK., 99% are with knives, sword's, hammers or clubs, very few are armed with a firearm, which in itself is ridiculous.

    I write this from Bavaria in Germany, I had to trade some rights to be able to own firearms, like the right to vote.

    They had a knife amnesty in the UK last year, and some old people actually went and bought some kitchen knives to hand in at the collection point's[loco].

    The Politically Correct goose-stepping morons will be going up against bad mood's next.

    Tony
     
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7