Total gun control?
Posted in Liberty Rant by R Lee Wrights on February 9th, 2009 by Richard C. Evey
In 2008, the United States Supreme Court in Heller v District of Columbia ruled that people have a right to firearms BUT that the government has a right to regulate these arms.
Along comes House Report 45. Yes it was a DINO’s submission but like I have said in the past. RINO/ DINO, liberal/ conservative, left/ right: it is all the same. It is like asking someone if they want AIDS or cancer, it will all kill you in the end.
HR 45 is nothing more than total gun control/ gun registration. Under HR 45; to own a handgun or a semiautomatic firearm with a detachable feeding device (get real) you must obtain a license from the attorney general of the United States government or its assigned representative. This representative could be a private organization under contract by the United States Government.
There is no grandfather clause in this proposed legislation, any firearm that is owned before or after this law goes into effect, you must get a government issued license to keep that firearm.
Application:
Photo, name, address, birth place, any other name used, thumb print, statement that you are not a criminal, statement that you will store the weapon safely and not let children get to it.
Test:
You must take a written test; proper storage, proper handling, proper use, legal responsibilities of ownership, federal and state laws and any other subject that the attorney general thinks that are needed.
Best of all: A release of any health/ mental records.
This will all cost you $25.00. This will be for five years, then you have to renew.
The sale or transfer of a firearm can only be done via a license firearms dealer or between people who have government issued authorized license. Then a report must be made to the attorney general with the following information:
Manufacturer of firearm
Model name and number
Serial number
Date of the transfer
License number of both parties
Name and address of both parties
AND IT ONLY GETS BETTER!
The attorney general will have the right to “enter any place in which a firearm or firearm products are stored or held…” for inspection purpose. So much for the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Plus; “the attorney general may issue orders prohibiting the sale or transfer of any firearm that the attorney general finds has been transferred or distributed in violation of this act”.
Complete ban on all firearm!
Best part: The U. S. Government, state, county, city, politician subdivisions are exempt. As Rick would say: “See the surprise look on my face”!!
Claire Wolfe once wrote; “Don’t shoot the bastards (Yet)”, maybe no yes; it is time that WE THE PEOPLE took back our FREEDOMS.
I will not comply. I have drawn that line in the sand. If I must stand alone, I will. I will not go to prison. I will follow in the footsteps of our founding fathers and will put everything on the line for FREEDOM, yours as well as mine!
If there is a G_d, G_d help me!!
Be part of the THREE PERCENT (3%).
We must save this REPUBLIC!
food for thought said,
February 9, 2009 @ 7:40 am
Richard C. Evey said:
“In 2008, the United States Supreme Court in Heller v District of Columbia ruled that people have a right to firearms BUT that the government has a right to regulate these arms.”
No, they didn’t, Mr. Evey. The court ruled that you have a right to keep and bear arms, but it didn’t rule on the license issue BECAUSE HELLER DIDN’T ARGUE THAT IN HIS CASE! Heller didn’t challenge the licensing requirement in his case and the justices therefore didn’t rule on that aspect of the his case. (DID YOU EVEN READ THE OPINION? [I DID!] If not, why are you writing like you are an authority on it?)That is why I had to laugh when Heller was denied a license after the case was over. He only has himself to blame by not challenging the licensing requirement part of the SO-CALLED LAW IN HIS COURT CASE.
…..
“HR 45 is nothing more than total gun control/ gun registration. Under HR 45; to own a handgun or a semiautomatic firearm with a detachable feeding device (get real) you must obtain a license from the attorney general of the United States government or its assigned representative. This representative could be a private organization under contract by the United States Government.”
This is not Constitutional. (You don’t need a license to exercise your rights to do anything AND GOVERNMENTS DON’T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO TURN A RIGHT INTO A PRIVILEGE EITHER.) That is what Heller didn’t challenge for his own reasons, but I bet someone will challenge it now! The law definition of “license” is “permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort. People vs. Henderson, 391 Mich. 612, 218 N.W. 2d 2,4. … Permission to do something which without the license would not be allowable. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. Vs. City of Lexington, 256 Ky. 595, 76 SW 2d 894, 896. …
“There is no grandfather clause in this proposed legislation, any firearm that is owned before or after this law goes into effect, you MUST get a government issued license to keep that firearm.”
This is more BS coming from you. The Constitution has two clauses that keeps the government from passing retroactive laws, Evey. Article 1 Section 9 Paragraph 3 FORBIDS Congress from passing EX POST FACTO LAWS. Article 1 Section 10 Paragraph 1 FORBIDS any state from passing any EX POST FACTO LAWS. Do you know what a “ex post facto law” is, Evey?
Black’s Law Dictionary says “A law passed AFTER the occurrence of a fact or commission of an act, which RETROSPECTIVELY CHANGES THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OR RELATIONS OF SUCH FACT OR DEED.
This means: If you bought something like a gun while it was legal/lawful to do so, no law can make it illegal AFTER THE FACT. See the law phrase GRANDFATHER CLAUSE.
“Photo, name, address, birth place, any other name used, thumb print, statement that you are not a criminal, statement that you will store the weapon safely and not let children get to it.”
All unconstitutional UNLESS YOU WANT TO VOLUNTARILY DO IT!
“You must take a written test; proper storage, proper handling, proper use, legal responsibilities of ownership, federal and state laws and any other subject that the attorney general thinks that are needed.”
More BS you don’t have to follow. Are you just naive or are you a wolf in sheep’s clothing, Evey?
“Best of all: A release of any health/ mental records.
This will all cost you $25.00. This will be for five years, then you have to renew.”
Ever heard of a little thing called the right to privacy, Evey. You are really leading people astray here. If this is your job, you need to find another occupation. Preferably something to which you are competent.
“The sale or transfer of a firearm can only be done via a license firearms dealer or between people who have government issued authorized license. Then a report must be made to the attorney general with the following information:
Manufacturer of firearm
Model name and number
Serial number
Date of the transfer
License number of both parties
Name and address of both parties
AND IT ONLY GETS BETTER!”
More B.S., Evey. You have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CONTRACT. The government has NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE THAT RIGHT DURING THE SELL OF A FIREARM. Your lack of Constitutional knowledge is scary, Evey!
“The attorney general will have the right to “enter any place in which a firearm or firearm products are stored or held…” for inspection purpose. So much for the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
More BS. Have you ever heard of the Supremacy Clause, Evey? Neither the Federal Government nor the State Governments have the authority to violate the Constitution for any reason! That includes the 4th Amendment!
“Plus; “the attorney general may issue orders prohibiting the sale or transfer of any firearm that the attorney general finds has been transferred or distributed in violation of this act”.”
This violates your right to contract and the 2nd Amendment protected firearms to which ALL ATTORNEY GENERALS TAKE AN OATH TO PROTECT AND DEFEND. I am sure they wouldn’t want to be charged with TREASON, right? Right!
“Complete ban on all firearm!”
Totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL. NOW YOU KNOW WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS GAVE US THE 2ND AMENDMENT. WHENEVER GOVERNMENTS BECOME DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE RIGHTS, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST SUCH TREASON. That is why they used the motto “Live free or die”, Evey!
“Best part: The U. S. Government, state, county, city, politician subdivisions are exempt. As Rick would say: “See the surprise look on my face”!!”
This is like Nixon saying he was above the law, Evey. I didn’t mean squat then and it doesn’t mean squat now.
“Claire Wolfe once wrote; “Don’t shoot the bastards (Yet)”, maybe no yes; it is time that WE THE PEOPLE took back our FREEDOMS.
I will not comply. I have drawn that line in the sand. If I must stand alone, I will. I will not go to prison. I will follow in the footsteps of our founding fathers and will put everything on the line for FREEDOM, yours as well as mine!”
Now your talking, Evey!
“If there is a G_d, G_d help me!!
Be part of the THREE PERCENT (3%).”
When and if the shooting actually starts, I would be willing to bet there will be more than 3%. It isn’t going to be pretty for these traitors if they push the American people to that point, Evey. They can only hide so long behind their mercenaries before their mercenaries turn on them as well!
“We must save this REPUBLIC!”
You can’t save something (the Republic) unless you know what that means. You have shown you don’t totally understand the Constitution yourself. Think of what that means for the rest of the generally dumb public! What is that saying? It goes something like this: “Those who expect to be dumb and to be free expect what never was nor will ever be!”
Richard C. Evey said,
February 9, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
Food for though does not like me, like I give a RATS REAR END. You have your opinion and I have mine, but yours is better, you have to insult me to get yours across.
jimbo said,
February 10, 2009 @ 3:08 am
just start “gunning down” top cops, politicians, judges, FBI & ATF bastards!….after youse “drop” a few dozen, they’ll start to “get the message”, eh?!?
Rocketman said,
February 10, 2009 @ 4:37 am
And the sons of bitches have only been in power for what, 3 weeks now? If gun owners want to still be gun owners at the end of this latest assault of the Bill of Rights, as if Bush wasn’t bad enough, then they had better get organized and active to fight this. This country is right now on the ragged edge of something that will have terrible consequences if nothing is done.
John Galt said,
February 10, 2009 @ 8:13 am
Why stop at a few dozen, though? I mean, once you get a taste for it.
PECB said,
February 11, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
While Mr. Evey’s rant is a bit sloppy and not entirely accurate, and “Food for Thought’s” counter-arguments and reasoning are nice and logical — unfortunately “Food for Thought’s” repartee is idealistic to the point of complete naivety. In a true “Constitutional Republic”, with educated, ethical participants “Food for Thought” would be on the right track, in regard to the various Constitutional Restrictions on gov. power and activities. However, such is not the case; local, state, & federal officials, reps, etc… violate any and all legal, regulatory, & constitutional (there is often a difference) restrictions on their powers/activities whenever it is convenient for them to do so.
For example, “Food for Thought” says:
“This is more BS coming from you. The Constitution has two clauses that keeps the government from passing retroactive laws, Evey. Article 1 Section 9 Paragraph 3 FORBIDS Congress from passing EX POST FACTO LAWS. Article 1 Section 10 Paragraph 1 FORBIDS any state from passing any EX POST FACTO LAWS. Do you know what a “ex post facto law” is, Evey?”. . .
While true on paper, it is not true in practice. . . . example, make it known that you own a silencer (even one purchased for a recreational air gun, out of deference to your neighbors) bought or home-made when it was legal to do so, and you will find you life either ruined or simply forfeit by the ATF.
I could go on ad nauseum with specific, unpunished, examples of constitutional violations by local, state, and federal officials (elected & non-elected) spanning over 100 years, but I’ll keep this post short and sum up …
Then there is also the issue of law versus regulation — an even more “slippery slope”.
As the old saying goes, “. . . you can’t sue the King, unless he wants you to.”
The constitutional republic is long dead. All one can do is to do one’s best to live a life of excellence (in the fashion of Spinoza, Milton, Aristotle, et. al.) and try to stay out of the monster’s way while it grows and eventually dies.
food for thought said,
February 11, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
PECB,
while you are making some sense, it is only from a cowardly perspective. The just give the bully your lunch money because he is much to big and he might hurt me type of excuse for not standing up for your rights. If our founders had that attitude, they would have never fought the biggest world power of their time in order to be free and independent. To me, your rationalization is unamerican and sad indeed. There are people fighting the system today (some are dying while doing so: example, William Cooper, etc.) for the right reasons. They represent the true spirit of being an American, PECB. You need to go see the movie “Braveheart” (again?) and listen and think about what is being said in that movie. [Why do you think the media attacked Mel Gibson so harshly? Do you really think it was JUST THE NAME-CALLING EPISODE? Or could it be that he had the guts to do movies like Braveheart and Passions of the Christ?] He was trying to tell you something, PECB. Apparently got lost in translation for you.
TR said,
February 14, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
I WONDER WHY GUN SALES HAVE MORE THAN DOUBLED WHEN OBAMA WAS ELECTED, AND AMMO IS IN SHORT SUPPLY. COULD IT BE THAT THIS WAS ANTICIPATED? COULD THERE BE A HIDDEN REVOLUTION ABOUT TO ERUPT? MAYBE THE LAWMAKERS SHOULD TAKE SOME OF THIS INTO CONSIDERATION BEFORE THEY OVER STEP THEIR AUTHORITY. WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE IN CONTROL NOT THE ELECTED MORONS, IS IT TIME TO STAND UP FOR OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OR JUST LAY DOWN AND HOPE FOR THE BEST? FREE PEOPLE SHOULD BE READY TO UNITE AND FIGHT FOR WHAT THIS COUNTRY TRULY REPRESENTS, A GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE.