Are we next?

According to what I read I would be forced to turn in all of my firearms. I would be out close to $2000 dollars not counting the ammo and lane costs. The sad thing is is I haven't even had a chance for a while to even go shooting. How much more of our constitution needs to be bent and broken for people to take notice?
 
That is some scary stuff. One question. Doesn't the Constitution protect private property? Wouldn't legally purchased firearms be viewed as private property? I can see them getting away with making a ban on future purchases of "Assault weapons" (trust me I don't agree with it) but forcing people to turn them in! It seemed to me the Clinton administration was smart enough not to go that far.

I've heard that one of the reasons this type of thing would not actually work and didn't in S.F., is that it amounts to illegal seizure of personal property. There is a Const. amendment that prohibits that sort of thing. But then again there is the 2A.[thinking]
 
That is some scary stuff. One question. Doesn't the Constitution protect private property? Wouldn't legally purchased firearms be viewed as private property? I can see them getting away with making a ban on future purchases of "Assault weapons" (trust me I don't agree with it) but forcing people to turn them in! It seemed to me the Clinton administration was smart enough not to go that far.

I don't know if the constitution specifically protects one's property.... except
maybe under the context of the 4th amendment. Problem is if something is
declared "contraband" it seems that the government gets an unlimited license
to seize it, at that point. Of course, from a practical standpoint there
is a lot less opposition to a "ban" if the ban grandfathers the contraband
instead of requiring it to be seized.... for a couple of reasons.

-Seizing millions of guns costs money. If seizure is a requirement it has
to be funded, either in terms of LEO overtime or LEO overtime + costs of
offering a buyout. This means congress must be asked for more money,
and on its front will look politically offensive. Telling another congressman
that you want to steal his pork money to steal the guns of his constituents
isn't going to go over very well. A plain ban with grandfathering allows
the ban to get slipped under the rug because the up front cost is far lower.

-Seizing guns en masse is likely to create other problems the authoritarian
statists want to avoid. Some individuals may band together and resist
the demand. This might even cause a breakdown in power
structures. (EG, what happens is the local sheriff thinks the government
has gone too far and teams up with the locals to keep the feds
out? then all hell breaks loose. If the feds up the ante the NG or military
may not want to get involved, and may possibly end up on the "wrong" side
themselves. The feds don't want to deal with that.

The other reason the Klinton admin didn't go full bore on the crime bill is they
had to make concessions to make it passable as it was. While the full blown
antis were the drum beaters, it still required approval by some fence sitters
in order to pass. The klinton AWB -barely- passed. If a pro gunner
was president instead of klinton and the bill got bounced back via veto there
would not have been enough votes to override it.

-Mike
 
That's assuming Maine isn't right behind Mass. I'm sure the mayors of much of York and Cumberland County (as well as the liberal Majority that has been moving away from the big cities for decades) are in total agreement with Menino, Bloomberg, what other Bolshevik govenors are on this filthy council on crushing the 2nd ammendment.

It hurts me saying that, but frankly the writing is on the wall, at least with Greater Portland, and any place where you start seeing Mass, New York, Connnecticut, and Rhode Island refuges showing up (or worse yet lots of "Summer People")

-Weer'd Beard

[crying]
 
Thanks Mike. I try to keep up on as much as I can but there always seems to be another pile of $#!+ around the corner. On another note I read (maybe on this forum) that more moderate constitutional driven Liberals (if there’s such a thing) are starting to see the detrimental effects of attacking the 2nd amendment. They’re starting to realize that by their actions they give fuel and in a way pave a path for the other extreme to impose they’re own agendas. Has anyone seen more on this topic?
 
I've heard that one of the reasons this type of thing would not actually work and didn't in S.F., is that it amounts to illegal seizure of personal property. There is a Const. amendment that prohibits that sort of thing. But then again there is the 2A.[thinking]

Pilgrim-

It didn't work in SF because CA has a preemption statute. The antis
that wrote the bill thought they could circumvent that but it didn't work... so
the state court put the hammer down on it.

Any states that have state level preemption on gun laws essentially state
that no town/city has any rights whatoever to make laws regulating
firearms. EG, the state government is the only entity that has that
right.

-Mike
 
And the wording IS the problem. It should NOT say common defense. It should INVIDUAL defense. The problem is that the leftists then "interpret" it to be a collective right and not an individual right.

Everything depends on how it is worded. Everything.

You forget what the mindset was of the people who wrote many of the state constitutions (in the colonies) and the US constitution. They were trying to make sure that the citizens could bear arms - and rise in defense of their community, state and country - as a militia or armed group - against armies (like the British) that might be trying to opress them. The way our society has been twisted and manipulated over the last 150 years or so was probably something the original writers could not even imagine.

On a side note - I have been reading "Boston's Gun Bible" - which I highly recommend BTW, and in near the end of the book he mentions that in the late 90's there was a proposal floated in Arizona I believe - that basically would have put in the Arizona constitution that if the US Government ever tried to start abrogating the US constitution - that the state was then obligated to remove itself from US Govt. jurisdiction - and work to form a new US Govt. He also mentions that in Vermont in the late 90's there was a proposal floated to make it a state requirement that Vermot citizens own firearms - and serve in a state militia.

I will have to look it up and post the wordings - thought it was interesting - because I had never heard of this before.
 
Pilgrim-

It didn't work in SF because CA has a preemption statute. The antis
that wrote the bill thought they could circumvent that but it didn't work... so
the state court put the hammer down on it.

Any states that have state level preemption on gun laws essentially state
that no town/city has any rights whatoever to make laws regulating
firearms. EG, the state government is the only entity that has that
right.

-Mike

Mike,

You are undoubtedly right but I do remember reading that using the unlawful taking of property argument was one that was going to be used, if necessary.
 
Some of our legislators at least - have their heads on straight. I found a reference to this in the book "Bostons' Gun Bible" and dug up some info using Google.

Apparently back in 2000 Arizona reps Johnson and Cooley put out a plan that sets forth the legal procedure for secession from the United States. HCR 2034 specifies conditions of abolishing the federal government.
One of the stipulations of the act that would start this process is:

"If any federal order attempts to make it unlawful for individuals to own firearms or to confiscate firearms"

You can read more here:

http://www.snant.com/fp/2004_07_18_archive.html
(scroll down the page to "An item of interest")


There was also mention in the book of a bill put forth in Vermont in 2000 that would REQUIRE every adult in Vermont to own a gun - or face a fine.

It was House Bill 760 by Republicn Fred Maslack

http://personals.valleyadvocate.com/articles/armsman.html

A quote from Fred Maslack:

"In my dreams Rosie O'Donnell gets to carry an infantry rifle with a fixed bayonet, and run every day until the powers that be are satisfied that she's physically fit," he quipped.

I knew there was a reason I liked Vermont... [grin]
 
Last edited:
(snip) Our side screwed up royally a long time ago by not writing incredibly tight pro-2A amendments into each state's constitution - written in such a way that no judge could rule in favor of gun control or anti-hunting bullshit. The cultural cancer of the left has been able to infect certain states and take those states slowly down the road to socialist gun banning.


Illinois does have a very well defined pro-gun section in the State Constitution.
"ARTICLE I, SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I learned the third Constitution of 1870 in school, but Illinois wrote a fourth constitution in 1970. From Wikipedia: "Important features of the fourth Illinois Constitution include the creation of home rule powers for larger municipalities and other units of local government. "Home rule" allows the powerful city of Chicago to govern many of its own affairs without interference from the state government of Illinois."

And yes, Chicago is in Cook County.
 
It seemed to me the Clinton administration was smart enough not to go that far.

The FIRST Klinton administration was smart enough.
Wait and see what the SECOND Klinton administration will do.

One of these days, there WILL be an armed response.
What happens after that will be sort of up in the air.
Either there will be a moratorium on any new gun laws, OR there will be mass disarmament by our returning troops who come back to the HOMELAND to restore order.
I am so afraid for the future of my son.
 
The FIRST Klinton administration was smart enough.
Wait and see what the SECOND Klinton administration will do.

One of these days, there WILL be an armed response.
What happens after that will be sort of up in the air.
Either there will be a moratorium on any new gun laws, OR there will be mass disarmament by our returning troops who come back to the HOMELAND to restore order.
I am so afraid for the future of my son.

I tend to agree with you on the armed response thing. There is a certain subset of the population that will never give in to the gun grabbers. I have been reading "Boston's Gun Bible" - and he lays it out pretty clearly that there are some people who will fight rather than give in.
http://www.amazon.com/Bostons-Gun-Bible-Boston-Party/dp/1888766069


I don't know about the returning troops thing though - I tend to think that there are sizable numbers of people in the military who might refuse orders to fire on American citizens. I read an article recently where the author - a retired Marine - who lives in Maine BTW - basically said that a Marines's duty is to the Constitution. As long as there are people who believe this in our military we may yet find somebody who is on our side.

article:
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/wyly_4gw.htm


I would highly recommend forgoing a box of ammo and spend the $20.00 on Boston's Gun Bible - it is worth the read.
 
Legislation like this always brings up the interesting question:

If a law like this was passed in your state, what would you do? Would you turn them in? Hide them? Would you politely tell the police knocking at your door to go screw themselves? Fight back? Move?

Someone, somewhere is going to draw a line in the sand and when it gets crossed it ain't gonna be pretty.

I feel very sorry for any CPD or CCS that runs into someone willing to ignore this ban. I hope they feel strongly enough about its enforcement to put up their life in exchange.

I would be one of those willing to ignore it if it happened here.
 
if you read the new enactment I believe it only applies to LEGALLY owned Firearms.owned by law abiding citizens.So just like in MASS., the CRIMINALS do not have anything to worry about..They do not even pay the 100.00 renewal fee....for a permit ???? Florida is nice too...
 
I would be one of those willing to ignore it if it happened here.

As difficult of a decision it would be to ignore/break a law. I'm forced to agree.

There surely would need to be a line drawn. I hope that our government would be wise enough to know this and realize that the potencial for lives lost on both sides is not worth them further shreading the constitution for their own feel good law.
 
Back
Top Bottom