This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
New Gun Control Bill Hits Congress: "To Ensure That The Right To Keep And Bear Arms Is NOT Unlimited"
Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPLan.com,
In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings we warned that sweeping changes were in the works for Americans’ right to bear arms. It started with ammunition tax proposals, restrictions on firearm accessories imports and most recently Governors began bypassing Congress altogether by banning gun ownership for those on any of the government’s many watchlists. The Obama administration has also targeted licensed firearms sellers across the United States by forcing banks to treat them like pornography businesses and impeding their access to transaction processing systems and business banking accounts.
States like California already ban “assault weapons” and outlaw “high capacity” magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. But the kinds of restrictive laws that strike at the very heart of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution have thus far been limited to just a dozen or so heavily liberal states.
Until now.
While Americans anxiously prepared for their Christmas festivities, anti gun proponents in Congress were hard at work drafting a new bill. If passed H.R. 4269 would literally redefine the Second Amendment as evidenced by the bill’s description, which in no uncertain terms clarifies its ultimate goal:
“To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.”
The bill directly targets every semi-automatic firearm in the United States including handguns, shotguns and rifles. It specifically mentions certain firearms and manufacturers, including the popular AR-15 and AK-47 rifles.
Because the law is Federal it would blanket the country with new restrictions, including making it illegal to own any magazine that exceeds a capacity of ten (10) rounds.
And here’s the kicker, even if your weapon has a legally-defined low capacity detachable magazine but is modified with any of the following accessories, it is considered an “assault rifle” and would be outright banned in the United States.
Semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
“(i) A pistol grip.
“(ii) A forward grip.
“(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
“(v) A barrel shroud.
“(vi) A threaded barrel.
…
“(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
“(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.
To be clear, the new bill puts all half measures aside and goes for the jugular.
This is the worst case scenario that many Americans have feared.
If you own a weapon on the ban list or have accessories as described by the bill, your firearm will be outlawed in the United States of America.
SEC. 3.RESTRICTIONS ON ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES
(a) In General.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by inserting after subsection (u) the following:
“(v) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.
…
“(37) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’—
“(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
…
“(w) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
The bill was introduced in Congress on Decemeber 16, 2015 and currently has 123 co-sponsors – all democrats.
We know that gun bans don’t work but one can’t help but think the agenda goes much further than the notion that they want to make us safer. If that were the case then our lawmakers wouldn’t allow drug cartels, gang members and Islamic terrorists to cross into the U.S. through our porous southern border.
The reality is that a cloud of tyranny has descended upon America. For it to be successful the American people must first be disarmed.
As history has proven time and again, a disarmed populace can easily be led to slaughter. But unlike the tens of millions executed in ethnic, religious and political cleansings of the 20th century, Americans have a rich tradition of personal liberty and the right to bear arms. It is embedded in our culture and our founding document. And as Texas police chief Randy Kennedy recently warned, if the government pushes too far they may well incite a revolution.
»
- 1003 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
There should definitely be serious restrictions on the use and ownership of firearms in the hands of the US military.
I'm not sure about the military, but can we not give guns to people in the middle east? I mean they don't want me to have a semi-auto rifle, but they have no problem parachute boxes of grenades and fully automatic weapons in Syria.
It will never pass. The real question is what Obama will do on his own when he returns from his vacation in January. Buy bullets and magazines now my friends.
See my above post for clarification.
I agree with your post, but if most or all retailers take stuff off the shelves due to an edict from Obama, where are you going to buy it? I'd rather have cold steel in my hands than rely on rational thought from my fellow "Americans". Fortunately, I live in a state where I can rely on my legislature to fight any encroachment on the second amendment.
If you are panic buying now because of this, you probably should have already bought them. I know Texas is awesome, if they pass this I would bet they would have a vote soon to do something drastic.
I'm already well stocked, but it's always a good idea to add to the pile if you can.
I'm in Texas and I just shake my head at this. I cannot believe this on its face. Liberals are so deluded or this is simply kabuki theatre. My wife and I live in Houston. I grew up on a mini ranch and she grew up on a farm. I never had a need for a gun outside of the 22 rifle that my dad kept. I'm not a big fan of guns but since 2008 have acquired sufficient to protect my family.
If the liberals are really serious about this shit then they are in a world of hurt. I work in the city and work in IT. Everyone I know is educated and reasonably intelligent and up on contemporary news. Owning and knowing how to use firearms is second nature to most people in this state (as I'm sure it is to most people in Fly Over country).
I think about how will liberals/progressives/communists (who don't know how to identify the business end of a firearm) be able to take on millions of rural folk who can take down something at 500 yards. They keep this shit up and they will start a civil war and they are going to be massacred (i doubt the US military would go against their own sons and daughters and fathers who are vets) and these assholes in Congress need to understand that making a list works both ways.
Suggest you read up on history, starting with the civil war. Nobody refused orders to kill fellow citizens. NOBODY.
Many were very eager to wage war on women, children and old people who never bore arms.
You are talking for the most part about static areas of territory. Do you honestly think that Police and Military don't consider how there families will fair if the military is used to suppress and kill the citizenry? Every cop and solider and their families will be marked. And on top of that you do seriously have to consider that not every soldier is going to follow orders. Sure, the Generals can give the order but its the LT's Captains and enlisted that have to perform the command. You start getting dissent in combat units and you will hve a civil war in the military. One other thing. How many soldiers/marines do you think it would take to hold the 2/3rds of the country that has over 300 million weapons.
Yo mentioned history. Japan could have invaded the US at the start of WW2. Yamamato specifically said that the reason it was never seriously considered is because he was Harvard educated and knew that behind every blade of grass was a citizen soldier with a firearm.
What I would distinctly worry about is a third party army being used. In that case all bets are off.
You should have been buying bullets and magazines regularly the past several years. Think of it as a zero-cost-averaging investment strategy. Buy methodically and regularly - avoid panic buying.
Forward (over the cliff)!
Well, all my stash is listed. They still allow the govt. full rights to purchase sell, trade, to any agency. Hmmmm... no agenda there. My question would be; What part of "shall not be infringed upon" do these a-holes not get?
These a-holes get it just fine. Thy fully understand that not a single person is going to stand up and try to stop them.
Anyone that isn't fighting for survival is busy barricading themselves underground to protect what little they have, and will not risk it by fighting.
This bill passes and is signed before the end of Feb.
Confiscate them from citizens and give them to the terrorists..?
fuck you bastards
They will have to lock up 3/4 of the citizenry...I'm long on holey politicians.
Hopefully, everyone here will call, email, or whatever their congressmen as opposed to just blowing off a little steam, so the urge to do at least some reasonable thing to push back doesn't escape along with the vapor. Congress contacts are no easy means of success, but hopeless inactivity is way below even that small gesture.
O.K. This is just to say I did what you ought to consider doing now! If you know of something actually better, then do that too!
No, one flea bite won't likely change the world, but a whole head full; well you tell me? Go ahead and make some peaceful noise to somebody other than this choir! Both Senators and the Congressman for my state now have simple emails from me similar to the following:
Sir:
We have far, far more than enough Federal Government Meddling in our lives. Everything you create a war on we get more of. Poverty, Terror, Violence.
We do NOT need more laws about guns. Most highly publicized incidents, include the deliberate mis-categorizing of Guns and Violence together. (What about Guns and Safety or Gun Heros? ) This and other dishonest caricturers cause terrible consequences to reasonable decision making. Continuing HR 4269 attitudes ensure that you'll end up with even greater division and anger among the population, because decent citizens who don't murder other citizens with guns, cars, knives, poison, bombs, heavy objects, or any other thing don't need your heavy-handed restrictions and the indecent ones won't care.
NO to HR 4269!
P.S. I'd love to see what you're doing about it, other than "hunkering down" or spraying warmed spittle curses, so if you actually do something you think helps in some genuine, responsible way will you let the rest of us in on it?
What, are you writing a book? I and many others have been fighting this fight since before you were a gleam in the mailman's eye, cupcake. Welcome to the party...now get off your high horse before you fall and hurt yourself.
It's not a high horse jughead, unless you're not doing anything at all to try and move this particular issue in a positive direction. Then it's a very high horse indeed!
It's the desire to see that someone else here is attempting to make a real difference of even infintesimally small magnitude on this particular issue. There's no bragging going on.
Hey Nigga, Don't Fuck With My 2nd Amendment!! Besides, you can't: http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/gun_control/news.php?q=1237163642
It is cathartic for these progressives to write down their wish list in a Bill and introduce it in Congress. It will help motivate Liberty loving voters to the polls, mean another banner year for gun manufacturers and dealers, pump up the war chest of the NRA and jam the phone line of the FBI background checks. Thanks liberal Dems you fortify and motivate your opposition by revealing your true nature.
I have a small warehouse which I use as a storage shed...my old furniture from three houses I have owned..my old construction equipment...and my guns in safes....the fire department has been trying to inspect it for years....I am afraid to let them in to take an inventory of my stuff as I am out of town most of the year....what rights do they have to search my contents...just a walkthru..or can they make me open the safes....????
The fire dept. is a different kind of animal. They have special powers in some if not all areas. Not protections, mind you. If they wreck the truck on the way to a call, it's the drivers ass.
Consult your city's ordinance, which is likely on their website. From the sound of it, you don't really know what your rights are. I sadly will suggest a new hobby reading legal forums, or consulting a semi-local attorney, one not beholden to the local authorities.
Keep in mind the only person that can order you to do anything is a Judge. Make a peace-sign with your thumb facing you. One of two things is occurring here, you are either a Judge, (now drop the index finger), or you are NOT a judge. Judge(hold 2 fingers up), NOT-a-Judge(single finger, aka- The Bird).
I suggest you get yourself a lawyer, before the fire dept gets itself a warrant.
They have no right to 'inventory' or open safes, they can look for fire hazards - i.e. electrical hazards, gasoline, blocked exits, etc.
Some will want to look in your safes but that requires a warrant and a warrant requires 'probable cause', that 'cause' can vary widely depending on who issues the warrant.
If a 'reliable source' tells a Fire Marshall that you have explosives in your safe they are going to receive a warrant.
A lot has to do with where you live and are the locals in charge a-holes or just people.
That is why the first rule of fight club is paramount in all matters.
"what rights do they have to search my contents"
Well, that depends. Do you use the building for commercial purposes (i.e. freely accessed by customers or employees)?
If the answer is no, then it is private property and they do not have a right to enter your premises without a warrant. If the building is maintained solely for storage of your personal affects and is not used as a retail/wholesale or space or you do not engage in any mercantile activity from it, it is private property. It would be the same if you are a private contractor and they ask to go into your garage. Politely inform them that they are not welcome and you do not have anything that would generate dangerous fumes in the event of a fire.
You're just lucky to have a much larger storage shed than some of us here.
Well, this changes the election completely. Why hasn't this hit the major news outlets? Is Fox News pro gun control? If Trump has any sense, he'll parlay this into the issue of the 2016 election. I just gave $2.5K to the NRA.
Get your money back. You're just buying more G5 fuel for junkets to Aspen for Lepierre. Look at giving money to Gun Owners of America next time. They work for their money.
Fuck YOU Obama. You and your band of leisure world cunts.
Veterans should know that their own Government in the United States has them all classified as terrorists and National Security Threats when they arrive back home in America.That's what they get for serving a corrupt warmongering NeoCon Adminstration.These are very sick animals running the Government.The one who is the sickest is Victoria Whore Nuland.
Doomed authoritarian attempts like this will result in 100 MIL Americans now owning 300 MIL guns, soon increasing to half the population owning half a billion guns. No more 30 round mags? The people will now buy 3 ten round weapons. The new math, for very outnumbered congressional dummies.
LOL! Pass all the bills you want, bitches! You're legislators, not rulers. Some people actually know that our rights don't come from man. Keep talking and we'll keep stocking.
It's an election year, and nobody's going to get re-elected that supports this steaming pile of legislation. Nobody's going to abide by it if it passes. We know our rights and from whence they came. Stuff it, you commie rats.
edit: Dang, Meathammer, you beat me by seconds. Synchronicity strikes again.
Dont worry the Oathkeepers would never stand for it. Bwahaha.
Molon Labe!
I would think this is a TRIP - WIRE for anyone with a brain. Gee that is a problem isn't it?
I wonder if it ever gets to a vote? Piss me of though it might, I wonder if that would not be a good thing so we can paint the bastards that vote for it with a very bright light for defeat.
Of course, I hope its defeated, that is my dilemma. If not defeated, it might create such chaos as we will have a regime change earlier than we thought.
http://denaliguidesummit.blogspot.ca/
This bill is not going no where just more fear mongering, must keep the Congressional pensions well stock with dollars ...
This is the public "scary" bill. There will be a second "reasonable" bill which limits something important.
Bad cop, good cop.
Time to go out and buy more ammo and magazines, just in case.
I guess the Dems liked their post-1994 AWB election results so bad they want to repeat them. /s (sorta)
Diabold?
Meanwhile Obama air Drops 50 TONS of weapons to ragheads in the middle of the desert
I know it's old, but...
This latest iteration of gun-grabbing is nothing more than the logical extension (perhaps, conclusion...?), of 'Federalism'. It has taken a while, but the ingredients were already baked in so to speak, from well over 200 years ago.
The same 'Federalism' by the way, that so-called 'conservative', 'liberty-loving', 'Constitutional adherents', yammer on incessantly about. Now they are about to be consumed by it. The irony...
Considering this guy was lucky to escape with his life after a traffic stop & being on a "List", what's going on in OR with the Hammonds should concern us all. Bundy 2.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXX6wLSEdA8
From Oz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8HDDpReVlI
Only criminals will have them...especially the big ones.
Like Hitler started confiscation. Welcome new tyrant/dictator!
The masses are ready for you!
There are several things that each of us can do. If your representative is one of the sponsors, work within the Republican party to ensure there is a viable candidate to run against him or her for 2016.
If you are not a member, join the NRA and/or Gun Owners of America. They will work hard to lobby against this bill and any others that the democraps come up. They have been very effective in doing so up to now. They will even help candidates that oppose this kind of crap.
That lying bitch, hitlery has actually hinted that confiscation of firearms is on her agenda. No more clinttons in the WH or any other office.
Trump 2016!
Sounds like the current regulations in Massachusetts verbatim.
Place trust in a government that once plotted - and given the previous historical precedent, is probably still plotting - to kill American citizens?
OPERATION NORTHWOODS
I have yet to hear a cogent explanation for such trust from any gun-grabber 'progressive' after they have been informed of the reality of that plan. Government has proven to be mendacious as a matter of course,and given the fact of the murder of its own citizens as having been coldly calculated, such trust is not only unwarranted, but bordering on infantile...and to demand via rights-destroying legislation that others engage in such behavior, given government's murderous proclivities, is downright psychotic..
I will die a gun owner (maybe sooner than later), will you die a gun grabber
If they are intent on making half the country into criminals overnight, so be it. These people will not surrender their arms and it will absolutely result in a "civil" war. Maybe that's what they want. If this bullshit ends up passing, those voting for it will be held personally responsible and will likely face retribution from the US public including many that have little going for them now and are in the process of losing their sanity. Pushing this bill through will absolutely result in turning this country into a bombed out hellscape. Tens of thousands would likely die and many many innocents. If these people wanted to commit suicide in a twisted and demented way, shitting down the throats of American people with this garbage will likely accomplish that desire.
To reiterate: Passing a criminal bill like this will leave a trail of bodies and war damage not seen in this country since the expulsion of the British, or Lincoln's civil war. It will be extremely bloody, nasty and they will lose badly. If they wanted to send the US into the stone age, this might be the quickest way short of carpet bombing the country with nuclear weapons.
This is good news. Every paranoid in the U.S. will be taking the day off today to head down and empty every last weapon there is off of every last shelf they can find. I estimate it should push the GDP figures for Q4 2015 up to at least 5 percent.
Would Congress find it acceptable if I deliver my high capacity ammunition from magazines to those 123 congress people in person?
And, as an administrative matter, does Congress intend to put a speed limit on their delivery?
If it truly affects you, you don't get to vote on it.
This alone tells me Congress is screamingly abhorrent to American principles.
The Constitution is non-negotiable. Ergo, these bills, this forcing of agenda, is unconstitutional.
Guns, ammo, missiles, all sent to the Muslim mercenaries in that desert shithole, all gifted with our Muslim president's consent, while his staff attempts to disarm YOU.
Make ready for what's to come.
Good Government A La the Obama Administration:
Weapons to Radical Islamist 'rebels' who want Islamic rule and conversion by the sword - GOOD
Lawfully purchased by non-violent, law abiding, tax paying US citizens - BAD
Well, if they want my magazines I will do my best to ensure they are all fully unloaded before they take posession of them.
I hate to bring this up here because I know I'm getting downvoted, but none of the constitutional rights are unlimited. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't own a machine gun or a rocket launcher. Its about balancing rights. The question here is "Does a magazine capacity ban further a legitimate government purpose?" In this case, does it balance one person's right to bear arms against another's right to not be hurt. This must be based on facts, not opinions or dogma. The fact is that there is little difference between a 30 round mag and a 10 round mag. Are 10 rd mags going to stop people from being shot? Is it OK to shoot 10 people and not 30? No, and no. There really isn't any proof that 10 rnd mags do any good at all, and so their prohibition doesn't have a legitimate government purpose. After passage of the Safe Act in NY, which banned magazines over 10 rds, gun homicides didn't change. The arguement is that somehow a 10 rd mag will give a bystander time to tackle the bad guy between reloads. What if he has a backup gun? These are the same people that say its too dangerous for people to have guns to defend themselves, because they aren't trained well enough and might shoot a bystander. But they are well trained enough to count the shots, know when the bad guy is empty, then run up and disarm him before he can reload or pull his handgun!?! Shooting people is already illegal anyway, so is using a gun in the comission fo a crime. Whats a judge going to say "Thats 30 consecutive life sentences for murder, bad guy, and one year more for having a 30rd magazine?." Its ridiculous on its face.
If legislators want to actually prevent people from being shot and save some lives, they should tackle the two big problems that lead to gun deaths: poverty and mental ilness. Most people that get shot are poor black people in the inner city. 20 rich white kids get shot with an AR-15 in Connecticut and everyone freaks out. 20 poor black kids shoot eachother over a weeken in Detroit, and it doesn't even make the news. I believe that no one would choose a life of crime and poverty if they had a better opportunity. For god's sake, end the war on drugs and legalize them. Prohibition never works. An honest monetary system would create an economic boom the likes of which this country has never seen.
You want to know when crime really took off in this country? In the 1980's when the mental institutions were shut down and the crazy people were released with nowhere to go. We can't have crazy people wandering around with normal people and have access to dangerous things like guns. Put them in institutions where they and we can be safe.
psst...idiot...the Constitution does not grant our rights. The Constitution is a limit on what government can or cannot do and simply attempts to enumerate or guarantee certain unalienable rights that predate governments and constitutions. Now go fuck yourself like a good little statist idiocrat trying to sound smart and let the actual educated adults discuss how we are going to ensure you and the rest of the idiocrats DO NOT INFRINGE UPON OUR GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS...m'kay?
"A free people ought not only be armed and diciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington (first president of the US)
The constitution absolutely did intend for the US public to have all the arms of the military. If you think the government people are more trustworthy at keeping weapons of war safe from evil deeds, you're clearly not paying attention at all. Besides this is a NATURAL right that is simply mentioned in the constitution. The constitution does not give the right. That right of self defense is inherent to all human beings. You seriously need to get your head straight dude.
This from the cat who took a bunch of ragamuffin farmers and beat the world's most powerful army and navy.
Whoot!
1) Is your right to life unlimited?
Barring any voluntary activity you might undertake to surrender it? (Voluntarily surrendering the right by exercising aggression is not a limit on the right but a support - Don't get confused now.)
2) Is your right to your labor unlimited?
3) Is your right to property unlimited?
4) Is your right to movement unlimited?
If you answered no to any of the four, barring any overt voluntary act to surrender those rights, then you should be aware there is already a word for those to whom unlimited exercise of these four rights is denied:
SLAVE
I gues we know where you stand on that issue.
Dear Troll
What is to stop them from chipping away at my firearm rights until they are all gone? The constitution is supposed to be the line in the sand that government must not cross!
Look at it from a veterans view point. I used an M-14, AR-15 and other firearms to defend the country in ‘nam. Given that there is no reason I can’t use the AR-15 and M1A to defend my home from attacking illegal’s, fanatic Middle East transplants, druggies and petty break-in crooks.
Show me where after ANY other American war where the U.S. government told veterans they could not keep using the “common standard battle weapons” of war for personal use. A recent example was signed by Obama:
http://concealednation.org/2015/11/obama-signs-law-that-allows-public-sale-of-surplus-u-s-army-1911s/
Want more examples use your search engine to look up “… military surplus guns and ammo…”
No where did the previous governments give surplus Gatling guns or machine guns to the public. However, veterans have always had access to “common standard battle weapons” after the war ended. Still don’t believe look up the M1 Garand or WWII main battle rifle, M14 now sold as the M1A, Springfield 1903….
Did you read what I said? I agree with you. As long as you're not a criminal, terrorist or crazy, you should be able to have any kind of semiautomatic battle rifle you want. Pistol grips, 30 rd magazines, the works. AWB and magazine restrictions don't do any good. The government has no business regulating them. Guns are for protecting yourself from criminals and an over reaching government. Look how many unarmed people are shot by police. Way more than are shot by AW. If they want to help, they should reduce poverty by instituting honest money, and put crazy people back in institutions. That will reduce violence.
The problem is that "crazy" will be stretched to mean seeing a psychiatrist, or a soldier with PTSD. They will use any little thing to take these rights.
So then you're in favor of crazy people having guns?
You can't stop a crazy person or criminal from having guns via legislation. Legislation stops the law abiding. Adam Lanza took guns from his mom in their home. All you do is hinder the law abiding. This is stated and shown COUNTLESS times through history. "Crazy" is a sliding scale they will slide to almost all encompassing should you have your way.
One might argue that the craziest people in the U.S. currently have control of the biggest guns. Why are we in war after war? Because political leaders are the crazy ones constantly drumming up wars. Look at all the people they're killing: Far more damage than you will ever do with your 30-round clip, all the hand grenades you can carry, or a rocket launcher.
Dont forget the corrupt US.gov's running guns to the Mexican drug cartels AND very recent paradrops of heavy weapons to anyone who cares to play in Syria. This isn't an R or D thing. This is Fedcoat Finest corruption.
"You can't own a machine gun or a rocket launcher."
Time for you to do your homework. You actually can own those with approval and a mere $200 tax stamp. Now, the rocket launcher application is likely to go unapproved, but the fully automatic one (if you're in a reasonable state or jurisdiction) doesn't take much doing.
Look up Title II Weapons under GCA revisions (NFA).
See, you trolls that just rattle off untruths posted by your masters at HuffPo make it sooo easy to ignore your heartfelt rants.
It is not 'poverty and mental illness' that lead to gun deaths.
It is liberalism accepting and promoting lawlessness as a 'culture'.
There is however one mental illness which is destroying the world and far more dangerous than any gun... and that my friends is 'liberalism'.
It poisons whole societies and destroys whole civilizations under the pretext of freedom when in fact it brings slavery.
Every city, state and school in the US that is failing financially and morally has been run by liberals for over 50 years and yet they still fuck it up a little more every day.
This "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" crap has to stop. It's bad enough that it's used anytime a short-sighted person wants to restrict First Amendment rights, but when it's used to rationalize the restriction of Second Amendment rights -- well, that's going too far.
First of all, the statement was dictum (not central to the case at hand) and the case itself was overturned. In other words, it has no legal precedential value.
Second, Oliver Wendell Holmes (who was normally much smarter than to write this warped analogy) realized the danger of his mistake and attempted to correct it. In fact, later that same term, Holmes wrote in Abrams v. United States: "The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out."
Third, Holmes' statement was error. Yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theater has nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment. It isn’t about what words you have no right to speak; it’s about the right of others to prevent you from engaging in destructive behavior while you’re on their property. In other words, it’s a property right. Whoever owns the theater can state the terms on which patrons may and may not utilize the theater. If someone causes an unwarranted disturbance, the theater owner can remove the troublemaker.
Rights are absolutes. No, I admit -- not as the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution -- but how the Founders envisioned them when they drafted the Bill of Rights and how they ought to be interpreted in a society that values freedom. A "right" that is not absolute, but can merely be regulated away at the will of the government who expresses a compelling interest in doing so, is no right at all. A good article on this subject is at http://fee.org/freeman/rights-without-exceptions/.
Thanks for making a very well reasoned arguement. You've changed my mind. Thats why I come to zerohedge.
Now the sponsers can state they suppoorted gun controllegislation.
A right that is not unlimited is not a right.
I view this a positive thing. It means that the psychopaths in government are scared of the people.
In college in the 1960’s I had a history professor who was light years ahead of others when it came to explaining history’s lessons. I recently picked up a tattered notebook from his class that like many others I was now pitching in the trash as I proceeded with retirement clean up. I stopped for a moment and examined the notebook and at the end of it I found scribbled notes from his final class. Here is what I gleaned from his long lost notes “… someday even in your life times you may see your freedoms erased and your wealth vanish. It is up to you to do something about it now. As I have told you many times the danger in societies like ours is – rich men don’t revolt. This means we have gained too much material wealth and a deceiving corrupt government could gradually eat away at all your wealth and rights fully knowing you will not protest because you have too much to lose. You are the ones who must bear the burden to see this through and make sure it does not happen …”
Well… I am the first to admit I did not heed his warning and do enough to prevent today’s corrupt government(s). And I am at a loss in my old age to tell others how to regain what has been lost. However, I am now doing all I can to help those of you who are younger to fight the good fight and end this tyranny…
Start picking up supplies, start networking a local intelligence, friendly psyop and support organization in the event it's necessary to be used. If you build it, they will come.
Just a thought - IF we really are at point in history where Congress is no longer representative of the people, the POTUS is merely a figure head of the monied interest that put them there, and the Court is rigged (some would argue that they likely have something on Roberts based on the biggest screw job of the Obama presidency) - Yes - this could be "passed".
For those that don't believe it could be just this simple and just this quick - flash back to 1986 when Charles Rangle illegally gaveled down the Hughes Amendment - RE: Machine Guns.
https://youtu.be/a6Mx2UcSEvQ
\
obama's signature achievement in 8 years has been growing the firearms industry and now he is trying to fuck that up. Its like he is trying to be a fuckup, and successfully I do say. Average people who were content to have a Ruger 10/22 covered in dust and rust in the back closet now own one or more AR-15 variants with a holo sight and a thousand plus green tips. The older I get, the more shit I see, I am learning to truly appreciate the law of unintended consequences.
Anyone that would disarm you will eventually become your executioner.
Any sane, rational person can figure out that there are no "rights" spelled out in the Constitution that are unlimited. All of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights have limits; I have the right to dance and wave my arms...but not an unlimited right to do so. I can't wave my arms in such a fashion as to knock you down or break your nose. My right to free expression and arm waving are limited by your right to not have your nose broken by a silly, dancing fool.
Free speech is limited...we all know that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is not protected free speech. Arguments such as this abound, for each and every right spelled out in the Constitution. Somehow, though, gun owners/enthusiasts (and a bunch of people who stand to profit from it) argue that the 2nd Amendment is inviolable because it says (in part) "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Well, the first problem with that position, is that it ignores the first half of the sentence (which is truly ignorant, by definition). The second problem is that we can trot on over to the 8th Amendment which prohibits excessive bail...and we all know that one is ignored every day across the land. And most ardent 2nd Amendent advocates (who are mostly Republican) regularly applaud massive bail for minor crimes...and even the denial of bail altogether. So, the 2nd Amendment is only as sacred as the other amendments, which are sacred not at all. The many infringements of each and every one of the Bill of Rights pretty much renders any "absolute" attachment to ONLY the 2nd Amendment an absurd construction, indeed.
In truth, gun ownership is protected by the 4th and 5th amendments which address private property and security from seizures. The 2nd Amdmt. is actually all about the militia, and organized resistance to federal troops (go read The Federalist Papers). Guns are like other private property, like say, a hammer, or an automobile. One ancient, one modern, they are simply things that can be owned. They are tools that serve a purpose. And any tool can be abused, and also regulated to a certain degree.
The "unlimited" right to keep and bear arms is a myth. Further, how do we define "arms"? I personally want rocket launchers and grenades for personal defense. Is that within my unlimited right under the 2nd? So, back to the original statement: Any sane, rational person can figure out that there are no "rights" spelled out in the Constitution that are unlimited. To argue otherwise is, at best, disingenuous and foolish. At worst, it is wrong and dangerous.
Psst, moron. My unalienable right to bear arms, like my other unalienable rights have only one limit...that limit is that my excercise of those rights shall not infringe upon the life, liberty or property of others.
The most dangerous thing to our liberty, other than government, are idiots like you who think you are smart, but are in effect just slaves educated just enough to be useful idiots for the state. Please go fuck yourself. Thank you.
I'm gonna guess that this half-wit does not have a sign on his lawn that says GUN FREE ZONE.
We should all chip in to get him one... as well as maps from the hood to his house.
You are stating the ridiculous because you and most others have no clue what the 2nd amendment actually was for. Yes, as part of the militia you are authorized rocket launchers and grenades, not for personal use but for defensive use against an invasion, insurrection or even a tyrannical out of control national government. The first thirteen words are the most important part of the amendment and the part most lazy americans avoid like a plague. It is the only place in the constitution where the word "necessary" is used as far as I know and it was the first thing government eliminated.
Educate yourself why don't you..
"the amendment’s actual command language—“shall not be infringed”—appears in its second clause, which speaks of “the people” and not “the states.” A quick look at the Tenth Amendment—which draws a sharp distinction between “the states” and “the people”—makes clear that these two phrases are not identical and that the Founders knew how to say “states” when they meant states. What’s more, the eighteenth-century “militia” referred to by the first clause was not remotely like today’s National Guard. It encompassed virtually all voters—somewhat like today’s Swiss militia—" Akhil Reed Amar
The Founder's Second Amendment
Stephen P. Halbrook
Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control
By: Don B. Kates Jr and Gary Kleck
The Bill of Rights: Creation and Recostruction
By: Akhil Reed Amar
Boston’s Gun Bible
By: Boston T. Party
The Concealed Handgun Manual: How to Choose, Carry, And Shoot a Gun in Self Defense
By: Chris Bird
Effective Defense: The Women, The Plan, The Gun
By: Gila May-Hayes
The Federalist Papers: In Modern Language and Indexed
Edited by: Mary E. Webster
The Gun Control Debate: You Decide
Edited by: Lee Nisbet
Gun Laws of America
By: Alan Korwin and Michael Anthony
Origins and Development of the Second Amendment
Edited by: David E. Young
Target Switzerland
By: Stephen P. Halbrook
To Keep and Bear Arms
By: Joyce Lee Malcolm
"The 2nd Amdmt. is actually all about the militia..."
Strange, I've always thought that it was about "the right of the people to..."
Maybe you can clear something up for us all then:
The word "people" appears in the Bill of Rights five times.
The word "state" or "states" appears four times.
Those who make the "militia" (Now the "National Guard") argument seem to have figured out when "people" means "states" and presumably the other way around.
Can you list here, exactly when "people" means "states", when "people" means "people", when "states" means "people", and when "states" means "states"? Do "people" and "states" ever mean anything esle? Does any other word ever mean "states" or "people"?
How about in Amendment III - does "owner" mean "state"?
In the First - does "Congress" now mean "people"? It seems to given that any public display or support of religion is now "banned" to some extent.
I eagerly await your response...
The "right" to keep and bear arms has already been limited, simply due to the fact that the 'arms' the people are limited to are mainly guns and not (usually) machine guns or bazookas or destructive devices. The part about keeping the right 'unlimited' is to the extent that the purpose of the amendment remains unscathed. The sad fact is that the purpose of keeping weapons in the hands of the people is for the people to be able to overthrow the government (which is something that the government doesn't want). No one will mention it, but there it is. It would be pretty ridiculous and 'infringed' if the government told the people that they could only own muskets and flintlock rifles, none of that modern stuff. It is also ridiculous to think right now that a band of citizen soldiers could assemble their bolt action hunting rifles and break action shotguns and overthrow the government. They could, but only graduating upwards to more military style weapons.
I don't think the Supreme Court is going to allow any such law to stand -- and to say that this bill will make it to a law is a real stretch. Personally I think gun owners have been limited enough (and I think the SCOTUS would agree) in our rights. But hey, if you don't understand anything behind the 2nd amendment then go ahead and turn your guns in. there's nothing to fear, there is enough protection from the police and military, right?
Read then shut the fuck up.
1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
The White Housenigger's men make the 'law' up as they go, ignoring laws and judicial precedents wherever necessary to achieve their objectives. It is utterly lawless.
The restriction on the feds from ingringing on the right to keep and bear arms is unlimted moron As for those other limitations, they are not limitations on the right to freedom of speech or religion or waving your arms. They are consequences for reckless use of a right. Pea brains like you who think they are intelligent, but can see no more shading than black and white are as annoying as athletes foot.
Seriously, who really thought putting a half breed Kenyan born muslim asshole in the White House would be a good thing for this country?
Change we can believe in, I can not fathom how this basterd was elected twice
Just a note: I have found that calling them "moslems" they way we did when I was growing up pisses off moslems and liberals pretty bad. They more-or-less recently threw us a curveball by changing the words to "muslims" and "muhammad". It's part of the arrogant Americans' attempt to re-invent the language in order to bake in liberal concepts before the argument ever starts. So I'd respectfully recommend that you call rag-heads "moslems" (with a little "m").
dammit...there goes my vacation time...I was going to spend my time and money into the economy, now I have to fight a damn revolution. Oh well...we'll always have Paris...ooops, they are having a revolution too...
Just remember all you crazies now moved to violence....you may only used edged weapons in fighting for your right to bear firearms....shooting people sends the wrong message.
Woo Hoo!
Just the fury that Cheaper Than Dirt needs to start gouging the public again!
Shortly after Sandy Hook they jumped the price of some magazines I was going to purchase by more than double! I had been in North Fort Worth for work related business and I though that I'd drop in at their old location (I-35W & I-820, off of Mk IV) and pick up a couple of magazines they had listed in their latest catalog for $9. When I went up to the catalog merchandise desk I was informed that those same magazines were now $29! I explained that I had just received the catalog only TWO days prior, and couldn't see how their cost to obtain them had suddenly jumped. No dice, the price was the price. I've boycotted them ever since and tell everyone I know about their gouging during that time.
They suck. Avoid them. I do.
If I remember right CTD also agreed to stop selling ARs after sandy hook. Screw them Ill never buy another thing from them.
Dick's Sporting Goods did the same thing -- in fact, they even cancelled previous orders for ARs.
Everyone here need to write, call or email their Congressman and TELL him/her what to do with this bill. This is important.
LOL
Just who does everyone think is introducing these unconstitutional bills,,, and some still think writing these traitorous assholes will correct it?! Writing the Corporations representatives is about as useful as voting.
Well they have pretty much taken out the constitution with lots of talk and little walk from their "constituents" They waited to complete the process on the 2nd half of the 2nd amendment because they knew it had the possibility of a serious reaction but with the greatest generation mostly gone, the boomers seemingly mostly interested in their retirement and the X'ers and Millennials indoctrinated against guns in the government propaganda prisons comically called schools,,, I'd say they have a better than 70% chance of the Neo pride-less Americans accepting this.
As most "Americans" have accepted proctol exams at airports, train and bus terminals over government terrorism claims, accepted the American Gestapo surveillance on their every move or statement be it verbal or written, accepted having their offspring killed in hegemonic wars, accepted the offshoring of their livelihoods, accepted the massive influx of illegals, accepted the destruction of their money, accepted the fact that bankers are too big to jail, accept that their police are now another occupying army to supposedly protect them ,,, why would anyone think this bill could not be easily implemented if it is passed.
A constitution depends on People to defend and enforce it. Anyone expecting a government defending a scrap of paper that limits its authority is living in la la land.
Turn in your guns boys and girls. Barring divine intervention or Americans showing a little backbone,,, It's pretty much over.
I'll take backbone for 1000, Alex. Bring the platoon and the armored detachment, too!
I am forthwith buying a half-dozen 15-cap glock magazines for my Glock 19 ... and I do not yet own a Glock 19.
This seems to be an all-or-nothing bill. In all likelihood in will fail. There are some other laws that I doubt would be superseded, for instance the enabling legislation of the ODCMP. This is the group that sells M1 garands, carbines and other 'assault' weapons to the general public for the purposes of learning the shooting sports and maintaining proficiency. They also sell surplus ammunition too.
I suspect a big push next year, but the bill is going to have to sit and fester (and ultimately die in committee somewhere) as ensuring that my rights are "not unlimited" seem to me, at least, to equate to being "infringed". Maybe we do need Donald Trump after all.
I notice that the two congresscunts in my state that are co-sponsors of this thing own the uber-libtard districts where 99.9% of the crime in the state comes from.
I was at a large gun show a couple of weekends ago when they announced on the PA, "The State Attorney General is here at booth 68, and hopes that you'll stop by to say hello!" Now that's what I call a pro-gun state.
Good luck, Congresscunts.
Dialogue and proposals as well as Laws that are in force have avoided/ignored that a large percentage of gun deaths are inextricable linked to drugs. With the War On Drugs being passé and the borders open to facilitate the Drug silk Road, not to mention Millions upon Millions of Dollars changing hands.
The current drug economy compared with the Alcohol Probation of Alcohol, which created modern large criminal originations, shows (along with History from the start) that Black Markets work.
Looking at the worst killing fields for guns in and adjacent to the USA, the numbers from areas where drug business and usage could be high may be Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, DC, San Joaquin Valley, and the border with Mexico. Not to say that is where it all is, but very disproportionate. It may be that the Drug cartel is not concerned with laws.
It may also be that any entity or parts thereof that may espouse violent actions against the USA and its citizens will not be restricted by laws of the USA. Inconvenienced maybe but not restricted.
It may be that some of the uncontrolled flood of people from countries south of the USA border are fleeing due to turmoil and danger caused by Drug Cartels and Governments. Political war torn nations are now also discussed. It may be that this flood of people facilitates drug and dangerous persons passage. Guns can become a part of the influx equation from the Southern border IF they are not there already.
Naivety, politics, ignorance, understanding of basic values and convictions of others, and hopefully not corruption, of not only the public but the leadership needs to be addressed. We may not know what we do not know, we may not know what we should know, and we ignore both.
We cannot and or do not control the passage of DRUGS and persons at our borders. We cannot control the flow of guns across our borders. The Australian Model will not work for the USA because of open borders.
DO NOT create a Black Market that does not already exist.
For some strange reason I just ordered 10 Magpul 30 round AR15 mags. At only $11 a piece.
I serioulsy don't know why I spontaneously just did this!
Wait...now I feel the need to go buy a few more AR lowers. There's a manufacturer near me that sells the "blemished" ones (to me) for $75 a piece.
The 123 Dem sponsors all own assloads of gun and accesories manufacturers stock.......... Teyre pumping the market and you fell for it. Although I might need to pick up another 1000 rds of .556 just to be safe.
HR 4269 was sponsored by Democrat congressman Cicilline of RI one of the most liberal states in the US ( consequently also one of the most financially ruined states). It has 123 co-sponsors, all Democrats. If the Democrats want to keep doing this type of self defeating action, so be it. Every time they do more people buy more guns and have skin in the game, the NRA grows, and flyover country loathes the Democrats even more.
Last I heard the US congress was controlled by Republicans in historic numbers.
Yep, The Lawyers are dissecting words and redefining other words to mean something else.....Lawyers are the problem...Remember a lot of the Politicians are Lawyers....The Law profession is Corrupt....especially at the Political level...
Lawyers are a subset of the problem. Every asshole, whether lawyer, judge, politician, bureacrat, ATF sheep fucjer, or anything else that doesn't have the integrity to respect the law and instead redefines words to subvert the law is the problem. That includes almost every federal judge and almost every federal shithead with a badge.
so my 12lb napoleon smoothbore is still legal for home defense. loaded with grapeshot of course.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr4269
I like the part "prognosis-2% chance of being passed".
But probably 100% chance of monkey butt trying to sign it in somehow. Never gona fly.
This is all so funny. Two points: 1) This bill won't get passed 2) This charade will actually increase the manufacture and selling of those 'big, scary, black' guns and their ammunition in the short to medium run. And that is on top of already record sales in 2015.
This. Whomever wrote this proposal must have been all-in long the gun manufacturer equities. Like balls-deep call options.
Firing 20 rounds from a large capacity magazine takes about 25 seconds - with modest aiming.
Firing 20 rounds from two 10 round magazines takes about 30 seconds - allowing about 5 extra seconds to drop the first magazine and insert the second one.
I feel so much safer now...
That's a strong case for gun control. With a little more gun control, there's no reason you can't cut that reloading time down to within 2 seconds.
If Paul Ryan flubs this one, I will personally move to Wisconsin and work tirelessly to unseat him.
I may have to move to TX , UT, or AZ to join the rights advocates.
I think the average citizen needs to realize, too, that banning guns isn't the answer. Guns are mostly banned in Australia and UK, but what happens but someone with a knife or machete (BTW swords are banned in the UK too) hacks up some people in some quest for vengance. I remember guns were banned in Australia, and shootings still occur, although garrottings have really increased.
Guns aren't banned in Australia, they are licensed. Rifles and shotguns are common in country areas and there are many sporting shooters in the cities. Handguns are much less common than in the US. I'm not recommending this arrangement just reporting what actually occurs.
Despite those controls, a young mahommedan recently shot dead a Chinese civilian employee of the NSW police force using a handgun he collected from his local mosque. A year ago another mahommedan staged a hostage taking / shooting murders in the Sydney CBD with guns he somehow acquired.
In Victoria (another state) a mahommedan stage a knife attack on police.
Australian politicians continue to import mahommedans.
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
I'm in favor of insane psychotaths not having the
codes to set off nuclear conflagration.
I hope this passes and they try confiscating. The irony though is if they come to my door to confiscate, I wont be using my "assault rifle"...Ill be using my Winchester 1300 loaded with 1oz rifled slugs.
Thirteen Words by Edwin Vieira. If you want an education on the 2nd.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/096717595X/ref=tmm_other_meta_bin...
Disclaimer: I get nothing from promoting this book other than the satisfaction someone else is a bit more knowledgeable.
These traitors want to force a civil war so they can attempt to declare martial law and do way with all rights. The ultimate dream of the Progressives is the destruction of all liberties. There is nothing 'liberal' about their philosophy.
There will be those who, when the open hostilities commence, sit and target particular classes. Toward the end of WW2, it was considered a badge of honor to exterminate anyone wearing an SS uniform. What will the hierarchy be this go-round? Banksters? Judges? Politicians? Gimmiedats?
The comment that Herrbama has turned the rusty 10/22 owner into an AR owner is hilarious. And dead nuts on the money.
Because illegitimate legislation soooo trumps the Constitution.
Phuku.
just picked up more 30rd pmags!
And the fuckwits in D.C. take us one step closer to another Civil War. I'm not giving up ANY of my 2nd Amendment rights. The fuckwits can declare their tyranny to be legal, but that's not gonna make it any easier to enforce the same tyranny.
These collectivists still don't get it. The US govt may not even "infringe" on our rights to own weapons. They have zero authority to write such a "law" and therefore it is a non-law, not worthy of even the slightest worry. Ignore and nullify.
Also, since we've been told many times that since the Civil War, the US Bill of Rights is now integral to all State constitutions, that must, by definition, include the 2nd amendment. Therefore, your State can't either, which is why citizens of NY, Conn, etc etc, don't bother with this shit.
Fuck DC and all the traitors running the place.
Does anyone realize how many people this will instantly turn into criminals??? THIS IS INSANE??? WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?