What cops say about gun confiscation

[layoutshooter]

I don't believe there is anything in the constitution that says that. You currently have states that already have that component as a requirement.
Some are being challenged but not sure anything has been won anywhere.
As to whether that is a step to confiscation, it may or may not be. But certainly will be used as a revenue producer as it currently is.

Dave, I believe you are missing the point. IF it does not say that they can do something, they can't. The Constitution was written to RESTRICT the power of the Federal government. It's RESPONSIBILITIES are clearly spelled out. They can do NOTHING beyond what the Constitution demands that they do.

I pay NO tax to own a firearm now. I won't then. I won't register it. I refuse. Are they going to send ARMED thugs to enforce it? Good idea? How much force? Will they use DEADLY FORCE? How is that any different than any other murder? It would be murder since the Constitution does NOT give them that authority.

 

[layoutshooter]

Too bad all these armament consumers didn't get off their butts and vote against Obama back in November. NOW they're concerned about their 2d amendment rights?? They should have done something when they had the chance instead of leaving their constitutional rights in the hands of ignorant welfare parasites and college students. In this election Obama had a record as POTUS upon which to base a decision, unlike the one in 2008. The US voters have spoken - those who didn't speak (vote) don't count. Maybe they take their 2d amendment rights for granted.

How do you know that they did NOT vote? It also does not matter. There is no LEGAL way to do what he wants short of amending the Constitution OR calling a Constitutional Convention. ANY infringement is unconstitutional.

 

[davekc]

Dave, I believe you are missing the point. IF it does not say that they can do something, they can't. The Constitution was written to RESTRICT the power of the Federal government. It's RESPONSIBILITIES are clearly spelled out. They can do NOTHING beyond what the Constitution demands that they do.

I pay NO tax to own a firearm now. I won't then. I won't register it. I refuse. Are they going to send ARMED thugs to enforce it? Good idea? How much force? Will they use DEADLY FORCE? How is that any different than any other murder? It would be murder since the Constitution does NOT give them that authority.

They are already doing it in DC. Current law. Likely coming your way soon since it has already been challenged. Something along these lines is likely what will be pushed.

District of Columbia Official Code 2001 Edition Currentness
Division I. Government of District.
Title 7. Human Health Care and Safety.
Subtitle J. Public Safety.
Chapter 25. Firearms Control.
Full text of all sections at this level Unit A. Firearms Control Regulations.
Full text of all sections at this level Subchapter VI. Possession of Ammunition.
Current selection§ 7-2506.01. Persons permitted to possess ammunition.

(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
Penalties:

It is also illegal to possess, sell or transfer any “large capacity ammunition feeding device.” A person guilty of this charge can be sentenced to a maximum fine of $1000 and/or up to a year imprisonment. D.C. Criminal Code 7-2506.01.


Pulled this off a gun blog.

"It took $833.69, a total of 15 hours 50 minutes, four trips to the Metropolitan Police Department, two background checks, a set of fingerprints, a five hour class and a 20 question multiple choice exam. Oh, and the votes of five Supreme Court justices. They're the ones who really made it possible for me, as a District resident, to own a handgun."

 

[AMonger]

If you had to register one, how is that denying your right to have a gun? I don't believe the constitution says anything about that. Registration doesn't equal restriction.

Under this registration scheme you're talking about, if I don't register it, I don't get to own or carry it? Because that converts my right into a privilege. Courts might have concocted the phrase "subject to reasonable restrictions," but it's not in the Constitution. Nor does the Second Amendment end with "unless we want to."

 

[layoutshooter]

This is Michigan, a sovereign State, we are NOT a federal district. A law like that would HAVE to pass OUR legislature, which it would not. We have a State Constitution which is QUITE clear on the subject, it reads as follows:


Sec. 7. Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.



I can and I will. I DEFY ANYONE to interfere.

 

[AMonger]

Too bad all these armament consumers didn't get off their butts and vote against Obama back in November. NOW they're concerned about their 2d amendment rights?? They should have done something when they had the chance instead of leaving their constitutional rights in the hands of ignorant welfare parasites and college students. In this election Obama had a record as POTUS upon which to base a decision, unlike the one in 2008. The US voters have spoken - those who didn't speak (vote) don't count. Maybe they take their 2d amendment rights for granted.

Whenever a Republican is in office, gun owners go into hibernation. When a Demon-crat threatens to take our guns, only then do gun owners do things they should have been doing all along. Obama & Clinton were the best gun salesmen in history.

 

[Pilgrim]

Do we need to list the number of times the Obama Justice Dept has ignored the laws of the land? He will likely start on gun control by trying to abolish "assault weapons" (according to his definition) along with high-capacity magazines or clips, then move on from there. Read the proposed Feinstein legislation that will be introduced in Jan 2013.

Assault Weapons - Issues - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein

Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban Covers Rifles, Pistols and Shotguns - Katie Pavlich

If the Obama administration has its way, they'll take your guns whether you like it or not. Remember what happened to the Branch Davidians?

Right now is not a good time to be advertising on the internet the quantities and types of firearms one has in his possession.

 

[davekc]

Like I said, they are already doing it and it withstood a Supreme Court challenge. I don't support it, but reality tells me something similar is coming our way. Doesn't matter what a individual state says if it becomes a federal law.

 

[layoutshooter]

Like I said, they are already doing it and it withstood a Supreme Court challenge. I don't support it, but reality tells me something similar is coming our way. Doesn't matter what a individual state says if it becomes a federal law.

OH but it does. One either supports the ENTIRE Constitution OR none of it. One is either willing to FIGHT to DEFEND our Constitution or supports those who are out to destroy it. There is no middle ground.

There are MORE than enough people here to stand up and fight. Even if ONLY 10% of JUST the deer hunters stand up and fight that is an army of 70,000. Far more than that will fight. More than the deer hunters will. The line HAS been drawn. Obama does NOT understand that. The State is REQUIRED to protect the citizens of the State of Michigan from ALL enemies INCLUDING the Federal Government. Those State Officials that drop the ball on that WILL find themselves on the wrong side of the game. I have already reminded my State Rep, State Senator and the governor of their responsibility in this matter and told them that I expect them to live up to their oath of office.

 

[davekc]

Seriously? Michigan is Obama land.

 

[skyraider]

sounds dumb, but it sounds good, hey,,

 

[layoutshooter]

Seriously? Michigan is Obama land.

Not those who own firearms. Even most of the union members WILL fight IF their RIGHT to keep and bear arms is taken from them. You will find out now, with the passage of the right to work bill, that even the unions will are going to lose their clout, and fast.

700,000 deer tags alone here. That is 700,000 armed people, most of which can out shoot the average fed, AND, assuming the feds come in with M4's, they out gun them too. It's also our home. We know the land.

 

[davekc]

Won't happen that way. Just like DC they will require registrations and that type of thing. Supreme court already ruled on that part of it.

 

[layoutshooter]

Won't happen that way. Just like DC they will require registrations and that type of thing.

You don't understand, we are NOT going to register. Ain't going to happen. All who support that will have the blood of patriots on their hands. We are NOT going to follow those laws. What will their move be then? How will they ENFORCE registration? Local cops are going to come to my house. Many know me, hunt with me, they KNOW what I am capable of. State cops won't come in. The Michigan National Guard is not going to do it and neither will the reserves. Who is going to enforce it?

 

[davekc]

No clue how it will be enforced. Probably the same way if you don't register a car. They just go after something else until you do. Right now in DC it is a fine and or jail time and they seem to be doing it.

 

[layoutshooter]

No clue how it will be enforced. Probably the same way if you don't register a car. They just go after something else until you do. Right now in DC it is a fine and or jail time and they seem to be doing it.

I don't register my car with the Feds, ONLY the State. They WILL have to use FORCE. Wonder how many are willing to put up with that?

How many DIED defending our RIGHTS? The RIGHT to free speech etc. Are ALL of those who had their RIGHTS defended going to defend MINE?

They can go after ANYTHING they like, how are they going to do it? With hold my tax refund? Don't get one. What else have they got short of the use of force? People better start thinking about it. Their rights will be next and what happens to use WILL happen to them. It has been that way every place the Marxist has gone.

Here it is clear. NO jail, won't go. NO arrest, won't let it happen. I won't register anything I own and will pay no fine. Just I will NOT pay the penalty for Obama Care. Ain't gonna happen. The ONLY people who can be controlled are those who allow it. I do not.

OK Barrack, your move! I promise you that little worm is far too much a coward to come here himself. He did not have the STONES to defend the Constitution himself, then again, why should he, he HATES IT!

 

[layoutshooter]

I am tired. Going to bed. Spent a good part of today hunting with my UNREGISTERED semi auto shotgun, got a bunch of pheasants. Cleaned them and they are ready for dinner. Tomorrow morning I get a DOT physical, mine expires tomorrow. Then tomorrow evening it's OFF to a friends house to celebrate the holiday. We will spend the evening with 30-40 GOOD FRIENDS, who ALL own guns, including two Monroe County Shreriff Deputies, who can and will defend me from the feds, as I will them. I can count on my friends.

Have a good holiday and see you in the New Year! Stay FREE!! ( if you can )

 

[Monty]

Many confuse STATES rights with Fereral rights.

I have stated before, this country is (small r) republican. We are, indeed, a nation of sovereign states, (btw, the District of Columbia is NOT a state)

If indeed an individual state wishes to enact gun control, (and it's not forbidden in their constitution), and it's citizens allow it. They have every right to do so. The Federal government, comprised of those various states does not have that authority. It is PROTECTED in the Federal constitution.

The 10th amendment is clear on that:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That's pretty clear language to me.

 

[AMonger]

If indeed an individual state wishes to enact gun control, (and it's not forbidden in their constitution), and it's citizens allow it. They have every right to do so. The Federal government, comprised of those various states does not have that authority. It is PROTECTED in the Federal constitution.

Both the 14th amendment & Art. VI para II impose those restrictions on the states.

 

[Monty]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

This dealt with the issue of slavery. No person could be denied citizenship rights once they were either born here, or naturalized by an accepted process.

14th Amendment Summary - What is the fourteenth amendment

History

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, shortly after the Civil War. It was created primarily to ensure that the rights of former slaves (freed by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865) would be protected throughout the nation. The need for the Amendment was great because up to this time, the provisions of the Bill of Rights were not enforceable against state governments. This was due to the case of Barron v. Baltimore (1835). In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Bill of Rights were only enforceable against the federal government (and not against state governments) due to the federal structure of the nation. Therefore, without a Constitutional Amendment justifying federal intervention in the affairs of the states, states hostile to the interests of the newly freed slaves might still legally discriminate against or persecute them.

Judicial Interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment