# Moonbats After your Guns Again!



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

A new proposal is in the US Senate, called "Public Safety and Recreational Use Protection Act" (S 645)

This one sounds pretty good, right? WRONG!

This proposed bill would:

Ban most SEMI-AUTOMATIC Rifles, Shotguns and Handguns (Manufacture, transfer AND Possession) and BAN the manufacture, transfer and possession of magazines or firearm clips that hold or can accept more than 10 rounds of ammo.

10 Year Prison Sentence for ANY VIOLATION!

So, in other words, the onyl thing you as a firearms owner could do is turn your Remington 1187 in to the cops, without financial compensation! 

Sponsors of this fruitcake bill include - Chuck Schumer, Hilldabeast Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and 7 other liberal Democrats (these are the most notables)

Gird up. Write your Senators, folks, and shoot this nonsense down!


----------



## thesource (May 19, 2005)

doctariAFC said:


> Sponsors of this fruitcake bill include - Chuck Schumer, Hilldabeast Clinton......



Figures,

If we could determine a way to make geographic area count for votes instead of population, NY would be a red state. In the meantime, thanks to the suckhole that we call NYC, normal NYers' votes are irrelevant.

I'll send the e-mail.....for all the good it'll do.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

doctariAFC said:


> A new proposal is in the US Senate, called "Public Safety and Recreational Use Protection Act" (S 645)
> 
> This one sounds pretty good, right? WRONG!
> 
> ...


put this over on campfire where Rudi and the rest of the few Dem apologists can keep spewing the crap that the Dimocrat party isn't after our guns


----------



## ButchA (Mar 6, 2006)

Doctari and thesource....

I feel for you guys. NY State is all but ruined. I am so glad I am now living down here in Richmond, VA! (I'm originally from Poughkeepsie and my family had a summer camp up in the Adirondacks. My wife is from Buffalo/West Seneca too). Every time we take vacation and head back to NY to visit our families, I want to cringe... Beautiful pastures and farmlands are getting turned into $1.5 Billion townhouses and condos! :mg:

My sister & brother-in-law recently retired from IBM and moved down here to Virginia as well. Didn't I read something about NY State actually starting to lose population? I read somewhere that a census poll in NY State showed that for the first time, they actually had _LESS_ people than they have ever previously had. I kept telling everyone, the Hildebeast and Chucky Schumer are set out to slowly destroy what once was a peaceful, beautiful, NY State. Guys, you have my sympathy.....


----------



## NH Guy (Jul 28, 2006)

Maybe I should run for office?????

I am an independent but have mostly liberal leanings (very much a personal liberty person but believe in public trust and social contract ideals). Anyway, I would make a great democrat runner becasue I hold to many democrat ideals but I am in favor of gun ownership, conservation, field sports, hunting (public hunting and public lands should expand).

Not trying to get into a debate about politics but I don't see why Democrats can't get past the gun/hunting issue? it is a constitutional right and there is no need for band-aid issue laws around them. I would defend guns/hunting like I would defend free speech and privacy.

My two-cents. Not all us liberals are what you think :wink:


----------



## Cuthbert (Nov 28, 2005)

Doc, 

You should know better, but I know you like to feel like the guy who's keeping everyone informed about what's happening in DC. We had this discussion months ago in the campfire/politics forum. I'll say now, what I said then. 

The Republicans own the house and senate. This "re-enactment" of the Assault weapon ban from back in 1994 is ONLY a election year tactic. They can now go home and tell their base that they tried to get some assault weapons taken off the street by making them illeagal. This tripe won't even get past commitee.

They know it, You know it and I'd appreciate you not trying to get people excited over something that has no chance of passing for the forseeable future. Chicken Little himself would tell you to chill out.


----------



## vabowhntr (Jun 29, 2004)

Cuthbert,

As a "Washington insider", I would have to say you are right for now, but there is an election coming up and from all indications it won't go well for the gun supporters. Not because of guns, but due to the war, economy (not good for the average Joe, despite the gov't numbers) and the simple fact that the party in charge for a while is always blamed for anything that goes wrong.

The Dems have decided NOT to make gun control an election issue. Rumor has it they have been instructed to not even speak on the issue, as it gives the other side good soundbites to play at home. They are just waiting until after the election, when they think they can be in charge of at least one of the houses of congress.

I wouldn't that some these people have made a career out of trying to take away your constitutional rights, I don't think that will change anytime soon.


----------



## PMantle (Feb 15, 2004)

Cuthbert said:


> Doc,
> 
> You should know better, but I know you like to feel like the guy who's keeping everyone informed about what's happening in DC. We had this discussion months ago in the campfire/politics forum. I'll say now, what I said then.
> 
> ...


Yup. Doc's post was a gigantic over reaction. Not that I am for this law, but no one took my guns in the 90's. No one will be taking them any time soon.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

*A Giant Over-reaction?*

Now you all are making me a little nervous.

Political dynamics concerning gun control goes well beyond simply the USA, and many in Washington on the Liberazl side want to take the 2nd Amendment out of the Constitution. Until the US Supreme Court rules on exactly the definition of the right to keep and bear arms being an individual right, regarless of whether you are a member of a militia, these attacks will keep on coming. When we read the works of the founding fathers and their staunch belief that a well-armed public is the best defense against a tyrannical government, we begin to understand the importance of this right.

In case you have missed it, gun control has taken an International flavor with the UN Small Arms ban being considered. Although their conference in NYC ended without a document agreed upon, the reason this wasn't achieved was John Bolten. Currently, America is safe from this move by the UN, and is only safe because of who is controlling Congress, and which party is in the WHite House.

In case you didn't know this, if the Liberals regain control, and this UN baloney becomes a treaty, the Anti-gun crowd, if they have their guys in office, can completely decimate our 2nd Amendment by signing onto to an International Treaty.

Oh, and in case you missed it, this proposal in the SENATE, not the House, is not an "assault weapons ban" per se. This bill is larger in scope, and is also going after semi-automatic shotguns, many of these models being used for target competition, bird hunting, deer hunting, etc. This is NOT an assault weapons ban. This would also prohibit HAND GUN owners of such models as Glock 17s, Beretta 9Mils, etc, from even possessing the standard ammunition magazines for these HAND GUN, making possession of these magazines a felony violation carrying a 10 year prison sentence.

This is not an over-reaction. And if you sit on your hands, fellow hunters, like we always seem to do, that Remington 1187 you may own may earn you a 10-year stay at Club Leavenworth, as this would be a FEDERAL CRIME, not a State issue.


----------



## PMantle (Feb 15, 2004)

doctariAFC said:


> Now you all are making me a little nervous.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry, but you're simply wrong on these.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

PMantle said:


> Sorry, but you're simply wrong on these.



YOu might spend some time investigating the advocacy of "THe Violence Policy Center" and the incremental plans for gun bans. You might also note that the previous sponsor of the Assault "weapon" ban-Diane Feinstein noted that if she had enough votes not only would she have banned the cosmetic based features on guns she would have retroactively banned all semi autos.

When a Ten round limit is in place its easier to impose the six round limit that chuckie Schumer was braying about


----------



## PMantle (Feb 15, 2004)

Jim C said:


> YOu might spend some time investigating the advocacy of "THe Violence Policy Center" and the incremental plans for gun bans. You might also note that the previous sponsor of the Assault "weapon" ban-Diane Feinstein noted that if she had enough votes not only would she have banned the cosmetic based features on guns she would have retroactively banned all semi autos.
> 
> When a Ten round limit is in place its easier to impose the six round limit that chuckie Schumer was braying about


I know there are elected officials in this country that want all that. I never said otherwise. Still changes nothing in this discussion.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

PMantle said:


> I know there are elected officials in this country that want all that. I never said otherwise. Still changes nothing in this discussion.



Maybe not but when New Jersey told owners of semi auto rifles to register them I heard people say that this was not going to lead to confiscation.

same thing in NYC and Kalifornia

how wrong they were


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

PMantle said:


> Sorry, but you're simply wrong on these.


Sorry pal, but I am not wrong. Not by a long shot (no pun intended).


----------



## tjb357452 (Jan 24, 2003)

I live in New York. We are a police state. Make no mistake. We are at the mercy of whatever the police agencies decide is correct and proper. The courts support the police. All balance and fairness has been disposed of. It's a subtle progression. It starts gradually; with benign intentions. It progresses to what New York State has become. A sort of prison where the only right remaining is the right to pay taxes. Beyond that; you'd better not venture.


----------



## pdj (Dec 1, 2005)

Don't worry even these Liberal/commie politicians will appreciate gun owners when the Islamic radicals start bombing attempts right here on our soil. When we the people defend our country and foil their plots even using our "assault weapons"- a term coined by Adolph Hitler shortly before his confiscation program prior to the war). Make no mistake this Islamic movement is worldwide and it is here in the U.S. Don't forget these libs who clamour for gun control have body guards carrying H&K mp-5's. The taxpayer is not afforded the same luxury because we are expendable.


----------



## PMantle (Feb 15, 2004)

doctariAFC said:


> Sorry pal, but I am not wrong. Not by a long shot (no pun intended).


If you'll go back and read the quote, you'll see I quoted 2 portions. 1st one having to do with UN treaties. You're dead wrong about that. If you continue to think you're not, then you do not understand the issues. Take a Constitutional Law and an "International Law" class, please.

Second was the shotgun bit. Again, this is a re-enactment of prior law that DID NOT outlaw those shotguns. ie, you were wrong on that one too. Look, do I favor the law? No. Still does not justify your misinformation and needless fear to those who do not take the time to read up on what is actually going on.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

PMantle said:


> If you'll go back and read the quote, you'll see I quoted 2 portions. 1st one having to do with UN treaties. You're dead wrong about that. If you continue to think you're not, then you do not understand the issues. Take a Constitutional Law and an "International Law" class, please.
> 
> Second was the shotgun bit. Again, this is a re-enactment of prior law that DID NOT outlaw those shotguns. ie, you were wrong on that one too. Look, do I favor the law? No. Still does not justify your misinformation and needless fear to those who do not take the time to read up on what is actually going on.


When I get to my other computer later on this evening, I will publish the text of the proposal. This bill is more invasive than the original AW ban - far more.

In terms of an International Treaty, all it would require is a willing Senate and President to sign off on the treaty.
Fortunately no document came out of the UN Gun Ban Conference in NYC, but that doesn't mean the issue is dead, not by a long shot.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Nevermind the wait. Here is the Bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query

What is quite stunning is that they are attempting now to ban semi-auto shotguns with a capacity of more than 5 rounds. Interesting, eh? Many shotguns can now hold 6 rounds of 2 3/4" shells. I see no definitions here to spell out the capacity based on standard shell size!

A friend of mine has a semi-auto Mossberg that can fire 2 3/4, 3 or 3 1/2 inch shells. That gun, according to this bill, would earn him a 10-year prison term.

FUBAR

Of course, there is more stunning stupidity in this waste of paper. You all read it, and you all decide whether you would want this nonsense as law.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

If it passes, kiss this one goodbye

http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/sh24-e.htm


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Say Adios to this one, too....

http://www.mossberg.com/products/default.asp?id=1&section=products


----------



## 460461whatever (Jan 22, 2005)

*Pull your head out of the sand!*

And quit watching the Disney Channel! These anti-gunners are for real. Yours and mine Second Amendment rights are one of the biggest hurdles for the One World Government. (sounds nice, warm and fuzzy, doesn't it?) When the next liberal President and Congress doesn't have to worry about the Individuals defending our nation's sovernty, they can cut themselves deals to become actual world leaders. Where do you think William C. was heading.

Doctari, Keep up the good work.


----------



## PMantle (Feb 15, 2004)

doctariAFC said:


> You all read it, and you all decide whether you would want this nonsense as law.


I don't think you're going to find anyone here that wants the law passed. That's not really been up for debate.


----------



## PMantle (Feb 15, 2004)

doctariAFC said:


> When I get to my other computer later on this evening, I will publish the text of the proposal. This bill is more invasive than the original AW ban - far more.
> 
> In terms of an International Treaty, all it would require is a willing Senate and President to sign off on the treaty.



That's not how it works.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

PMantle said:


> That's not how it works.


What ever do you mean?

If our Nation ratifies an International Treaty, that treay becomes Law in America, in accordance with the Vienna Conference of 1969. These treaty laws were futher defined in 1986...

Please, if more is involved beyond the Senate ratifying the treaty and the President signing the ratification bill, share it with all here...

In the meantime, for a list of folks involved with this UN Gun Ban, many of which are the same nut jobs pushing a strengthened AW Ban (joke), here

http://www.stopungunban.org/


----------



## PMantle (Feb 15, 2004)

doctariAFC said:


> What ever do you mean?
> 
> If our Nation ratifies an International Treaty, that treay becomes Law in America, in accordance with the Vienna Conference of 1969. These treaty laws were futher defined in 1986...
> 
> ...


No treaty can restrict the bill of rights. It's really that simple.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

PMantle said:


> No treaty can restrict the bill of rights. It's really that simple.


Well, although this is very correct, the 2nd Amendment has been debated since God knows when, as to the application of the 2nd Amendment.

Some debate that because of the clause "well regulated militia" is in the 2nd Amendment, some argue that only those folks who belong to a militia can posses firearms.

On the other hand, the founding fathers made it clear in their writings on the subject that, since a militia is separate from the Government, regulated meaning Organized, all Americans have the right to keep and bear arms in the event they need to form a militia or join a militia. Since the Supreme Court has never made a ruling clarifying the definition of the 2nd Amendment, in concrete terms, this one is up for serious debate.

So, again, without concrete reinforcement from the SC, the 2nd Amendment could indeed be infringed through a treaty of this nature. At least, that is the contention of those on the front lines.

Now, please, again, I stated how a treaty is ratified, and you refuted the admittedly over-simplified explanation I gave.

Please provide us some detail into the process, and, in absence of SC protection of the definition of the 2nd Amendment, how this treaty would not usurp the Bill of Rights. Besides, I do believe you are engaged in a little "wishful thinking". We have seen incremental gun control i this Nation due to the gray definition of the 2nd Amendment, have we not? Same thing applies in the event a treaty is ratified, true or false?


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Let us also not forget about the International Criminal Court Treaty, which we did not sign onto (thankfully). In 2002, the International Criminal Court Treaty (not the right name) was created which set up an "International Court" to try those who were accused of committing crimes or accused of committing crimes in foreign countries. 

This treaty, had we signed onto it, would allow some of the following to take place:

If a US Citizen were accused of a crime in another country, the International Court could seek to try this person under International Law, not affording the protections of due process and other rights to the US Citizen under accusation. Had we signed onto this, the protections guaranteed under the US Constitution for US citizens would have been trumped by this Treaty.

If a US Soldier was accused of any "criminal" activity while on duty, the US Serviceman would be subject to the International Court, rather than Military Courtmartial (or in addition to). The rights of the soldier, although different for Court Martial than the civilian court systems, would be supplanted by the International Court, and those protections guaranteed under US Law would be trumped by International code.

http://www.un.org/law/icc/index.html

As of right now, the United States has signed no such agreement to be subjected to the International Court. Let's hope we never do!

However, all it takes is a willing Senate and a willing President. Same with the International Small Arms Ban. If the Senate ratifies the Treaty and the President signs the ratification, like the International Court Treay, the US Constitution and its protections for American Citizens gets back burnered.


----------



## PMantle (Feb 15, 2004)

doctariAFC said:


> Well, although this is very correct, the 2nd Amendment has been debated since God knows when, as to the application of the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Some debate that because of the clause "well regulated militia" is in the 2nd Amendment, some argue that only those folks who belong to a militia can posses firearms.
> 
> ...


You answered your own question. If the SCOTUS says individuals have no right to bear arms under the second amendment, then individuals don't, regardless of the clear language. It would not be some UN signed treaty that deprived you of a right. It would be your very own Court rewriting the Constitution. No different than if some State leglislature attempted to ban all guns.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

PMantle said:


> You answered your own question. If the SCOTUS says individuals have no right to bear arms under the second amendment, then individuals don't, regardless of the clear language. It would not be some UN signed treaty that deprived you of a right. It would be your very own Court rewriting the Constitution. No different than if some State leglislature attempted to ban all guns.




Please, PMantle, explain to us how a Treaty that is ratified by the Senate and signed by the POTUS doesn't take precedence over the US Constitution.

If we, as the United States of America, agree and sign onto the International Treaty, whatever section in the Constitution that may prtect our rights gets the squasheroo...

Unless you can explain better to us that this is not how International Law works, in regards to Treaties, this is the real threat, as has been explained by the folks at NRA-ILA. When any Nation signs onto any treaty, the laws set forth by that treaty are binding on that Nation, regardless of the laws of that Nation. See the Vienna Conference notes I provided a link to.


----------



## PMantle (Feb 15, 2004)

doctariAFC said:


> Please, PMantle, explain to us how a Treaty that is ratified by the Senate and signed by the POTUS doesn't take precedence over the US Constitution.
> 
> If we, as the United States of America, agree and sign onto the International Treaty, whatever section in the Constitution that may prtect our rights gets the squasheroo...
> 
> Unless you can explain better to us that this is not how International Law works, in regards to Treaties, this is the real threat, as has been explained by the folks at NRA-ILA. When any Nation signs onto any treaty, the laws set forth by that treaty are binding on that Nation, regardless of the laws of that Nation. See the Vienna Conference notes I provided a link to.


That's just total crap. It's not even close. Think about it. if that were true, there would be no need for our very difficult amendment process. Wipe out the bill of rights by a treaty? Seriously, that's hilarious. It's not even a close call. Constitution trumps all other "law". Neither Congress nor the pres has the power to violate the rights of the people granted in the Constitution. That's why attempts to do so are called "unconstitutional" and fail. For a treaty to have any affect on a US citizen, it must not violate any constitutional provision. Nothing the UN does or says has anything to do with the daily life or rights of any American and likely never will.


----------



## PMantle (Feb 15, 2004)

A simple google search revealed:



> The issue of whether treaties overwhelm the Constitution was specifically considered by the US Supreme Court in the case of Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). The Court ruled: ...no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. . . .
> 
> This court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the constitution over a treaty. This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null.


----------



## Engelsmung (Jan 12, 2005)

*Dang Bra...*

I'm gettin' worried that them Blue Helmeted UN troops might set up a checkpoint near my huntin' property and confiscate my semi-auto shotguns and pistol, if'n a treaty can make international law trump the US Constitution. Not likely.


----------



## PMantle (Feb 15, 2004)

Engelsmung said:


> I'm gettin' worried that them Blue Helmeted UN troops might set up a checkpoint near my huntin' property and confiscate my semi-auto shotguns and pistol, if'n a treaty can make international law trump the US Constitution. Not likely.


Start printing your targets now boys!


----------



## 3DZapper (Dec 30, 2002)

Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. 

*This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. *

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

PMantle said:


> Start printing your targets now boys!


7.62 Israeli Black Tip AP zips right through those babies at 400M :wink:


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Jim C said:


> 7.62 Israeli Black Tip AP zips right through those babies at 400M :wink:


Woohoo!

Target on.

Seriously, folks, although I, too, highly doubt any Small Arms Ban Treaty would stand up to the US Constitution, without a concrete ruling completely clarifying the application of the 2nd Amendment, the potential for a "creative interpretation" of the 2nd could indeed happen, especially with liberal, activist judges. We can be very, very thankful that GWB appointed two Conservative Judges, but I would rather not risk a court fight over a potential treaty.

This treaty does a couple things IMHO.

1 - Risks our 2nd Amendment Right is it were to ever become finalized and a Liberal President and Senate embrace it.

2 - What happens if other Nations do indeed adpot this one, what would happen to (a) Firearm Imports into the USA and (b) export of goods from American firearms makers? This move could potentially hurt business further to our firearms industry, coupled with the severe over-regulation of our domestic sales, could bankrupt some makers, further limiting our choices, competition and pressuring prices to advance to a level that could be cost prohibitive for the average American to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

What do you do? My personal take on it is fight the living bejesus out of this moronic treaty.


----------



## PMantle (Feb 15, 2004)

Jim C said:


> 7.62 Israeli Black Tip AP zips right through those babies at 400M :wink:


Or for those of us with simple hunting arms only, aim a little low. :wink:


----------



## 460461whatever (Jan 22, 2005)

*By my research.....*



PMantle said:


> That's just total crap. It's not even close. Think about it. if that were true, there would be no need for our very difficult amendment process. Wipe out the bill of rights by a treaty? Seriously, that's hilarious. It's not even a close call. Constitution trumps all other "law". Neither Congress nor the pres has the power to violate the rights of the people granted in the Constitution. That's why attempts to do so are called "unconstitutional" and fail. For a treaty to have any affect on a US citizen, it must not violate any constitutional provision. Nothing the UN does or says has anything to do with the daily life or rights of any American and likely never will.


...nearly all of the enforced gun laws in the United States is a violation of my Second Amendment rights. Our Constitution exists only by our willingness to defend it. And, by what I've seen of our general public lately, the Constitution is on the edge of destruction. Our own military is already structured to protect our government from the general public should we decide to take it back by force. How many of you feel you could defend yourself from a handful of BATF (or UN) agents coming for your guns? 

When the irrational have enough numbers, no rational words are going to deter them.


----------



## PMantle (Feb 15, 2004)

460461whatever How many of you feel you could defend yourself from a handful of BATF (or UN) agents coming for your guns?:(
When the irrational have enough numbers said:


> Uhm, ok. Please give me the scenario where this would happen. I mean, it's possible that an Archillien Star-cruser is poised to destroy all Earth too.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

PMantle said:


> Uhm, ok. Please give me the scenario where this would happen. I mean, it's possible that an Archillien Star-cruser is poised to destroy all Earth too.


Well, have we forgotten what happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina? If it were not for the SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) what are the chances that those guns seized from law-abiding citizens would have ever been discussed, let alone returned?

Let me share with you a condition in NYS. In order for anyone in NY to OWN a pistol/ handgun, one must apply for a pistol permit. If you wish to carry it anywhere, you need a CCW permit as well. The pistol permit law was implemented in the early 1900's, starting in NYC, as an idea to curb crime. Didn't work. Nevertheless the law was spread across NYS, but the permit was free (with a small processing fee, of course, added later). The moonbats have been attempting to attach significant fees PER HANDGUN in the neighborhood of $100 PER YEAR, per handgun for the pistol permit, and an additional fee for the CCW. This one is being continually battled, as a Constitutional Right is not based on an ability to pay.

Now, in order to secure a pistol permit (not CCW) one must have a valid reason for owning a handgun. Yet the laws in NYS do not specifically adhere judges who make the decision to issue the permits to the law. Believe it or not, in several counties in NYS, judges will grant or deny a pistol permit based on their ideology, rather than the law. These judges also have been making up restrictions on some permits as well. Completely FUBAR.

A Bill is in the works in NYS to clearly force judges to do their jobs and not legislate from the bench, and these bills are A10063 and S7014. Sadly, this one was killed in the State Senate, of all places, by lobbying efforts of the NRA and NSSF, due to poor language in the bill (no "shall issue" provision in the bill).

Please do not be so naive to say our 2nd Amendment Rights are continually in a precarious position. These attacks are just a couple small examples.


----------



## PMantle (Feb 15, 2004)

doctariAFC said:


> Well, have we forgotten what happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina? If it were not for the SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) what are the chances that those guns seized from law-abiding citizens would have ever been discussed, let alone returned?
> 
> Let me share with you a condition in NYS. In order for anyone in NY to OWN a pistol/ handgun, one must apply for a pistol permit. If you wish to carry it anywhere, you need a CCW permit as well. The pistol permit law was implemented in the early 1900's, starting in NYC, as an idea to curb crime. Didn't work. Nevertheless the law was spread across NYS, but the permit was free (with a small processing fee, of course, added later). The moonbats have been attempting to attach significant fees PER HANDGUN in the neighborhood of $100 PER YEAR, per handgun for the pistol permit, and an additional fee for the CCW. This one is being continually battled, as a Constitutional Right is not based on an ability to pay.
> 
> ...


If you are trying to argue with me about interpretation of the 2nd amendment, then you're going to be very disappointed. I won't play. The issue here is an international treaty and/or the UN having an effect on our gun rights. I'll argue that all day long. Won't/can't happen. Again, it would be no different that a direct attempt by either Congress or a State legislature.


----------



## 460461whatever (Jan 22, 2005)

*If I knew this one,....*



PMantle said:


> Uhm, ok. Please give me the scenario where this would happen. I mean, it's possible that an Archillien Star-cruser is poised to destroy all Earth too.


I would probably be Dictator of The United States of America, and maybe more! What I'm trying to say is that you can never be too safe from the oppressors of freedom. I'm sure the majority of the members of the fallen civilizations felt like their way of life would last forever.


----------



## PMantle (Feb 15, 2004)

460461whatever said:


> I would probably be Dictator of The United States of America, and maybe more! What I'm trying to say is that you can never be too safe from the oppressors of freedom. I'm sure the majority of the members of the fallen civilizations felt like their way of life would last forever.


OK fine, but you've got more to worry about from your own Congress and State leglislatures than you do with the UN or some treaty.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

PMantle said:


> OK fine, but you've got more to worry about from your own Congress and State leglislatures than you do with the UN or some treaty.


You are correct..... Especially if the wrong party is in power....

Do you want your 2nd Amendment Rights subjected to a "Global Test"? Heck, we already have the understanding that the Liberals wish to subject our own abilities and rights to defend ourselves to a Global Test, why not our Rights, too?

When the Democrat Talking points are used by the President of Iran in an interview with Mike Wallace, you have to really step back and ask yourself, how do we best protect our Nation, our Freedoms and our Constitution? You do this byb making sure those who espouse a "Global Test" never, ever, ever ascend to the power level where they can be most dangerous to our Nation.

Want to protect your rights to keep and bear arms? Make sure you vote GOP.


----------



## PMantle (Feb 15, 2004)

doctariAFC said:


> Want to protect your rights to keep and bear arms? Make sure you vote GOP.


I'm registered GOP and have always voted GOP with a few local exceptions. Now that I have seen your endorsement, however, I may have to rethink that. :boink: 

:thumb:


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

PMantle said:


> I'm registered GOP and have always voted GOP with a few local exceptions. Now that I have seen your endorsement, however, I may have to rethink that. :boink:
> 
> :thumb:


  

All good!


----------



## Borack (Oct 5, 2004)

doctariAFC said:


> Well, although this is very correct, the 2nd Amendment has been debated since God knows when, as to the application of the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Some debate that because of the clause "well regulated militia" is in the 2nd Amendment, some argue that only those folks who belong to a militia can posses firearms.
> 
> On the other hand, the founding fathers made it clear in their writings on the subject that, since a militia is separate from the Government, regulated meaning Organized, all Americans have the right to keep and bear arms in the event they need to form a militia or join a militia. Since the Supreme Court has never made a ruling clarifying the definition of the 2nd Amendment, in concrete terms, this one is up for serious debate.



Here some help Doc... 

United Sates Code, Title 10, Chapter 13-The Militia, Section 311
"Militia: composition and classes-(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."


Note that the section quoted above does not say that people can "join" the Militia--it simply states that the people defined in the section are IN the Militia!
The active clause in the second Article in amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is the descriptive clause. The meaning is clear. Honest study of the Constitution for the united States of America, laws of the Union, constitutions of the several States, state statutes, and writings of the Founders of our Republic reveals clearly that the Militia is a "citizens army" made up of the "whole of the people," for the purpose of guarding against "betrayal by their representatives," to "afford complete security against the invasions of public liberty by the national authority," and if either occurs it is their right, their duty, "to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."


A militiaman is simply any citizen in his capacity as a defender of the community, who is obliged to do so within his or her ability. Militiahood is a role which citizens may play as the situation requires. It is not a permanent condition. But just as each citizen has a duty to defend the community, he also has the duty to prepare himself to play that role effectively, and to join with others in his community to train and to function as organized forces, and the elected officials of his community have the duty to facilitate that organization and training. If those officials fail in their duty the Militiaman must carry on without their participation.


The Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, 2nd Session, February 1982, page 11 states:

The "militia" refers to a concept of a universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit. When the framers referred to the equivalent of our National Guard, they uniformly used the term "select militia" and distinguished this from Militia." Debates over the Constitution constantly referred to organized militia units as a threat to freedom comparable to that of a standing army, and stressed that such organized units did not constitute and indeed were philosophically opposed to, the concept of a militia.

That the National Guard is not the "militia" referred to in the Second Amendment is even clearer today. Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies" and not its power to "provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia." (H.R. Report No. 141, 73rd Congress, 1st Session, February 5, 1953.) This Congress chose to do in the interest of organizing reserve military units which were not limited in deployment by the strictures of our power over the constitutional militia, which can be called forth only "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel invasions." The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by Title 10 U.S.C. Section 311(a).


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Borack said:


> Here some help Doc...
> 
> United Sates Code, Title 10, Chapter 13-The Militia, Section 311
> "Militia: composition and classes-(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
> ...


Great Post!


----------



## One Pin (Apr 3, 2006)

When they start taking guns from folks, 9-11 will look like College Park when Maryland beats Duke. I go to some gun shows and there are some VERY STRANGE folks there. I have seen guys lick, and sniff the barrels and tell you where and what Eastern Block country they where made.


----------



## Dchiefransom (Jan 16, 2006)

NH Guy said:


> it is a constitutional right
> :



Us Supreme Court case from the 1930's. US v Miller.


----------

