NRA alert

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/no-longer-camouflaging-their-agenda,-anti-gunners-start-gun-ban-plans.aspx

 

make of it what you wish....just a heads up.

 

GG ~

[Pit Bull Tex]

I know what I want to say but can't say in here.

[Seldom Seen #16162]

Maybe the folks buying guns and ammo right now know something after all.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Maybe the folks buying guns and ammo right now know something after all.

 

maybe....don't know, just wanted to post and not be political about it.

 

GG ~

[Badlands Beady]

I'm tempted to give some credence to it, but I keep thinking of all those End-of-the-World letters I get from Wayne LaPierre.

 

Another thing that hurts the article's credibilty with me is this: "With Obama winning a second term as president, the anti-gunners know they don't have to face voters at least until mid-term elections, so they seem to be wasting no time in pressing what they see as an advantage, and are starting to once again come after our guns in earnest (please see U.N. Story above)."

 

So, under what circumstances would they have to face voters sooner than mid-terms? The paragraph doesn't seem to make much sense.

 

The funny thing is, I was just over at a "liberal" forum I sometimes hang out at, and the talk there is all about how Dems are convinced gun control of any sort is too hot a potato to play with. BTW, the only rabid anti-gunner there is some guy from Scotland. I don't think he can vote here.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

I'm tempted to give some credence to it, but I keep thinking of all those End-of-the-World letters I get from Wayne LaPierre.

 

Another thing that hurts the article's credibilty with me is this: "With Obama winning a second term as president, the anti-gunners know they don't have to face voters at least until mid-term elections, so they seem to be wasting no time in pressing what they see as an advantage, and are starting to once again come after our guns in earnest (please see U.N. Story above)."

 

So, under what circumstances would they have to face voters sooner than mid-terms? The paragraph doesn't seem to make much sense.

 

The funny thing is, I was just over at a "liberal" forum I sometimes hang out at, and the talk there is all about how Dems are convinced gun control of any sort is too hot a potato to play with. BTW, the only rabid anti-gunner there is some guy from Scotland. I don't think he can vote here.

 

Beleive what you want as mentioned in my first post..."make of it what you wish"

 

GG ~

[Marshal Dan Troop 70448]

I'm tempted to give some credence to it, but I keep thinking of all those End-of-the-World letters I get from Wayne LaPierre.

 

Another thing that hurts the article's credibilty with me is this: "With Obama winning a second term as president, the anti-gunners know they don't have to face voters at least until mid-term elections, so they seem to be wasting no time in pressing what they see as an advantage, and are starting to once again come after our guns in earnest (please see U.N. Story above)."

 

So, under what circumstances would they have to face voters sooner than mid-terms? The paragraph doesn't seem to make much sense.

 

The funny thing is, I was just over at a "liberal" forum I sometimes hang out at, and the talk there is all about how Dems are convinced gun control of any sort is too hot a potato to play with. BTW, the only rabid anti-gunner there is some guy from Scotland. I don't think he can vote here.

Whatever! MT

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=feinstein%20working%20on%20assault%20weapon%20ban&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&ved=0CGYQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scpr.org%2Fnews%2F2012%2F09%2F05%2F34168%2Fsenator-feinstein-says-shell-reintroduce-gun-legis%2F&ei=oK6iUNKKIoTc8ATK_oDABA&usg=AFQjCNGuI9z26kGRSxmlhIDiepw2erEv1g

[Red Logan #12252]

I think I will just wait for HIS 3rd term, then I'll get excited... but for now I'll stock up on components...

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

Wow, no chance to vote until the mid-term elections! There's Obama for you; taking away our rights to vote before the mid-terms!

 

I'm going to give all of the proceeds of my sale of Republic of Texas bonds to the NRA.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

I think I will just wait for HIS 3rd term, then I'll get excited... but for now I'll stock up on components...

 

that's funny ~ thanks for the laugh...

 

GG ~

[Tom Bullweed]

Guns? I got no stinking guns! I don't even know anyone that has those dangerous things.

On the serious side, it is time for the Supreme Court to say that the UN cannot make a law in our country. Our constitution states that laws are started in the House of Reps, then passed by the Senate and signed by the Pres. There is nothing in there about the UN that is run by a bunch of third-world ne'er-do-wells.

[FriscoCounty]

This has always been a hot button for Senator Feinstein. It doesn't surprise me and I have no problem believing she did visit the BATF. However, neither she not the ATF can ban 'assault weapons'. What she was probably there for was to discuss what the land mines were in crafting credible legislation to submit for congressional approval that would have a chance of passing Supreme Court muster. Although I doubt it would be passed by a Republican House.

[Seldom Seen #16162]

There are two separate issues and a wild card at work here.

 

First the Republicans in the House have done an excellent job in the last two years shutting down Obama by sticking together. IF and that is a big IF they continue to maintain the same self-discipline then there will not any new anti-gun bills making it to the President’s desk.

 

The second and much more difficult issue is use of Executive Orders and expansion of rules and regulations by the BATF. It will be hard (impossible?) for a divided Congress to gather enough votes to overturn his Executive Orders and rein in the BATF.

 

The Wild Card is the Supreme Court as it is not known what cases will make their way before the Court. Heller let open the possibility of banning entire types of guns and with Chief Justice Roberts sudden shift to the left with Obamacare can not be considered a reliable pro-gun supporter.

 

The next two years are the anti-gunners window of opportunity. The ruling party usually lose seats in the mid-term elections and the Presidential Campaign will start right afterwards. If pro 2nd Amendment supporters hold the Dems feet to the fire for the next two years with the threat of not getting re-elected they may be inclined to at least remain neutral on the issue.

[Seldom Seen #16162]

Guns? I got no stinking guns! I don't even know anyone that has those dangerous things.

On the serious side, it is time for the Supreme Court to say that the UN cannot make a law in our country. Our constitution states that laws are started in the House of Reps, then passed by the Senate and signed by the Pres. There is nothing in there about the UN that is run by a bunch of third-world ne'er-do-wells.

 

The U.N treaty is a red herring. The enemy within is far greater than a International treaty that has no force of law inside our borders.

[FriscoCounty]

:

The second and much more difficult issue is use of Executive Orders and expansion of rules and regulations by the BATF. It will be hard (impossible?) for a divided Congress to gather enough votes to overturn his Executive Orders and rein in the BATF.

:

 

Presidents do not have free reign with Executive Orders. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer SCOTUS ruled that the President can only issue Executive Orders when there is Constitutional or Congressional authority to do so. The lapse of the Assault Weapons Ban and failure to reauthorize it is a clear rejection of any such authority by the President to be able to do so.

 

If Obama were to issue such an Executive Order it would immediately be contested in the courts and could very well lead to the Republican Congress to consider bringing impeachment charges. In any event, I really doubt the President would even consider it. First, he is too well schooled in Constitutional Law. Second, all his Executive Orders, to date, have stayed well within the bounds of his authority as Commander-in-Chief, head of foreign relations and policies, and CEO of the executive branch.

 

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama.html

 

As an aside, the implementation of a subset of the DREAM act in June was not an Executive Order. It was a memorandum issued by the DHS Secretary to the CBP, USCIS, and ICE agencies within DHS. All the provisions of the memorandum were within the authority of the legislation governing the agencies. The memorandum just restricted the discretionary limits of the agencies.

 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf

[FriscoCounty]

The U.N treaty is a red herring. The enemy within is far greater than a International treaty that has no force of law inside our borders.

 

I agree. As I have posted elsewhere on this board, SCOTUS has ruled that the Constitution trumps Treaties.

 

In my opinion, our initial non participation was not the best thought out plan - we are the world's largest International Arms Dealer. It is in our best interests that our ability to export and, more importantly, the ability of signatories to import what we sell is not compromised.

[Badlands Beady]

...and with Chief Justice Roberts sudden shift to the left with Obamacare can not be considered a reliable pro-gun supporter.

 

 

 

What "shift to the left"? It was a single issue, there's no connection between health care and gun control and, liberal that I am, I trust Roberts' and all the other justices' integrity to decide on any issue according to their view of the Constitution. If "my side" loses a decision, then the Court reached an honest decision that I disagree with. No betrayal was involved.

[Marshal Dan Troop 70448]

There are two separate issues and a wild card at work here.

 

First the Republicans in the House have done an excellent job in the last two years shutting down Obama by sticking together. IF and that is a big IF they continue to maintain the same self-discipline then there will not any new anti-gun bills making it to the President’s desk.

 

=

YUP! They sure did a good job last time on Obama Care. It was several Republicans that allowed passage, and not adhearing to party lines, nor the feelings of those that voted them in. And if you don't consider it can ever happen, ask other countries that have bans, and restrictions.

Also remember, each Supreme court justice has a different interpretation of what the Constitution has in its meanings, otherwise each issue would be unanimous in decisions, rather then the many times a decision is by 1 vote.

Not to long ago there was an article of how to ban and still let the populace have their rights, the writer indicated it was easy, ban all cartridge firearms and allow the populace only Flintlocks, and cap and ball firearms, just as the writers of the Constitution owned. In reality, a ban, yet still upholding peoples rights to own firearms. Wish I still had the article. MT

[Rooster Ron Wayne]

Guns? I got no stinking guns! I don't even know anyone that has those dangerous things.

On the serious side, it is time for the Supreme Court to say that the UN cannot make a law in our country. Our constitution states that laws are started in the House of Reps, then passed by the Senate and signed by the Pres. There is nothing in there about the UN that is run by a bunch of third-world ne'er-do-wells.

+1

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

Unless the republicans in the senate that prevent a 2/3rd supermajority from forming change their minds a treaty cannot be ratified.

 

Unless the house republicans that hold a simple majority change their minds the president cannot pass any anti gun laws.

 

Even executive orders cannot make that happen.

 

And of course even the senate democrats can't really want a UN treaty to remove their ability to pass laws.

[Bad Hand]

YUP! They sure did a good job last time on Obama Care. It was several Republicans that allowed passage, and not adhearing to party lines, nor the feelings of those that voted them in. And if you don't consider it can ever happen, ask other countries that have bans, and restrictions.

Also remember, each Supreme court justice has a different interpretation of what the Constitution has in its meanings, otherwise each issue would be unanimous in decisions, rather then the many times a decision is by 1 vote.

Not to long ago there was an article of how to ban and still let the populace have their rights, the writer indicated it was easy, ban all cartridge firearms and allow the populace only Flintlocks, and cap and ball firearms, just as the writers of the Constitution owned. In reality, a ban, yet still upholding peoples rights to own firearms. Wish I still had the article. MT

 

 

On the other hand, it was clearly the intent to allow the citizens to own and possess the latest military weapons, such as the Brown Bess muskets. To carry that forward you could argue that the intent is now for citizens to own full automatic firearms, such as the M-4/M-16, true AK-47 et all.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

On the other hand, it was clearly the intent to allow the citizens to own and possess the latest military weapons, such as the Brown Bess muskets. To carry that forward you could argue that the intent is now for citizens to own full automatic firearms, such as the M-4/M-16, true AK-47 et all.

 

Yup

 

GG