Rolling the dice?

[AlexanderA]

You guys still don't get it. Hillary Clinton, as president, doesn't need Congress' consent in order to ban AR-15 rifles. She has all the legislative authority she needs in the NFA '34, the GCA '68, and FOPA '86. All she has to do is order the ATF to rule that semiautomatic AR-15's are "readily convertible" to fully automatic. Congress can bitch about this, and even pass a disapproval resolution, but she would veto it. Since the Republicans don't have a veto-proof majority in both houses, that would be the end of it. The Supreme Court, even without a Hillary-appointed Justice, would not intervene. Even the Heller court would not have intervened, judging from the dicta in Scalia's opinion.

Obama did not have the political capital to do this. Hillary will, if she's elected, because she's running on gun control, and specifically on banning "assault weapons" and "weapons of war." If elected, she can claim a mandate to do exactly that.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Although I do not think this will happen in my lifetime, I pose a question.

How many gun owners do you think would actually turn in/give up their firearms if "worse came to worse"? My guess is few if any.

The idea that a law is passed banning guns, and that every local LE agency and/or the military is going to go door to door and "come get your guns" is a fallacy.

Hypothetically, if it did ever get to that point, we're not talking politics anymore folks, rather a revolution.

 

[VoodooMountain]

Although I do not think this will happen in my lifetime, I pose a question.

How many gun owners do you think would actually turn in/give up their firearms if "worse came to worse"? My guess is few if any.

The idea that a law is passed banning guns, and that every local LE agency and/or the military is going to go door to door and "come get your guns" is a fallacy.

Hypothetically, if it did ever get to that point, we're not talking politics anymore folks, rather a revolution.

Wouldn't have to confiscate them if you can't use them for hunting, self defense, at a public range, or have to worry about somebody reporting you for "suspicious activity" or having dangerous weapons of war that could illicit a search of your private property to protect homeland security.

I could just see a home owner using a banned gun for sd in a home invasion and the homeowner going to jail for murder or for excessive self defense such as what was reported in Sweden recently and is evident by looking at other coubtries with strict gun laws such as Australia or Britain.

Not saying any laws will be passed but simply that, if everything goes horribly wrong, this could be in our country's future.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Wouldn't have to confiscate them if you can't use them for hunting, self defense, at a public range, or have to worry about somebody reporting you for "suspicious activity" or having dangerous weapons of war that could illicit a search of your private property to protect homeland security.

I could just see a home owner using a banned gun for sd in a home invasion and the homeowner going to jail for murder or for excessive self defense such as what was reported in Sweden recently and is evident by looking at other coubtries with strict gun laws such as Australia or Britain.

Not saying any laws will be passed but simply that, if everything goes horribly wrong, this could be in our country's future.

You apparently missed my last sentence.

If it came to that (an all out ban), I think we'd basically have anarchy if no formal revolt was formed.

 

[grampajack]

Although I do not think this will happen in my lifetime, I pose a question.

How many gun owners do you think would actually turn in/give up their firearms if "worse came to worse"? My guess is few if any.

The idea that a law is passed banning guns, and that every local LE agency and/or the military is going to go door to door and "come get your guns" is a fallacy.

Hypothetically, if it did ever get to that point, we're not talking politics anymore folks, rather a revolution.

I used to wholeheartedly believe that, but then Katrina happened. In the moment of crisis, the police and the National Guard went door to door and confiscated guns not only from the affected areas, but even from areas totally unaffected by the storm. And if the National Guard will do it, then you know good and well that the active military will.

 

[X-Rap]

GOB, I don't know how much Rea estate you have, how much money in 401 K, Union pension, and various bank accounts you have or how old you are but in your revolution scenario most of that goes away.
A pledge I've often heard attributed to those who committed to our original revolution is "Our Lives Our Fortunes and Our Sacred Honor.
Home many that you know will make that pledge when it counts?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[AlexanderA]

Good Ol' Boy wrote:

Although I do not think this will happen in my lifetime, I pose a question.

How many gun owners do you think would actually turn in/give up their firearms if "worse came to worse"? My guess is few if any.

The idea that a law is passed banning guns, and that every local LE agency and/or the military is going to go door to door and "come get your guns" is a fallacy.

Hypothetically, if it did ever get to that point, we're not talking politics anymore folks, rather a revolution.

You don't understand the gun banning mentality. It's not about actually going door to door collecting guns, but rather, driving them underground. The true target of the gun banners is not so much the hardware as the gun culture. They can take their time, even if it takes several generations, to achieve a "gun-free society." If guns cannot see the light of day, on pain of a prison term for their owner, they're effectively useless.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

I used to wholeheartedly believe that, but then Katrina happened. In the moment of crisis, the police and the National Guard went door to door and confiscated guns not only from the affected areas, but even from areas totally unaffected by the storm. And if the National Guard will do it, then you know good and well that the active military will.

That was one specific local. On a national scale, it would never happen. This is one thing the left is aware of.

It is why they nibble and pick at what they can. They win some they lose some, but an all out ban, forget about it. They know an all out ban would spiral the country into a completely uncontrollable mess. They'd rather keep that control, to an extent.

This is why the they keep "nibbling" at the 2A where they can, and claiming their small victories. They are pandering to their base supporters in hopes of maintaining control, nothing more.

 

[grampajack]

GOB, I don't know how much Rea estate you have, how much money in 401 K, Union pension, and various bank accounts you have or how old you are but in your revolution scenario most of that goes away.
A pledge I've often heard attributed to those who committed to our original revolution is "Our Lives Our Fortunes and Our Sacred Honor.
Home many that you know will make that pledge when it counts?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

If the progressives take over, you will no longer have to worry about any of those things. After they're done inflating the currency to pay for their social madness, they will then confiscate what little value is left in your 401k and pension. You might get to keep your property if it's in the city, but if it's in a rural area it will be incorporated into a wildlife refuge. Think I'm exaggerating? Just look at some of the conservationist maps proposed by the greenies, created using taxpayer funded grants.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

GOB, I don't know how much Rea estate you have, how much money in 401 K, Union pension, and various bank accounts you have or how old you are but in your revolution scenario most of that goes away.
A pledge I've often heard attributed to those who committed to our original revolution is "Our Lives Our Fortunes and Our Sacred Honor.
Home many that you know will make that pledge when it counts?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

My personal background really doesn't matter. I know of many others much better off with much more to lose than me with the same attitudes.

Bottom line in a "worst case" is if the govt sidesteps the constitution and turns you into an outlaw are you giving in or standing up? It's really that simple.

Some folks find that question easier to answer than others.

 

[grampajack]

That was one specific local. On a national scale, it would never happen. This is one thing the left is aware of.

It is why they nibble and pick at what they can. They win some they lose some, but an all out ban, forget about it. They know an all out ban would spiral the country into a completely uncontrollable mess. They'd rather keep that control, to an extent.

This is why the they keep "nibbling" at the 2A where they can, and claiming their small victories. They are pandering to their base supporters in hopes of maintaining control, nothing more.

You're deluding yourself. If they can get away with it on a small scale then they can get away with it on a larger scale, and the troops will go along with it. I might be willing to agree with you had the Katrina participants been arrested for treason, but they got away with it. And not one soldier or police officer refused the orders. Katrina was their test subject, and our canary in the coal mine. And imagine that that happened under Bush. Just imagine how far something like that could go with a Democrat at the helm of DHS.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

You're deluding yourself. If they can get away with it on a small scale then they can get away with it on a larger scale, and the troops will go along with it. I might be willing to agree with you had the Katrina participants been arrested for treason, but they got away with it. And not one soldier or police officer refused the orders. Katrina was their test subject, and our canary in the coal mine. And imagine that that happened under Bush. Just imagine how far something like that could go with a Democrat at the helm of DHS.

Well I guess we respectfully disagree. We'll see soon enough though won't we.

Personally I think you have your tin foil hat a tad too tight.

Although I hate to use the word, apparently I have a little more "faith" in gun owning patriots than you.

 

[grampajack]

Well I guess we respectfully disagree. We'll see soon enough though won't we.

Personally I think you have your tin foil hat a tad too tight.

Although I hate to use the word, apparently I have a little more "faith" in gun owning patriots than you.

I certainly hope not, and I don't mean to be a downer. But if we're going to have a chance then we'll have to accept the reality, and that means contradicting blanket statements about what our military and police will never do. Because they did, and they will.

We also need to accept that the revolution was not a spontaneous uprising by the people in protest for the loss of their rights. It was an orchestrated international effort to found a nation under the ideals of the enlightenment as set forth by 16th century philosophers. Wealthy and powerful people from all over Europe were involved, particularly in France where our founding fathers had a lot of influence in enlightenment circles. And even with that kind of backing, the American people still had to be dragged to liberty kicking and screaming the whole way.

 

[Old Guy]

In watching local news last night (and starting to fall asleep) there was an auditorium in Orlando, with a local uniformed Officer on stage.

He was giving advice on how to deal with a terrorist incident. Four points were itemized, first two were to do with attitude, number 3? Go armed!

I will have to find this again, when I am wide awake. No more of the "Leave it to us!" But citizens be armed. That is a big change.

 

[mboylan]

You guys still don't get it. Hillary Clinton, as president, doesn't need Congress' consent in order to ban AR-15 rifles. She has all the legislative authority she needs in the NFA '34, the GCA '68, and FOPA '86. All she has to do is order the ATF to rule that semiautomatic AR-15's are "readily convertible" to fully automatic. Congress can bitch about this, and even pass a disapproval resolution, but she would veto it. Since the Republicans don't have a veto-proof majority in both houses, that would be the end of it. The Supreme Court, even without a Hillary-appointed Justice, would not intervene. Even the Heller court would not have intervened, judging from the dicta in Scalia's opinion.

Obama did not have the political capital to do this. Hillary will, if she's elected, because she's running on gun control, and specifically on banning "assault weapons" and "weapons of war." If elected, she can claim a mandate to do exactly that.

Big stretch here. AR-15 receiver internal milling is fundamentally different (not just high shelf/low shelf) from M-16 receiver internal milling to avoid the readily convertible clause. You can't just drill a hole and put in an autosear. Conversion devices can be defeated by a high shelf. This stuff has been thought through before.

 

[AlexanderA]

Big stretch here. AR-15 receiver internal milling is fundamentally different (not just high shelf/low shelf) from M-16 receiver internal milling to avoid the readily convertible clause. You can't just drill a hole and put in an autosear. Conversion devices can be defeated by a high shelf. This stuff has been thought through before.

It can be milled out in less than an hour on a milling machine. There has been at least one case where up to 8 hours in a well-equipped machine shop has been held to make a gun "readily convertible."

The problem for the gun-grabbers isn't narrowly technical, as much as it is overcoming 50 years of established practice. They would have to say that the original determinations back in the 1960's were incorrect. They could do it if there was the political will to do so.

Nobody should be complacent about what a Hillary victory would imply.

 

[mboylan]

It can be milled out in less than an hour on a milling machine. There has been at least one case where up to 8 hours in a well-equipped machine shop has been held to make a gun "readily convertible."

The problem for the gun-grabbers isn't narrowly technical, as much as it is overcoming 50 years of established practice. They would have to say that the original determinations back in the 1960's were incorrect. They could do it if there was the political will to do so.

Nobody should be complacent about what a Hillary victory would imply.

Readily convertible has been thoroughly addressed by Colt. There are rulings going back to 1964. Your 8 hour window was in reference to the ATF figuring out how a certain gentleman was able to get full auto with the parts in his rifle. It was not about declaring an entire class of firearms as readily convertible. Again big stretch here.

 

[tarosean]

Katrina was their test subject, and our canary in the coal mine. And imagine that that happened under Bush. Just imagine how far something like that could go with a Democrat at the helm of DHS.

Hurricanes to hit our shores since Katrina.
Ophelia
Rita
Wilma
Humberto
Dolly
Gustav
Ike

Since our current POTUS
Irene
Isaac
Sandy
Arthur

I was personally effected by two of them, I can tell you from experience that guns are generally the last thing on your mind during and after... However, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act was signed to ensure that cities/states don't sidestep our constitution.

 

[AlexanderA]

Readily convertible has been thoroughly addressed by Colt. There are rulings going back to 1964. Your 8 hour window was in reference to the ATF figuring out how a certain gentleman was able to get full auto with the parts in his rifle. It was not about declaring an entire class of firearms as readily convertible. Again big stretch here.

Let's not bury our heads in the sand. If orders come from the top (from a Hillary Clinton White House), the ATF can and will reverse its longstanding positions. Technical justifications for such a reversal can and will be found. It all depends on how badly the gun-grabbers want to push it. After this year's campaign, in which gun control, and, specifically, outlawing so-called "assault weapons," has been made the central issue, the political will is certainly there.

 

[Red Wind]

Can we bury this endless argument?

 

[entropy]

Before we do,

Sadly ,the Secret Service amounts to very few votes.

Neither did the Praetorian Guard. But they decided who became, and stayed, Emperor at a time when madmen and drooling old fools were the choices.

Not suggesting anything, merely pointing out that Margret Mead was right-"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

The idea that a law is passed banning guns, and that every local LE agency and/or the military is going to go door to door and "come get your guns" is a fallacy.

When it does happen, it won't be local LE and US military doing it.......

 

[mikestone967]

Clinton Announces Massive Gun Control Plan

In October, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced her gun control plan, promising that if she’s elected, she’ll ban some guns and impose other restrictive gun control laws, in some cases without Congress’ approval. . . . .

Source: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/16/clinton-announces-massive-gun-control-plan/

 

[mikestone967]

Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

-- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.

--US. v. Minker, 350 US 179 at 187

An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

--Norton v Shelby County, 118 US 425, 442

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)

 

[Red Wind]

Long essays. A lot of work put in. Good man!

 

[Zeke/PA]

My hope that the Hillary feared "gun lobby" sets her in her place!
Hey you NRA members , move your asses OUT and VOTE!!