Nationwide call to action: Amend/Repeal/Challenge Constitutionality of 1986 FOPA - Page 3

View Poll Results: I Will File A Form 4 With The BATFE For A Post 5/19/1986 F/A Weapon In...

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • District 1

    0 0%
  • District 2

    0 0%
  • District 3

    2 14.29%
  • District 4

    0 0%
  • District 5

    1 7.14%
  • District 6

    4 28.57%
  • District 7

    0 0%
  • District 8

    2 14.29%
  • District 9

    3 21.43%
  • District 10

    1 7.14%
  • District 11

    1 7.14%
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 68

Thread: Nationwide call to action: Amend/Repeal/Challenge Constitutionality of 1986 FOPA

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    I followed this story back when it first became publicly wide spread. In just about all of the videos and interviews posted around much of the whole story was left out. In reading much of the information that was not posted by his supporters the answer to your question is yes he intntionally modified the gun. In fact the gun he loaned to the fellow at the range was his personal gun that he loaned for his use until he had made in one to buy. This fellow has become the poster boy for certain people to rally around but from the actual details of both the trial transcript and investigation he was completely guilty. I have seen many posts and articles that have only published one side of the story, usually from people that have never even met anyone involved in the case and totally ignoring the actual facts of the case. I know there will be many that wil probably will respond with rebuttals to this so I am not going to try to replay old arguements but from what I could find from looking at the entire facts of the case he was guilty as charged.
    Besides the fact that the law he was charged with violating "USC 18 922(o)" was unconstitutional to begin with...

    Unless I am missing something obvious in all the actual court transcripts that I previously posted herein; I see nothing that shows that he intentionally modified the weapon in order to be able to fire f/a; only that he knew it would fire 3-4 rounds and jam (Read Malfunction) if the selector switch was turned to a unmarked position on the weapon; further that said malfunction was on a known recall list from the manufacturer of the weapon...
    http://www.jpfo.org/articles-assd/olofson-vs-us.htm

    http://www.jpfo.org/images03/olof-berg-affidavit.jpg

    It is further part of the official court record that his weapon contained no f/a carrier group...

    I can certainly ask Stewart Rhodes one of his attorneys that live here in Nevada that I know personally, whom is the founder of Oathkeepers of which I am a member; IF I am missing something...

    If I am missing something in the "official court record" please do provide a citation...

    Fundamentally and Regardless.. even IF David Olofson came out and said yes I intentionally modified a piece of my personal property; as I see it he did NOTHING NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED...

    Back to the subject of this thread...

    As I see it...

    USC 18 922(o) IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL PERIOD...

    Anybody charged & or convicted under USC 18 922(o) deserves a public apology from the fed; and significant financial compensation by those that passed the law to begin with and anybody attempting to enforce it...

    No where in the Second Amendment or founding documents does it state "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" Except...
    IF your zip code is x, your standing at y, or the type or class of weapon you have or desire to have is z...
    OR if said weapon is carried openly or concealed...

    USC 18 922(o) Must Be Repealed...

    IF THEY CAN BAN ONE TYPE OR CLASS OF WEAPON THEY CAN BAN THEM ALL...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  2.   
  3. I'm bumping this thread because it's too important to be lost.

    Now that we got the Supreme Court ruling yesterday, do you think it would be good to strike while the iron is hot?

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Midnight View Post
    I'm bumping this thread because it's too important to be lost.

    Now that we got the Supreme Court ruling yesterday, do you think it would be good to strike while the iron is hot?
    Yes definitely!! The sooner the better. We have another ultra left wing liberal nut who will soon be a supreme court justice

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    Because we have in my opinion: P.O.S. attorneys like Alan Gura going in front of SCOTUS saying its ok for the fed to ban guns not in "common use"

    When I PERSONALLY asked him why he conceded without a argument in front of SCOTUS (Heller 2008) that it was ok for the fed to ban machine guns he answered I quote:

    "OK, so you want machine guns and RPGs on airplanes any weapon any place or time, right? Got it. Thanks. Good luck with that."

    How about this jewel?

    ...JUSTICE BREYER: What's your response to the question?

    MR. GURA: Well, my response is that the government can ban arms that are not appropriate for civilian use. There is no question of that...

    JUSTICE GINSBURG: For example?

    MR. GURA: For example, I think machine guns: It's difficult to imagine a construction of Miller, or a construction of the lower court's opinion, that would sanction machine guns or the plastic,
    undetectable handguns that the Solicitor General spoke of...

    JUSTICE GINSBURG: But why wouldn't the machine gun qualify? General Clement told us that's standard issue in the military.

    MR. GURA: But it's not an arm of the type that people might be expected to possess commonly in ordinary use. (WHY is it not in common use? http://www.usacarry.com/forums/firea...-criteria.html)

    Post This Transcript Link Anywhere That Somebody Still Thinks Alan Gura Is Not Doing Us Great Harm Every Time He Opens His Mouth In Front Of A Court On The Second Amendment:
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...pts/07-290.pdf

    AND this is the guy that is standing up for "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" ?
    Who let Alan Gura take charge of these cases? I had never heard of the guy until he appeared on behalf of Heller. It is embarrassing that he conceded away banning types of firearms. Why would anyone think this is the kind of person who should represent gun owners and those who want to own?

    Most remarkable is that he took an honest question about conceding firearm bans and turning it into something about RPGs on airplanes. I detect a wolf in sheep's clothing. Awful. My blood pressure is reaching its limits.

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    126
    Bohemian, what district is Maryland? Also, how do you submit a Form 4 for a firearm that does exist? I think I'd have a hard time finding a dealer willing to put his name down for a transfer that would not happen.

  7. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Abacab View Post
    Bohemian, what district is Maryland? Also, how do you submit a Form 4 for a firearm that does exist? I think I'd have a hard time finding a dealer willing to put his name down for a transfer that would not happen.
    Maryland is 4th circuit...

    Form 1:
    Read Instructions 2(i)

    Form 4:
    Is a existing post May 19th, 1986 select fire weapon that the applicable dealer holding a Class III FFL has for sale...

    He cannot take your money until you get the quintessential mother may I from the BATFE which they will not give; you will get a letter as will he/she stating the reason why you are denied and you will be refunded your $200.00 tax/fee...

    The official denial is what we need, without it is difficult to demonstrate to a court that you have standing...

    This is what they did in D.C. and Chicago, they challenged the law without breaking the law...

    As previously itemized; At this point we are trying to get commitments to file a form 4 and or form 1 in order to get the official (unconstitutional) denial from the BATFE; we are waiting until we have all applicable districts covered before anybody files any forms; we will coordinate privately once we have reached that milestone...

    In the mean time we are encouraging all to do a face to face with one or more class III dealers (and your Unabridged Second Amendment Supporting Congressman/woman (Representative & or Senator(s) AND OR those that seek to represent us): The Unabridged Second Amendment if you have one) in your area and explain the Heller/McDonald approach we are taking to get this abomination repealed/amended ideally by Congress or by SCOTUS...

    We prefer Congress fix their own sins, but will go SCOTUS route if they don't amend/repeal ethically challenged Charlie Rangel's DEEMING PASSED Hughes Amendment #777 to the so-called FOPA of 1986...

    We cannot, must not let this stand...

    IF THEY CAN BAN ONE TYPE OR CLASS OF WEAPON THEY CAN BAN THEM ALL...

    The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government...
    Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

    "Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe 1789

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  8. #27

    The Federalist Papers #57 And The Hughes Amendment

    It Appears The Framers In At Least Federalist Papers #57 Would Clearly Be At Odds With The Hughes Amendment #777 to the so-called FOPA of 1986 and ObamaCare ...

    ... I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.

    If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty...
    Federalist Papers: FEDERALIST No. 57

    mmm... so they are pretty fricking clear that Congress Shall Make No Law That Does Not Apply To Themselves or that favors a particular class of society...

    That would seem to be at odds with making active police & military and politicians exempt ...

    The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government

    Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT


    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  9. #28

    Ethically Challenged Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) CHARGED !

    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    It Appears The Framers In At Least Federalist Papers #57 Would Clearly Be At Odds With The Hughes Amendment #777 to the so-called FOPA of 1986 and ObamaCare ...

    ... I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.

    If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty...
    Federalist Papers: FEDERALIST No. 57

    mmm... so they are pretty fricking clear that Congress Shall Make No Law That Does Not Apply To Themselves or that favors a particular class of society...

    That would seem to be at odds with making active police & military and politicians exempt ...

    The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government

    Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT



    Ethically Challenged Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) as acting Speaker of the House; WHOM DEEMED Hughes Amendment #777 to the so-called Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 passed, in spite of the actual recorded vote to the contrary has finally been charged with something at least...

    Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) broke ethics rules, House panel finds - July 23, 2010:
    Rangel broke ethics rules, House panel finds - Articles - The Sean Hannity Show
    Yet another argument for our case against the Constitutionality of the so-called FOPA of 1986 containing the first de facto Gun Ban of an entire class/type of weapon in U.S. History and creating elite, privileged classes of Citizens, just for starters...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  10. File a post Ban form 4

    Hi Bohemian,

    Oh yeah baby- I'm fired up too! I just did a little google search to find out the status of "This 1986 Ban" to figure out how it happened. I happened on some of your posts that date back to 2004. Wow- the last 2 hours have been a real education.
    I cannot believe Rangel got away with this back in 1986 and that he's still around!
    I got so fired up that I just joined the forum and am very willing to apply for a Form 4 on a post-ban gun.
    I'm in Missouri (District 8?) and as my moniker says- I have a C&R FFL (which allows us to own NFA weapons in Missouri) so I have a Mac 10- 45ACP. It was about all I could afford after seeing the prices of all the transferable NFA weapons. Why shouldn't we- the law abiding, ATF tax stamp paying, safe gun owners of America be allowed to own post ban guns?? Being a Curio and Relic Federal Firearm Licensee- the government knows ALL ABOUT ME and my legally registered and owned guns. It's the Illegal NFA weapons that people should be worried about.
    The answer is that we SHOULD be able to own post ban guns and bring down the cost for all.
    The underhanded way the Hughes amendment was added in to the protection act was despicable.
    It should be challenged and stricken (excised) from the law and I want to help.

    C&R FFL

  11. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by C&R FFL View Post
    Hi Bohemian,

    Oh yeah baby- I'm fired up too! I just did a little google search to find out the status of "This 1986 Ban" to figure out how it happened. I happened on some of your posts that date back to 2004. Wow- the last 2 hours have been a real education.
    I cannot believe Rangel got away with this back in 1986 and that he's still around!
    I got so fired up that I just joined the forum and am very willing to apply for a Form 4 on a post-ban gun.
    I'm in Missouri (District 8?) and as my moniker says- I have a C&R FFL (which allows us to own NFA weapons in Missouri) so I have a Mac 10- 45ACP. It was about all I could afford after seeing the prices of all the transferable NFA weapons. Why shouldn't we- the law abiding, ATF tax stamp paying, safe gun owners of America be allowed to own post ban guns?? Being a Curio and Relic Federal Firearm Licensee- the government knows ALL ABOUT ME and my legally registered and owned guns. It's the Illegal NFA weapons that people should be worried about.
    The answer is that we SHOULD be able to own post ban guns and bring down the cost for all.
    The underhanded way the Hughes amendment was added in to the protection act was despicable.
    It should be challenged and stricken (excised) from the law and I want to help.

    C&R FFL
    FYI: Missouri is in District 8
    Court Locator

    If you have not selected District 8 in the poll options already please do so...

    Remember we need more constitutionally minded individuals such as yourself, so educate a fellow firearm owner(s) as frequently as possible...
    Regardless of whether or not an individual desires to have a select fire weapon; the pivotal point is:
    IF they can ban one type or class of weapon they can ban them all!

    And the so-called FOPA of of 1986 is a de facto gun ban by attrition of an entire class/type of weapon...

    The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government...
    Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Nationwide Call To Action: Oppose S.1261
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-15-2009, 07:04 AM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-27-2009, 09:28 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-10-2009, 11:06 AM
  4. Nationwide Call To Action: Oppose S.843
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-26-2009, 06:30 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-24-2008, 07:09 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast