Amend/Repeal Class III Ban - A Stepping Stone To Total Gun Confiscation - Page 12

View Poll Results: Do you support the amendment/repeal of the 1986 Class III Weapons Ban?

Voters
214. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes it is clearly a constitutional infringement and a Inalienable right.

    161 75.23%
  • Yes it is clearly a constitutional infringement.

    55 25.70%
  • No, only law enforcement and military should have Class III Weapons.

    3 1.40%
  • No, only law enforcement and military should have Class III or any kind of Weapons.

    1 0.47%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 161

Thread: Amend/Repeal Class III Ban - A Stepping Stone To Total Gun Confiscation

  1. #111
    It has been some time sense I checked this thread and just noticed that three idiots voted.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  2.   
  3. #112
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Honolulu, HI & Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    It has been some time sense I checked this thread and just noticed that three idiots voted.
    Sure would like to know who voted "no" and why.



    gf
    "A few well placed shots with a .22LR is a lot better than a bunch of solid misses with a .44 mag!" Glock Armorer, NRA Chief RSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Muzzleloading Rifle, Muzzleloading Shotgun, and Home Firearm Safety Training Counselor

  4. #113

  5. #114

    No city has power to take right to bear arms away

    "No city has power to take right to bear arms away" - Congressman Zack Space (D-OH)

    No city has power to take right to bear arms away | chillicothegazette.com | Chillicothe Gazette

    Congressman Zack Space : Home

  6. #115

    October 14th, 2009: The Seattle Times - Gun ban at Seattle parks facilities goes into effect
    ...
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...gunban14m.html

  7. #116
    As White House talks turkey on health care ...

    GOA Responds to administration attacks

    November 25, 2009

    The White House is pulling out all the stops to pass ObamaCare, including an attack on Gun Owners of America and the Second Amendment.

    Unable to pass a bill that is openly hostile to millions of gun owners, the President and his anti-gun allies are forced to try to attack us through deception.

    On the official White House blog, deputy communications director Dan Pfeiffer denied that the health care bill would affect gun owners. After all, he writes, “there is no mention [of] ‘gun-related health data’ or anything like it anywhere in either the Senate or the House bills.”

    Well, unlike so many in Congress, GOA attorneys have actually read the bills, something they have been doing since before Mr. Pfeiffer was born.
    So, how would this bill attack gun rights?

    First of all, the fact that the bills do not mention the words “gun related health data” is meaningless. Those who know even a little bit about gun law understand the increasing use of statutes which do not mention guns – and common law which was not intended to apply to them – in order to vent hatred for the Second Amendment.

    For example, within the past year, the federal district court for the District of Columbia used the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to overturn Bush regulations involving guns in parks. NEPA did not purport to apply to guns.
    Increasingly, zoning ordinances are being used to put gun ranges and gun dealers out of business. These ordinances do not mention guns.

    Thirty-five jurisdictions have brought lawsuits to try to put gun manufacturers out of business, arguing negligence, product defect, and nuisance law which was not previously thought to apply to guns.
    And, over the last decade, veterans suffering from PTSD have been denied the right to purchase a gun. This was not supposed to happen when the Brady Law was enacted in 1994, but that did not keep Clinton’s Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from using the law to disarm thousands upon thousands of veterans, without any due process.

    Turning to what is written in the health care bill, section 1104 would give the Secretary of Health and Human Services (currently anti-gunner Kathleen Sebelius) broad authority to promulgate rules with respect to "electronic standards." Subsection (b) (2), for example, amends the Social Security Act to require the Secretary to "adopt a simple set of operating rules ... with the goal of creating as much uniformity in the implementation of the electronic standards as possible." The same section goes on to require health plans to certify, in writing, "that the data and information systems for such plans are in compliance with any applicable standards ..." It goes on to provide that a health plan is not in compliance unless it "demonstrates to the Secretary that the plan conducts the electronic transactions ... in a manner that fully complies with the regulations of the Secretary ... "

    Furthermore, anyone who provides services to a provider must comply as well. Again, the section requires health plans to certify to the Secretary "in such form as the Secretary may require, ... that the data and information systems for such plan are in compliance with any applicable revised standards and associated operating rules ... " The Secretary is authorized to conduct "periodic audits" to insure this is so, and substantial penalties are provided for.

    What health-related “gun” data do we fear would be required to be submitted under these rules? Increasingly, protocols are requiring that kids (and adults) be asked by physicians about loaded firearms in the household. A keyword search by BATF of a federal database created by section 13001 of the stimulus bill – but enforced by the Reid bill – could produce something pretty close to a national gun registry.


    In addition, between 115,000 and 150,000 veterans have had their gun rights permanently taken away from them because the VA has appointed a financial guardian for them when they received counseling for common illnesses such as post-traumatic stress disorder – and all of this with no due process or trial in a court of law. Under BATFE regulations promulgated during the Clinton administration, a diagnosis by a psychiatrist in connection with a government program (such as the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, Medicare, etc.) is sufficient to declare the person a “prohibited person” under 18 U.S.C. 922(g) (4).

    Hence, BATFE could similarly take the position that a finding of Alzheimer's, PTSD, or ADHD should result in the loss of gun rights. And, under the Reid bill, this information could be obtained by BATFE under a keyword search of a federal database.

    Incidentally, HIPAA's privacy protections do not apply to law enforcement agencies like BATFE.
    Pfeiffer also writes: "NOTHING IN THE SENATE HEALTH REFORM BILL WOULD LEAD TO HIGHER PREMIUMS FOR GUN OWNERS ... Section 2717 section [sic] ... specifically lists what types of programs would be involved – such as smoking cessation, physical fitness, nutrition, heart disease prevention ...”

    Well, as any lawyer would know, that list in section 2717 is "inclusive," but is not "exclusive."
    Section 1201 of the bill (inserting section 2705 into the Public Health Service Act) creates "wellness" programs which allow consideration of behavioral issues in setting premiums and, presumably, determining activities which are so dangerous that coverage might be suspended.

    The definition of "wellness" includes some very broad issues, including obesity and "lifestyle."
    But even these broad categories are not exclusive and do not prevent, for example, the consideration of firearms ownership, as State Farm and Prudential have already, on some occasions, done.

    Section 1201 specifically prevents consideration of the health of a person for purposes of setting rates, but, for any other "health status factor," premiums can vary up to 30%, which may be increased to 50% under the discretion of the HHS Secretary. A "reward may be in the form of a discount or rebate of a premium or contribution, a waiver of all or part of a cost-sharing mechanism (such as deductibles, copayments, or coinsurance), the absence of a surcharge, or the value of a benefit that would otherwise not be provided under the plan." A "wellness" program qualifies under this section if it "has a reasonable chance of improving the health of ... participating individuals."

    One of the more intriguing aspects about the copious fraud which is being promulgated on behalf of ObamaCare is that the liars almost always accompany their deceit with a heaping dose of arrogance.
    We have dealt with these self-appointed "experts” before. "Politifact" [sic] called us to assert that only age, family size, and location could be used to set premiums. When we blew their theory out of the water over the phone, using the previous week's Washington Post as our source, they jettisoned their phony argument and attacked us on other grounds, without giving us an opportunity to respond.

    The Obama administration and congressional Democrats have spent the last several months lying to us, trying to defraud us, and working to take away our constitutional rights. GOA will continue to oppose ObamaCare – as well as any similar plan to slip gun control through the back door.

    http://gunowners.org/as-white-house-...ealth-care.htm

    Just how many pro-ObamaCare commercials have we seen thus far that advocate the mandate of digitizing all our medical records?

    This is the last hold we have on our personal private information...

    NoBamaCare

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

  8. #117
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    126
    Can someone explain to me why the U.S. v. Rock Island Armory case which invalidated the Post-86 freeze (for Illinois) on tax collection grounds never brought about the end of the Hughes Amendment? From the decision:

    In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(o), the
    Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or
    transfer a machinegun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such
    making or transfer, or to register any such machinegun. As applied
    to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the
    registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act,
    Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any
    revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are
    unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts l(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of
    the superseding indictment are

    DISMISSED.


    Why am I not able to buy new machine guns (I know this ruling was confined to that circuit. No one has bothered to pursue this elsewhere in the past 18 years?)

  9. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by Abacab View Post
    Can someone explain to me why the U.S. v. Rock Island Armory case which invalidated the Post-86 freeze (for Illinois) on tax collection grounds never brought about the end of the Hughes Amendment? From the decision:

    In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(o), the
    Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or
    transfer a machinegun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such
    making or transfer, or to register any such machinegun. As applied
    to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the
    registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act,
    Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any
    revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are
    unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts l(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of
    the superseding indictment are

    DISMISSED.


    Why am I not able to buy new machine guns (I know this ruling was confined to that circuit. No one has bothered to pursue this elsewhere in the past 18 years?)
    It is my current understanding that this applies to the collection of the infamous $200.00 tax (tax stamp) Unconstitutionally imposed by the 1934 NFA under the guise of "Interstate Commerce" authority...
    It has no effect on the Unconstitutional possession Ban of an entire Class/Type of Weapon by "WE THE PEOPLE" which still stands...
    I suspect the Fed did not appeal this decision for fear of a more wide-spread, far reaching repeal or abolishment of 18 U.S.C. 922(o) altogether.

    They (BATFE) still collects the $200.00 (same unconstitutional tax stamp) for other items as yet to be challenged such as Silencers and Destructive Devices such as the AA-12 and Street Sweeper...

    Anybody whom takes 5 minutes to research the 1934 NFA will find that Congress recognized it had no authority whatsoever to Ban a complete Class/Type of Weapon, under the U.S. Constitution; but they did have the ability to tax at will under the 16th Amendment (Never Ratified, so they usurped that power too), so they added the $200.00 tax (tax stamp) which was a astronomical figure at the time (The Great Depression Time line Is Generally Accepted as 1929-1939) to prohibit anybody but the extremely wealthy from purchasing said weapons. Additionally, they made the Government & its agencies and a few other Unconstitutional "special classes of individuals" exempt from said Unconstitutional tax.

    As I have mentioned previously in this thread, I have discussed different approaches to the repeal/abolishment of the Hughes Amendment AKA: 18 U.S.C 922(o) with subject matter experts, (I encourage others to do the same) but have not brought up the Rock Island Armory case, I will do so and advise. Although, I suspect that we would only be able to use it if we were able to bring a case(s) forward as I previously suggested based on my current research; basically, challenging the law without breaking the law...
    It should be noted that the subject matter experts agree that this would likely be the 2nd best choice, and that getting Congress to repeal the Unconstitutional Hughes Amendment to the so-called Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 would be the best...

    The challenge there is "WE THE PEOPLE" need to get Wayne Lapierre and the NRA to get off their arses and keep their word as I itemized in the original post in this thread and elsewhere... (Call them, email them, fax them, snail mail and other wise hound their worthless arses). NO MORE NRA COMPROMISES !!!

    Additionally, we need to get the GOA, SAF and JPFO on board to lobby Congress to repeal the Unconstitutional Hughes Amendment to the so-called Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

    We need to continuously remind the aforementioned so-called Pro-Second Amendment lobbyists that represent us with OUR $ to start actively working towards REPEALING THE HUGHES AMENDMENT AKA: 18 U.S.C. 922(o).

    We also need to continuously remind those that represent us in D.C. that they were sent to Washington to Repeal Existing Unconstitutional laws (Such as 18 U.S.C. 922(o) not Create them (such as ObamaCare)...

    Lastly, we need to educate each & every firearm owner we know and others to the fact that a ban on any type/class of firearm or weapon is Unconstitutional and in the history of the world has ALWAYS led to total confiscation of ALL FIREARMS.
    Regardless of whether they desire to have such a firearm as a machinegun or a weapon such as nunchaku is irrelevant, they must recognize and support the pre-existing, and Constitutionally re-affirmed right to do so without pre-condition.

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

  10. I'm interested in this issue, are there any politicians that support this initiative to repeal the hughes amendment? It seems illogical to say that I can purchase a full auto, so long as it is an old one. BTW< why is it that the feds and LEO can purchase brand new ones while the citizens that are paying for those weapons cannot buy them for themselves? oppressed by our own employees... what a world, what a world...

  11. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by MattNuckolls View Post
    I'm interested in this issue, are there any politicians that support this initiative to repeal the hughes amendment? It seems illogical to say that I can purchase a full auto, so long as it is an old one. BTW< why is it that the feds and LEO can purchase brand new ones while the citizens that are paying for those weapons cannot buy them for themselves? oppressed by our own employees... what a world, what a world...
    Six I know of off the top of my head is...

    Sitting Texas Congressman Dr. Ron Paul (known as Dr. No by his fellow congressmen), and his son Dr. Rand Paul, who is running for U.S. Senate in Kentucky.

    Rand Paul 2010 | U.S. Senate

    Governor Sarah Palin, Alan Keyes, Bob Barr and Governor Mike Huckabee...

    You are correct it is a de facto Unconstitutional ban of an entire class/type of firearm by attrition...

    Additionally, many misinformed Congressman & Senators believe that all machine guns were banned by the 1934 NFA, obviously nothing could be farther from the truth... READ UP ON IT AND EDUCATE THEM.

    Few of them are even aware of the Hughes Amendment or 18 U.S.C. 922(o)

    Since I live in Nevada I first wrote to my two Senators Harry Reid & John Ensign.
    Harry Reid was clueless about the legislation and asked the BATFE to contact me about it; I got this nice letter from the Department of Justice mentioning Senator Harry Reid asked them to contact me regarding the subject; and then they proceeded to quote the Federal Law that Congress Passed...

    Nice...

    It was promising that Senator John Ensign said he would support such legislation, but he stated he knew of no such legislation in the works.
    Additionally, he did not volunteer to introduce it either.

    This is a prime example of those representing us not knowing our history, our laws or the Constitution...

    We need to educate them...

    We can remind them that Ethically Challenged & Sitting Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY), whose primary responsibility is the U.S. Tax Code, and is also currently under investigation for Tax Evasion, Tax Fraud; is the same Charlie Rangel whom is solely responsible for the Hughes Amendment getting passed in the middle of the night, under a holiday unanimous consent, without a recorded voice vote other than his; when nobody knew about it...

    The So-Called Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, Signed By So-Called Uber Conservative Ronald Reagan on May 19th, 1986 is the single biggest Second Amendment Infringement in U.S. History, bar none...

    So the next time somebody says we need somebody like Ronald Reagan, ***** slap them down the fricken sidewalk...

    A related post of mine on how we ended up in the current sad state of affairs that we are in...
    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/2nd-a...-criteria.html

    We are at a time in history where we can right this wrong...

    If the 80 million plus owners of the 270 million plus firearms in the country would unite to repeal 18 U.S.C. 922(o) Congress could do it in a heart beat. That is the single biggest potential voting demographic in the country folks!
    E.G. 122,394,724 Voted in 2008
    WE ARE THE MAJORITY, now getting the rest of the firearm owners in this country off their duffs is the challenge, driving home the mantra that any ban of a entire class/type of firearm is unacceptable and unconstitutional is our task...

    We need to encourage NO DEMAND all who are running for office or reelection in 2010 and beyond that we insist that they publicly make repealing 18 U.S.C. 922(o) part of their issues that they pledge to introduce legislation to correct.

    In addition, we need to demand that those States such as Tennessee, and Montana whom are passing so-called firearm freedom acts to nullify Federal Gun Laws; not concede any gun control is an allowable exception...
    I have wrote a bit on this subject of contention too:
    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/2nd-a...nitiative.html

    Additionally, we need to relentlessly drive this fact home to the NRA, GOA, SAF, JPFO, and Attorneys Like Alan Gura Esq., (of D.C. v. Heller & McDonald v. Chicago fame, whom totally concedes that some bans are acceptable, and that machine guns are not protected by the Second Amendment); Guns & Ammo Magazine and others whom CLAIM to support the Second Amendment and the American People; but take no proactive action to repeal this stepping stone to total confiscation before its too late...

    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/2nd-a...pen-watch.html

    The Heinous & Unconstitutional 18 U.S.C. 922(o) MUST GO!

    The Unabridged Second Amendment:
    http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html



    VOTE FREEDOM FIRST IN 2010

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

Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

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