Amend/Repeal Class III Ban - A Stepping Stone To Total Gun Confiscation - Page 5

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 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 161

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

  1. #41
    THE FIREARMS OWNERS' PROTECTION ACT:
    A HISTORICAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE

    THE FIREARMS OWNERS' PROTECTION ACT: A HISTORICAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE

    Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Yet another shining example of misnamed legislation that was used for a firearm ban agenda that still stands today; because we have allowed it to...

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    Ok, whom has showed their support for the 2nd amendment and met my challenge on this so far?

    Im sure you sent them all letters and kept copies right? so post up yours as an inspiration to us all!

  4. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by rockwerks View Post
    Im sure you sent them all letters and kept copies right? so post up yours as an inspiration to us all!
    Stick together or hang separately

    Benjamin Franklin's statement, "We must all hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately" was made at the signing of the Declaration of Independence and meant that if they did not band together in the fight against the British, they would all be hanged separately.

  5. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by rockwerks View Post
    Im sure you sent them all letters and kept copies right? so post up yours as an inspiration to us all!
    Actually, I do, most of the time I get an email response and a snail mailed response, looking in my email box right now I have literally hundreds of responses from Senators and Congressmen...

    I will post a couple in the hopes that will it encourage others to do the same...

    September 5th, 2007

    Dear Mr. xxxxxx:

    Thank you for contacting me about the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act (H.R. 1022). I appreciate hearing from you.

    Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) re-introduced the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act on February 13, 2007. This legislation would ban the transfer, possession, or manufacture of semiautomatic assault weapons and high capacity ammunition feeding devices for a ten year period. It has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for review.

    I do not support the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban because studies have not demonstrated that it has any effect on reducing crime. I voted against the original assault weapons ban when it came before the Senate in 1993. I also voted against an effort to reauthorize the ban in 2004. Please be assured that I will keep your concerns in mind should I have the opportunity to review H.R. 1022 or related legislation in the Senate.

    As a gun owner, I believe that law abiding citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We must work to protect this right by enforcing gun safety laws that keep guns away from terrorists and criminals. The rights of responsible gun owners should not be compromised by individuals who use firearms to commit crimes. The overwhelming majority of Nevadan gun owners use their guns safely, and you may be certain that I will use my leadership position to work in a bipartisan fashion to preserve their rights.


    Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. For more information about my work for Nevada, my role in the United States Senate Leadership, or to subscribe to regular e-mail updates on the issues that interest you, please visit my Web site at http://reid.senate.gov. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

    My best wishes to you.

    Sincerely,

    HARRY REID
    United States Senator


    HR:js

  6. #45
    The following was related to a FOPA 1986 Inquiry...


    I never heard from the BATFE...



    Dear Mr. xxxx:

    Thank you for your recent inquiry. I appreciate knowing your views.

    I have contacted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on your behalf and have brought this action to the attention of the appropriate officials. They have been asked to review your letter and provide a written response. In the meantime, if you feel that I can be of assistance in any other way, please let me know.

    My best wishes to you.

    Sincerely,

    HARRY REID
    United States Senator


    HR:js

  7. #46
    and another...



    Dear Mr. xxxx:

    Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts regarding the rights of gun owners. I appreciate hearing from you.

    As you know, it has been unlawful since passage of The National Firearms Act of 1934 for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another. Each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

    Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.

    I noted your support for eliminating all restrictions on firearms ownership, including machine guns. I am currently unaware of any legislation that would do so. As a gun owner, I believe that law abiding citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We must work to protect this right by enforcing gun safety laws that keep guns away from terrorists and criminals. The rights of responsible gun owners should not be compromised by individuals who use firearms to commit crimes. The overwhelming majority of Nevadan gun owners use their guns safely, and you can be certain that I will work in a bipartisan fashion to protect their rights.





    Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

    My best wishes to you.

    Sincerely,

    HARRY REID
    United States Senator


    HR:js


  8. #47
    Dear XXXX:

    Thank you for writing to express your support for H.R. 6691, the Second Amendment Enforcement Act. I appreciate you taking the time to express your views on this important issue.

    As you may know, my colleague, Representative Travis Childers (D-MS), introduced the Second Amendment Enforcement Act. This legislation seeks to overturn Washington, D.C.ís recently enacted emergency laws that defy the Supreme Court decision in D.C. v Heller to outlaw D.C.ís gun ban. The Second Amendment Enforcement Act will repeal the District's ban on semi-automatic handguns as well as the requirement that firearms be disassembled or secured with a trigger lock in the home. This legislation also repeals the current D.C. registration system that requires multiple visits to police headquarters, ballistics testing, passing a written test on D.C. gun laws, fingerprinting, and limiting registration to one handgun per 90 days.

    Presently, the Second Amendment Enforcement Act is awaiting action in the House Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am not a member. Please know that I signed on to an amicus curia brief in favor of the repeal of the Washington D.C. gun ban that was ruled on in the Heller case and that I will continue to advocate for individuals being allowed to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. I will be sure to keep your views in mind when this legislation is addressed by the full House of Representatives.

    Again, thank you for writing. Please feel free to contact me in the future with any additional comments or concerns you may have.


    Sincerely,

    Jon C. Porter
    Member of Congress

    JCP/sm

  9. #48
    Dear Mr. XXXX:

    Thank you for contacting me regarding the Second Amendment. I value the opinions of every Nevadan and am grateful to those who take the time to inform me of their views.

    I believe that the Second Amendment to the Constitution must be protected. It is critical to ensuring that the rest of the Bill of Rights is protected. Nevadans have a long history of independence, and this independence is built on freedoms like the right to bear arms. Nevadans count on their Second Amendment freedoms to defend themselves and preserve their way of life.

    I have consistently voted to protect the Second Amendment. For example, I voted against an amendment to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 that prohibits the sale of a handgun that is not equipped with a trigger lock or storage safety device. Currently, 90 percent of all firearms sold commercially are already sold with such devices. Further, most states already have penalties for reckless endangerment if an adult is found grossly negligent in the storage of a firearm. Thus, the provisions of this amendment are unnecessary and intrusive, as the federal government should not be telling people how to store their firearms.

    I also voted for an amendment to the FY07 Homeland Security Appropriations bill that prohibits any entity representing the U.S. federal government, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, from seizing any lawfully possessed firearm. This amendment also authorizes any individual aggrieved by a violation of this law to seek relief through civil action in U.S. district court and to seek the return of a wrongfully confiscated firearm. Finally, this amendment would not prevent law enforcement from confiscating guns from convicted felons or other persons not able to lawfully possess a firearm, nor would it have any effect on law enforcement outside of disaster relief situations. I trust that you will be pleased to learn that this amendment passed by a vote of 84-16, and that this provision was signed into law by the President on October 4, 2006.

    I believe it unlikely that Congress will consider new legislation to further hinder gun owners' rights this year. Instead of passing new laws, we should first begin enforcing the laws that are already on the books. Please be assured that I will continue to support legislation that is consistent with your Second Amendment rights.

    Once again, thank you for contacting me on this very important issue. Should you have any other questions or comments or would like to contact me in the future regarding another issue of importance to you, please do not hesitate to either write or e-mail me via my website at <a href="John Ensign, United States Senator of Nevada: Home">http://ensign.senate.gov</a>.


    Sincerely,

    JOHN ENSIGN
    United States Senator

    JE/u1

  10. I meant specific to this topic..............I to have sent out my share of letters, the machine gun fight is not one I feel I need to address. I did go to the machine gun shoot when I could in AZ. But dont feel the law there needs to be changed nor should it

  11. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by rockwerks View Post
    I meant specific to this topic..............I to have sent out my share of letters, the machine gun fight is not one I feel I need to address. I did go to the machine gun shoot when I could in AZ. But dont feel the law there needs to be changed nor should it
    So if I understand you correctly, you instead of interpreting the Second Amendment as meaning "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"... and that you are entitled to be armed in equal or greater force then what may be brought against you, be it foreign or domestic, including but not limited to the TYRANNY OF YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT!
    PERIOD! as the Founding Fathers Clearly Did...

    YOU Instead believe that it means "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"... except if your zip code is x, or your firearm is capable of firing more then one bullet without being reloaded, which is actually one definition of a machine gun...

    Or that when the shot that was heard around the world was fired because the British tried to take Cannons and powder away from the Colonists, that the British were well within their rights to do so as well...

    NICE!

    You are in good Company! HITLER, STALIN, LENIN AND GUN BAN OBAMA AND COMPANY FEEL THE SAME WAY!

Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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