Disarm Me Please

[t-amzn 0]

I don't think so. I know that this has been discussed many times. Just thought I would pile on one more time. Anyway someone else is saying it not me. What will really happen? Any bets?

 

 

Gun Law Update by

Alan Korwin,

Author Gun Laws of America Jan. 5, 2008

 

Gun-ban list

proposed

 

Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap),

the Democrats

have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush

administration when

they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR

1022, 110th Congress).

0AIt serves as a framework for the new list the

Brady's plan to introduce

shortly.

 

I have an outline of the Brady's

current plans and targets of opportunity,

It's horrific. They're going

after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms

dealers and statutes in an

all out effort to restrict we the people. They've

made little mention of

criminals.

 

Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights

is critical. Gun

bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure,

due process,

confiscated property, states' rights, free speech, right to

assemble and

more, in addition to the Second Amendment.

 

The

Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be

worse):

 

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):

 

M1 Carbine, Sturm

Ruger Mini-14, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15,

AR-10, Thompson 1927,

Thompson M1; AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90,

NHM 90, NHM 91, SA

85, SA 93, VEPR; Olympic Arms PCR; AR70, Calico Liberty,

Dragunov SVD

Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU, Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR,

 

or FNC,

Hi-Point Carbine, HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, HK-PSG-1, Thompson 1927

Commando,

Kel-Tec Sub Rifle; Saiga, SAR-8, SAR-4800, SKS with detachable

magazine,

SLG 95, SLR

95 or 96, Steyr AU, Tavor, Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil

Sporter, or

Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

 

Pistols (or copies or

duplicates):

 

Calico M-110, MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3, Olympic Arms OA,

TEC-9, TEC-DC9,

TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10, U zi.

 

Shotguns (or

copies or duplicates):

 

Armscor 30 BG, SPAS 12 or LAW 12, Striker 12,

Streetsweeper.

 

Catch-all category (for anything missed or new

designs):

 

A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and

has (i) a

folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a threaded barrel, (iii) a

pistol grip

(which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below),

(iv) a

forward grip; or a barrel shroud.

 

Any semiautomatic rifle

with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10

rounds (except tubular

magazine .22 rimfire rifles).

 

A semiautomatic pistol that has the

ability to accept a detachable magazine,

 

and has (i) a second pistol

grip, (ii) a threaded barrel, (iii) a barrel

shroud or (iv) can accept a

detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip,

and (v) a semiautomatic

pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more

than 10 rounds.

 

A

semiautomatic shotgun with (i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a

 

pistol grip (see definition below), (iii) the ability to accept a

detachable

 

magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds,

and (iv) a

shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

 

Frames or receivers

for the above are included, along with conversion kits.

 

Attorney

General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will:

 

Under the proposal, the

U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic

rifle or shotgun

originally designed for military or law enforcement use,20or

 

a firearm

based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly

suitable

for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."

Note

 

that Obama's pick for this office (Eric Holder, confirmation

hearing set for

 

Jan. 15) wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting

the position that you

have no right to have a working firearm in your own

home.

 

In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a

rebuttable

presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United

States military or

 

any federal law enforcement agency is not

particularly suitable for sporting

 

purposes, and a firearm shall not be

determined to be particularly suitable

for sporting purposes solely

because the firearm is suitable for use in a

sporting event."

 

In

plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal

 

officers or the military is not suitable for the public.

 

The last

part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a

 

sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose -- is

that

 

devious or what? And of course, "sporting purpose" is a rights

infringement

with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever,

invented by

domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further

their cause

of disarming the innocent.

 

Respectfully submitted, Alan

Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America

http://www.gunl

aws.com/gloa.htm

[hallboss 1]

That is a rubber stamp of CA PC 12276 and PC 12276.1. I think if CA is not liberal enough to go door to door looking for your registered guns that are NOW illegal, the federal gov't will not either.

 

I am assuming you are asking the question as to whether or not anyone will come looking to confiscate your firearms. I don't think anyone really knows for sure, but look at it from a purely analytical standpoint.

 

You are Joe Liberal and you want to confiscate Jethro-T-Redneck's guns because he has an AR, a Saiga S12 along with several other EBR's registered to him. So you get on the pink phone and call local or federal LE and tell them to go to Jethro's house and collect his firearms.

 

The first thing is LE is going to find out what guns this guy has. As soon as they find out Jethro has one EBR let alone several of them, they are going to pony up for tactical support. Face it, they don't know who he is and are not going to wait until he shoots at them to figure out if they need back up.

 

They are then going to go to his house and serve a search warrant (they won't ask for them, because if it gets to this point there will probably have had some type of firearms surrender program). This will take hours (if he has a safe, even longer). All of this will cost thousands of dollars.

 

What I described is pretty much a full blown operation, taking several hours of preperation and multiple personnel. If local LE is doing this and it's a small department (less than 100 sworn) you are talking about taking up a lot of man power that Admin will not give up very easily.

 

Now multiply this cluster by the millions of gun owners they would have to "visit."

 

Just my .02

Darin

Edited January 22, 2009 by hallboss

[janusthephoenix 24]

This is the kind of legislation that we call, "unenforceable". I seriously doubt it will come to this. I mean really, nearly everyone involved with the plan would have to be extremely short sighted and/or too stupid to understand what would happen even if they could enforce this.

[Twinsen 86]

What would happen is they'd come and take our guns and none of us would do anything about it.

[hallboss 1]

Nah, 'they' would all be at Surly's house trying to get him out of his 'compound'........lol

[AgentLQ 3]

Speak for yourself Twinsen.

 

 

 

 

 

[DogMan 2,343]

I predict there would be at least one "Waco" type incident in every state in which the government tried to confiscate legally aquired weapons from citizens. Frankly I don't think they have the manpower or the desire to risk that.

[rangerdavid 6]

What would happen is they'd come and take our guns and none of us would do anything about it.

 

that would be an ex post facto law. Of course we could keep the guns we have. We just couldn't buy any more of certain types. that would suck........... I agree.

[jaymce 7]

This law is ridiculous.

 

It has about as much chance of passing as a JR senator, with no executive experience, has of becoming president.

 

 

If it does pass I agree that I think you will see a pre and post ban list of firearms. Those in circulation can stay no new ones can be bought with the "evil features".

[cliffevans 2]

I agree with ranger dave,, they would let those of us that own our weapons out right keep them with out buying any future arms.. then slowly let us become the old crazy gun owners of the past meanwhile gaining popular support with the new generation of Americans with no idea of gun rights or freedom. then once the sun has set on most Americans wanting to own our knowing what gun ownership is like they then will have the political support, the admin support, and the support of majority of Americans to disarm the old crazy gun owners.. JUST MY .02

[superA 289]

That is a rubber stamp of CA PC 12276 and PC 12276.1. I think if CA is not liberal enough to go door to door looking for your registered guns that are NOW illegal, the federal gov't will not either.

 

I am assuming you are asking the question as to whether or not anyone will come looking to confiscate your firearms. I don't think anyone really knows for sure, but look at it from a purely analytical standpoint.

 

You are Joe Liberal and you want to confiscate Jethro-T-Redneck's guns because he has an AR, a Saiga S12 along with several other EBR's registered to him. So you get on the pink phone and call local or federal LE and tell them to go to Jethro's house and collect his firearms.

 

The first thing is LE is going to find out what guns this guy has. As soon as they find out Jethro has one EBR let alone several of them, they are going to pony up for tactical support. Face it, they don't know who he is and are not going to wait until he shoots at them to figure out if they need back up.

 

They are then going to go to his house and serve a search warrant (they won't ask for them, because if it gets to this point there will probably have had some type of firearms surrender program). This will take hours (if he has a safe, even longer). All of this will cost thousands of dollars.

 

What I described is pretty much a full blown operation, taking several hours of preperation and multiple personnel. If local LE is doing this and it's a small department (less than 100 sworn) you are talking about taking up a lot of man power that Admin will not give up very easily.

 

Now multiply this cluster by the millions of gun owners they would have to "visit."

 

Just my .02

Darin

 

 

 

 

I agree. The move would be to get as many as they can registered and then have people come turn them in. After they sort through the mess, the ones that are on the list that did not get turned in will be the subject of detective work. This is when they will go to peoples houses and search and seizure.

[Twinsen 86]

People always give this bullshit about how they're not going to take it, and they're gonna fight back! YEAH!

 

But some 18 year old kid wearing camo is going to show up at your door with a clipboard. His voice is going to crack when he asks you your name and if the guns are at your house. You're going to say yes, and then he is going to take them. Because it's a kid, not Obama coming to your door. It's like your neighbor's kid that joined the National Guard. Point is, you're not going to kill this person that didn't make the decision to come to your door that day, he decided he didn't want a discharge from the military, so he is doing his job.

 

If you have the balls to shoot some kid over something that Obama wrote into law, all the power to you.

[Racer 27 37]

"A semiautomatic pistol that has the

ability to accept a detachable magazine,

 

and has (i) a second pistol

grip"

 

 

Having a second pistol grip is already illegal.

Edited January 22, 2009 by Racer 27

[cellsworth 21]

I agree with ranger dave,, they would let those of us that own our weapons out right keep them with out buying any future arms.. then slowly let us become the old crazy gun owners of the past meanwhile gaining popular support with the new generation of Americans with no idea of gun rights or freedom. then once the sun has set on most Americans wanting to own our knowing what gun ownership is like they then will have the political support, the admin support, and the support of majority of Americans to disarm the old crazy gun owners.. JUST MY .02

 

I think you're probably pretty close with your prediction.

[hallboss 1]

People always give this bullshit about how they're not going to take it, and they're gonna fight back! YEAH!

 

But some 18 year old kid wearing camo is going to show up at your door with a clipboard. His voice is going to crack when he asks you your name and if the guns are at your house. You're going to say yes, and then he is going to take them. Because it's a kid, not Obama coming to your door. It's like your neighbor's kid that joined the National Guard. Point is, you're not going to kill this person that didn't make the decision to come to your door that day, he decided he didn't want a discharge from the military, so he is doing his job.

 

If you have the balls to shoot some kid over something that Obama wrote into law, all the power to you.

 

no one here that I have read has made any inferences to what you are claiming and if they had, they're an idiot. There is a difference between not giving up without a fight and not going down without a fight. Not everything is black and white Twinsen.

 

Besides as many have stated before, no one is going to come and get your guns. Too much effort, paperwork, manpower, overtime, money and not to mention the whole Ex Post Facto thing.

Edited January 23, 2009 by hallboss

[DogMan 2,343]

People always give this bullshit about how they're not going to take it, and they're gonna fight back! YEAH!

 

But some 18 year old kid wearing camo is going to show up at your door with a clipboard. His voice is going to crack when he asks you your name and if the guns are at your house. You're going to say yes, and then he is going to take them. Because it's a kid, not Obama coming to your door. It's like your neighbor's kid that joined the National Guard. Point is, you're not going to kill this person that didn't make the decision to come to your door that day, he decided he didn't want a discharge from the military, so he is doing his job.

 

If you have the balls to shoot some kid over something that Obama wrote into law, all the power to you.

 

Nope, not going to happen. Nobody here is advocating shooting anybody who comes looking for guns. But somebody with nothing to lose will do it. That coupled with media footage of ATF agents going door to door throughout every state confiscating weapons and having shootouts would be a political nightmare that would suck every sitting politician out of Washington like sawdust in a ShopVac. And they simply do not have the manpower short of declaring all out war on the people. A very well armed people. Which ironically brings us back around to the intent of the second amendment in the first place. Don't even worry about it.

Edited January 23, 2009 by DogMan

[Jangles 2]

Click and read........... http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

[SOPMOD 254]

Click and read........... http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

 

 

Stop Loss is in effect for this domestic deployment?

 

This isn't just busy work then

[hallboss 1]

Click and read........... http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

 

 

Stop Loss is in effect for this domestic deployment?

 

This isn't just busy work then

 

That does beg the question, why all of the sudden mobilize troops on domestic soil for no current situation?

[SOPMOD 254]

Click and read........... http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

 

 

Stop Loss is in effect for this domestic deployment?

 

This isn't just busy work then

 

That does beg the question, why all of the sudden mobilize troops on domestic soil for no current situation?

 

The current situation is that major employers,mortgage banks and retirement investments are dropping like flies and the lights are still on for just a little while longer and when they go out(in about 4-8 months) nobody will be able to get any money from the ATM and businesses won't be able to process accounts receiveable or borrow money and everyone will LOSE THEIR FUCKING MINDS SIMULTANEOUSLY!

[Vultite 57]

are we gonna hafta go through the worries motion everytime a dem gets elected? I don't have any stress left in my system to deal with the "possibilities". If it happens, it happens, and there ain't a fucking thing anyone can do about it. We don't make decisions, the fucking idiots WE elect do.

Edited January 24, 2009 by Vultite

[G O B 3,516]

+1 We need to elect smarter idiots!

[Wheel 0]

Stop Loss is in effect for this domestic deployment?

 

This isn't just busy work then

 

This is what I read:

 

Stop-loss will not be in effect, so soldiers will be able to leave the Army or move to new assignments during the mission, and the operational tempo will be variable.

[waltham_41 52]

I predict there would be at least one "Waco" type incident in every state in which the government tried to confiscate legally aquired weapons from citizens. Frankly I don't think they have the manpower or the desire to risk that.

 

Of course the media would do what it does so well, blow smoke up ignorant peoples asses and justify the incidents as "See? We told you these people were a threat and needed their guns taken away."

[bayonet lug 1]

If they want my guns so bad they can have them........................................................................when my MD20 is empty and my bayonet is soo dull you can use it for a spoon.

[AgentLQ 3]

Double post.

Edited January 27, 2009 by AgentLQ

[AgentLQ 3]

I think maybe you were taking issue with me Twinsen... tho I seem to have let this thread slip......

 

I'm just saying I'll be damned if I roll over and cough my guns to the gov't.

 

I think its horse crap that I can pledge my service to a country that may rape my rights very soon. (further)

 

...not cool.