Posted on 01/27/2009 5:13:49 PM PST by CedarDave
Deputy Attorney General Designate David Ogden is circulating a draft of an executive order in which, among other things, firearms possession would be severely limited to people over 60.
An assistant to Ogden told us, "It appears that in these changing times, it is no longer necessary to allow the elderly to be armed. With all of their physical ailments and increasing senility, to leave them in control of a deadly weapon would be ludicrous."
While the Executive Order may sound too powerful, experts in Constitutional law state that it is not actually un-Constitutional.
"It's a question of wording." states Columbia Law Professor, Dr. John Braxton. "The Constitution forbids the Congress, that is, the legislative branch, from passing any laws infringing on gun ownership. The executive branch is not included in this proviso. As long as the Congress doesn't get involved, it's technically a non-issue."
The Justice Department was tossing the idea of a gun ban for seniors during the Carter and Clinton Administration, but public opinion stopped these initiatives. Now, the Obama White House believes differently.
(Excerpt) Read more at jumpinginpools.blogspot.com ...
Comments as to veracity??
Make elderly people less independent, more fearful, and taking away their peace of mind. This is horrible.
Which state AG is this?
Seniors are apt to be assault victims anyway; to disarm them would be condemning them to death or disability.
I certainly hope it’s satire. This is ridiculous.
“”It’s a question of wording.” states Columbia Law Professor, Dr. John Braxton. “The Constitution forbids the Congress, that is, the legislative branch, from passing any laws infringing on gun ownership. The executive branch is not included in this proviso. As long as the Congress doesn’t get involved, it’s technically a non-issue.””
This obvious attempt to circumvent the Constitution should be taken very seriously by freedom loving people in this country. There is a dangerous notion embedded there; one that should be watched very, very closely.
It’s time to refresh the tree of Liberty, IMO.
Oh, darned, looks like we’ll have to have the armed insurrection start earlier than planned or we’ll run out of baby-boomers to man it.
It has to be BS
Barama wouldn’t target the elderly. He will disarm all of us equally
But, I have to assume this is satire. People do not automatically forfeit their rights when they reach 60. Well, maybe in an Obama world they do.
True or not I cannot comment upon. I can say that it is unconstitutional. Constitutional rights do not hinge upon age. The public welfare argument has to be predicated upon some imminent danger. The one dangerous elderly person with a gun is countered by the 99.99% that aren’t dangerous. If you apply that to other age groups, none of us get guns.
I have to think this is satire. But, with the bunch we have in power, who knows? The fact that I even consider the possibility that this could be true says a lot about our sad current state of affairs.
Uh...the BOR is not limited by any branch of the government.
This is one of obama’s Federal picks.
Satire - 2nd amendment, the most important amendment, BUMP!
As budgets tighten as more people hop aboard the freebie express, sounds like a solid plan to me.
/s
As assistant attorney general for the civil division, Ogden was responsible for organizing the defense of the Child Online Protection Act, or COPA, an antiporn law that has been challenged by the ACLU in court for more than a decade with no resolution. His department also successfully defended the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ogden's biography at Wilmer Hale says only that he represents the "media and Internet industries, as well as major trade and professional associations," without listing details. The Justice Department, barring exceptional cases, has a duty to defend laws enacted by Congress.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10133425-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1023_3-0-5
Hey Dave..........I call Barbra Streisand on this. I’ve seen other “fanciful” articles from this source.
They won’t get me, anyway........I’m too far in the boondocks.
But I still say B.S.
So I thought. I posted a thread a couple of days ago where the new commuter railroad in NM has banned the taking of pictures out of windows while passing through Indian reservations.
Okay by me as long as I can keep my Bushmaster .50 semi.
Thanks, I'm inclined to agree. BTW here is another of their articles that could be classified as "fanciful":
first...they take away guns from the unfit because they think it’s too dangerous.
Then...they take away guns from the TOO fit, because they think they don’t need them.
Then...they take away guns from the poor, because they think it’s too tempting for them to do crime.
Then...they take away guns from the rich, because they think it’s not right. They can just hire a body guard.
See where I’m going with this? There’s always SOME reason to take guns away from SOMEONE. It never ends. Not until there’s only one person left that is allowed to own a gun.
May we live in strange and interesting times.
"The Constitution forbids the Congress, that is, the legislative branch, from passing any laws infringing on gun ownership. The executive branch is not included in this proviso. As long as the Congress doesn't get involved, it's technically a non-issue."
Sounds like a form of executive terrorism to me.
All I can say is "Just try it, Obbie, just try it." We will have a Constitutional emergency.
I'm 63 and have been shooting most of my life, so I'm in good practice.
--
If the elderly can be prohibited form gun ownership, then there is a certain ethnic group that has a lopsided record with gun death and violence, so then that group should be banned from gun ownership as well.
I'm willing to bet that there are plenty of skilled elderly gunowners who don't have any particular reason to fear incarceration or death and who would do something along the lines of what the protagonists in "Unintended Consequences" did.
Keep your powder dry, history is about to repeat itself, remember Lexington and Concord!
All I’ll say is that it’s taken me over a month to get my
CC in an very conservative state, I don’t have it yet.
I’ve got a secret clearance and was in the navy reserves
for several years. Oh, I’m 59.
I am really feeling old. Somedays I’m glad I’m not a
young person in this world. I remember the good old days.
“Fanciful” is a great old word that has kind of fallen out of our lexicon. I love it.
Post of the day!
1. This is almost certainly satire ... for now.
2. "Congress" is only mentioned one time in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment begins: "Congress shall make no law ...." The rest of the restrictions on government action are sweeping and apply to the entire government. The second Amendment is clear to anyone who understands English (except to those who hate freedom and want power over the little people) "... shall not be infringed." This isn't a restricted "Congress shall not" but a more general "shall not". If it was just a question of wording, the NRA could become a non-political club for shooters, since the wording is unambiguous. Unfortunately, it's a question of politics, and the other side doesn't care what the words used to say. In their "Living Constitution", the words now mean whatever they claim the Founding Fathers would have written if Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi had stood in for George Mason and James Madison.
It's time to pray for America.
..the jerks that gravitate toward power aggravate me ALMOST as much as the blind idiots that elect them.
From what I have seen since January 20th, it is ludicrous to leave certain people in their 40's in control of deadly weapons
I suspect it is bogus, for a technical reason. Age is not a typical criteria for restrictive laws. If it was for real, they would probably try to intertwine it with some other existing limitation.
For example, it could apply to individuals who had been denied a driver’s license due to incapability. Or because they no longer had legal power of attorney.
Or they could do like they did for police officers, banning them if there were child and spouse abuse problems or a restraining order.
Or they could use a PTSD excuse, like they did for banning guns from veterans.
Remember the moral of the Aesop fable: “A Tyrant Needs No Excuse”. But also remember that tyrants can and will produce infinite excuses anyway.
I am really feeling old. Somedays I’m glad I’m not a
young person in this world. I remember the good old days.
Yea, I’m just a couple of years younger than you. Nearly every day, it seems, I give thanks for not have been born a day later than I was.
Never mess with an old person and their gun.
The Founding Fathers didn’t expect an American president to rule by fiat.
I would take it seriously. But then again,this sob was voted into office by the American people. I would speculate that he got more than his share of the elderly vote. The words “free health care” and “I want to retire” come to mind.
When it happens the fools and idiots that voted for him will be getting what they deserve. And as for the rest of us, when it rains, it rains on the just as well as the unjust.
It is expected that the executive order will be given around July 1, when senior-related gun deaths reach their peaks.
Beginning July 1, I am going to take a nap in my new hammock. Come July 4th if these nitwits want, we can do the Independence Day thing over, just like we did back in 1776.
Satire. “Jumping in Pools” is always satire, but so damned close to reality that it is divided only by time.
“firearms possession would be severely limited to people over 60.”
The way I read it, it means only people over 60 will be allowed to have firearms. They’ll probably send it to committee where they will add amendments only allowing blind people over 60 with arthritis and dementia to own guns.
“It’s a question of wording.” states Columbia Law Professor, Dr. John Braxton. “The Constitution forbids the Congress, that is, the legislative branch, from passing any laws infringing on gun ownership. The executive branch is not included in this proviso. As long as the Congress doesn’t get involved, it’s technically a non-issue.”
This guys an idiot. Is he claiming the executive could ban churches and close down all media?
This is the second post linked from that blog tonight and both only identify themselves as satire in the tags for the post.
Poor form to say the least.
This stuff can spread way to fast if people buy into it.
Has to be satire. Most of the shooting stories of burgulars are old timers defending themselves.
I have said for awhile now that all satire posts should have (SATIRE) in quotes directly behind the title.
Wish FR would make that a rule. Sometimes I think people just post this stuff to see how many people they can rile up.
Nothing the Zer0’s thugs try or do will amaze me.
Yesterday, I stopped at our local Walmart to get some fresh ammo.
They were basically out of home defense ammo:
No 2 3/4” 12 gauge buckshot, only a few boxes of 3 inch mag buck shot and a few boxes of rifled slugs
Zero 357 ammo, 45 and 38 and 9 mm.
One box of 30/06 ammo, zero 223 and 30 cal ammo.
There was plenty of bird shot and steel duck and geese loads.
The guy in charge of guns and ammo, whom I have known for close to a decade, has not been able to get defensive ammo since December.
Actually "doctor", it simply says "shall not be infringed". It doesn't mention by who at all. Lacking the 1st Amendments specificity, Art 6 paragraph 2's scope applies as does the 10th Amendments provisos.
IOW, an EO infringing RKBA is equally as unConstitutional as damn near every piece of Federal legislation going back to, and including, the NFA of '34.
It’s a mute point — at the rate a revolution is becoming necessary, I don’t expect to live to 60.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.