Supreme Court has made confiscation of firearms a breeze

Coach is Right ^ | 7/2/15 | Doug Book

[Gargantua]

Markey and Maloney sound alot like malarky and baloney. Give Rastus a dull butter knife, and he'll hack both their heads off. Then their surviving progressive bretheren can contemplate confiscating all dull butter knives, while nasty Rastus gets some well-deserved R&R at the Graybar Hotel.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Zero, they will rule that it is a violation of the 5th Amendment prohibition of self incrimination to force a criminal to purchase gun liability insurance.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Given these recent rulings by the Roberts Court–the first on ObamaCare, the second in King v Burwell–Barack Obama’s Department of Justice will have the authority to create legislation demanding the purchase of a $1 million liability policy by every gun owner, for every gun owned. Those who refuse could be taxed the sum of, say, $100,000 for each uninsured firearm. Simple and legal, at least according to the Court. And for those unwilling to either pay up or relinquish their weapons, Barack and the Supremes will confiscate their house!

If the government can force you to purchase health insurance, then it can force you to purchase gun liability insurance.

[atomic_dog]

It's the same thing with jewelry. In 2000 I bought my wife a pair of diamond earring for $10K. The insurance on them was roughly 1/10th of their value. I passed. The way I see it, I have already “saved” $15K by not insuring them and if someone stole them today and I had to replace them I'd come out “ahead” by $5K.

[MarchonDC09122009]

The power to tax is the power to destroy.
The federal government has ALL SSN / PII records of firearms purchases since at least the 1990’s Brady bill required background checks. Very confident records were never purged as promised.
If mandatory firearm insurance law passes, then IRS will likely be involved just as they are with Obolacare.
BATF shares firearm purchase info with IRS, who will then require annual evidence of firearm insurance policy.

I would not rule out any unconstitutional action at this point from Obola, Valerie and leftists during his last year in office.
As we've seen during TPA/P Fast track, Obolacare tax decision, there is no credible majority opposition that can be relied upon to stop anything Obola wants.
And as Rahm warned, we can count on them to use a crisis to seize the day to further their ambitions.
Tinfoil hat prophesy:
Obola & co will crash the economy Greek style.
Federal benefit relief aid demands soar as currency crisis, unemployment escalates.
Violence ensures as a result of desperation.
The people in their misery call for gov’t to do something.
Media launches incessant 24 x 7 campaign howling that a civil society needs to reign in gun bloodshed for the sake of national survival.
Argument will be:
1. automobiles are potentially lethal, as are firearms.
2. Responsible car users accept liability insurance requirement, so why shouldn't firearms owners?

Anti - 2nd Ammendment law / mandatory firearm insurance, possibly by way of executive stroke of the pen.
Link federal & state benefit payouts (EBT, SocSec, etc) to IRS compliance Health Ins & Firearm Ins evidence.
Benefits will be refused if not compliant.
DHS’s “See (suspect) something, say something” program encourages reward seeking neighbor to report on “gun nut” neighbors to aid enforcement.
Non compliance of mandatory firearms insurance will result in Huge fines, and denial of federal / state benefits.
Perhaps it'll go down something like that..

These days it's easy to have a dystopic imagination ;n)

[Cyman]

Thanks for the history lesson!

[lostboy61]

That was not the numbers in New York safe act turn out. The numbers were so poor the NYSP acted as if they did not know about it. And Connecticut was about a 80% noncompliance with the assault weapon ban. In fact I personal know a extended family of troopers that have the makings for WWIII. When the cops don't even play, the game is over.

[lavaroise]

People not defending themselves from diseases and rapist need to be the one taking insurance. This would be like putting a premium for wearing a seat belt!

[IMR 4350]

IIRC, it’s already been settled by the Supreme Court, the 5th Amendment doesn’t require a convicted criminal to register their illegal weapons.

Any type of registration would be an admission of guilt.

[Lurker]

“The person actually doing it will be in a bit more “clench” mode than some black robed tyrant issuing a decree.”

At first maybe. But judges have addresses, too.

Just sayin’.

L

[MrB]

I think it’s gong to have to come to that.
We’re going to have to show up on their lawns and politely tell them that we’re not going to allow them to further destroy our society.

[JimRed]

“The court” won’t be walking up to a gunowner’s door and demanding their firearms.

The person actually doing it will be in a bit more “clench” mode than some black robed tyrant issuing a decree.

While that is true, the primary targets need to be THOSE WHO GIVE THE ORDERS. Cut off the head, the snake is dead.

[Georgia Girl 2]

“The court” won’t be walking up to a gunowner’s door and demanding their firearms. “

Yes because they don’t want to get their azz shot off and be in on the kickoff to CWII.

[BubbaBasher]

There is a law on the books that specifically prohibits the CDC from doing just that. But then again when did laws ever stop the left.

[joe fonebone]

that is exactly what I was thinking...

thinking on this site will get you banned..

be careful

[Osage Orange]

Molon Lave!!

[ronnie raygun]

Big pharma has to much to lose and they have to much of thier money tied up in it