Democrats versus Guns

Vanity | Vanity

[spunkets]

"Once they confiscate the firearms, take them to court and sue them for deprivation of rights under color of law..... Title 18, Section 242 of the US Code."

Wrong. If there's a law, due process has occurred. That's all that's required for the law's justification and that renders any deprivation of rights action bogus. The only option would be imprisonment and hope the SCOTUS takes the case and overturns the laws before death occurs from old age.

[kerryusama04]

Do you notice that those guys are always out of the hi end pistol stuff? I hear the Magtech 380 stuff is great, but I can never find it.

[MamaTexan]

Wrong. If there's a law, due process has occurred.

BS. If a code, statute, ordinance or act contradicts the Constitution, that code, statute, ordinance or act is a fraud.

Any fraudulent act can be challenged in court.

-----

Due process is for criminal charges, not administrative violations.

[P-40]

You heard wrong.

Perhaps so. I hope he knows 'veto' is not a brand of pen. :)

[cowboyway]

I'm not stupid enough to try to out-gun half a dozen professionals armed with automatic weapons.

It'll never come to that.

Sure, there may be another Waco or Ruby Ridge and that's probably only gonna happen if America is still stuck on stupid in '08 and lets the DUmmies take over the whole shooting match (intended) in Washington.

What will happen is akin to the proverbial frog in the pot of water heating up slowly.

First they'll go after the 'evil features' on those mean old assault weapons...again. (Keep in mind that all the gun control laws will only affect law abiding citizens. In addition, if you choose to ignore these laws and exercise your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, you will become a criminal and the left wing media will quickly label you as a 'right wing gun nut'.) They banned the 'evil features' once before and there wasn't an armed revolt then and there won't be one the next time.

Next, they'll go after the handguns. After all, all handguns are just Saturday night specials with only one purpose; to kill innocent old women and children.

Of course, they'll be playing the hunting card during all this telling the hunters that they have no need to worry because 'real' hunting rifles and shotguns will not be targeted (intended) by the gun control laws. They'll drag out the same argument that they've used before that assault weapons and handguns are not for hunting. This will keep the union card holders that like to go off to deer camp for a week once a year on the DUmmy reservation.

They tried all the above once before and the 1994 Republican Revolution nipped it in the bud.

They're democrats. They have one play-book. They'll drag the gun control play out, dust it off, line up on the line of scrimmage, the quarter back (Chucky Boy Schumer) will shout, "Gun control 08, gun control 08...HUT, HUT!", and off they'll go.

And us 'gun nuts' are back on defense..... again.

I predict that Chucky Boy will be making the talk show rounds within six months prattling about gun control.

Oh, and his new 'gun loving' Rep from Montana? He'll toe the line or go home in '09.

Thanks Montana! suckers.....

[spunkets]

" Due process is for criminal charges, not administrative violations."

Due process applies to the process. It applies to the creation of the law and the actions taken regarding the law. There is no distinction made regarding type of law, because it applies to process not the result.

" BS. If a code, statute, ordinance or act contradicts the Constitution, that code, statute, ordinance or act is a fraud. Any fraudulent act can be challenged in court."

Fraud means deceit. If an act of any legislative authority is unconstitutional, it can be challenged as such. It can't be challenged under criminal statutes, such as the one you posted. That's, because the act of any legislative authority most likely was done according to legal due process. Examples of scts subject to 18USC242 would be actions taken on a bill, or a bill that recieved to few votes to become law, or an arrest and imprisonment w/o a fair trial, or an unlawful beating, or theft of property w/o the authority of an existing law.

[MamaTexan]

It applies to the creation of the law and the actions taken regarding the law.

Any new law that contradicts the Constitution is a fraud.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void."
Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174,176

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177.

"Where the meaning of the constitution is clear and unambiguous, there can be no resort to construction to attribute to the founders a purpose of intent not manifest in its letter."
Norris v. Baltimore, 172, Md. 667; 192 A 531.0.

"It is the peculiar value of a written constitution that it places in unchanging form limitations upon the legislation and thus gives a permanence and stability to popular government which otherwise would be lacking."
Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412.

The right to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed.

It's not that hard to understand.

-----

It can't be challenged under criminal statutes, such as the one you posted.

If they take my property under duress, there is a crime...and it's theirs.

-----

That's, because the act of any legislative authority most likely was done according to legal due process.

The RKBA can't be legislated away any more than it can be taken by judicial fiat.

-----

Your conception that a legislative body can remove, restrict or otherwise infringe on a person's right to keep and bear arms is nothing more than a presumption of guilt before establishment of legal fact.

Government can't take property of any kind without first finding you guilty in a court of law.

For which reason it is declared in the statute 16 Car. I. c. 10. upon the dissolution of the court of starchamber, that neither his majesty, nor his privy council, have any jurisdiction, power, or authority by English bill, petition, articles, libel (which were the course of proceeding in the starchamber, borrowed from the civil law) or by any other arbitrary way whatsoever, to examine, or draw into question, determine or dispose of the lands or goods of any subjects of this kingdom; but that the same ought to be tried and determined in the ordinary courts of justice, and by course of law.
William Blackstone, Commentaries

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
James Madison's Essay on Property (1792)

[Blood of Tyrants]

No, they just want to ban any cartridge that would penetrate soft body armor. Which would be ANY centerfire rifle round.

And they would make sure that they plug all the "loopholes" in the previous AW ban.

They would probably even make it illegal to transfer a high cap mag or "assault weapon" to any other person.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Pelosi will take them into the DemocRathole and explain the political realities of life. Vote the way she says or they get stuck on the public toilet committee.