Skip to comments.Precedent Teaches Us The Left Really Wants ALL Our Guns
Posted on 01/13/2013 2:33:11 AM PST by Evil Slayer
When the Supreme Court, or any other court for that matter, makes a ruling in a case they first look for precedent, in other words to see if there has been a court decision rendered on the same subject in the past and usually defer to the old decision in ruling on the case.
The greatest teacher in life is experience; it only takes one time of burning your fingers on a hot stove to know that you never want to touch another one.
The next greatest teacher is observation, paying attention to someone else's experiences and profiting from their wins and losses, trials and errors.
In my generation I have seen the rise and fall of fascism, communism, different experiments in socialism and the kind of downright social and fiscal foolishness that leads to what has recently happened in Greece.
There is an old saying that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
There is at this time a huge debate in our nation about the private ownership of firearms. The president and the anti-gun crowd claim they do not want to do away with private ownership, that they only want to modify the existing laws having to do with assault weapons -which can be construed as anything in your gun cabinet of any heavy caliber - and clips for semiautomatic weapons holding more than 10 bullets.
I submit to you that what is going on here is the first assault on private gun ownership
They will take what ever they can get now and continue to chip away until all you can legally own to protect your family with is a baseball bat.
Did you know that one of the major reasons the Japanese did not attempt to land troops on the American
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
They will take what ever they can get now and continue to chip away until all you can legally own to protect your family with is a baseball bat.
Sorry, you are incorrect. The first assualt was the gun control act of 1968.
I traveled in Europe in the 80’s. Every Swiss village had a target range and it is the only country I have experienced where national guard soldiers traveled on public transportation carrying their personal weapons and ammo.
A very peaceful place.
I believe you are correct on the year, full auto, and sawed off shotguns were banned at that time.
Gun laws are like Johnny Cash’s Caddilac.
Gay marriage started in a similar fahion with just wanting to get rid of sosomy laws and be left alone to the present in our faces gay marriage and now on to the march that decriminalizes pedophilia. All of them are sick bastards.
"Experience keeps a dear school, but a fool will learn in no other." -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack
The National Firearms Act of 1934, I believe it was. The Supreme Court decision that made it part of the U.S. Code was U.S. vs. Miller, 1939. FDR wanted a constitutional test (a winning one, of course) for his unconstitutional statute, so he ordered his solicitor general to scout around for a suitable firearms case.
Miller was the result: Two defendants, one dead and the other imprisoned and penniless, and a resigned lawyer who left only a brief that sat on the defense table unattended and undefended during oral arguments . That was FDR's idea of a fair test, when he came after our rights. It cries out for redecision, and overturning.
The left has started this campaign of evil from the top of a mountain of millions of innocent dead.
California testing limits of gun-control rules in wake of Newtown shooting
By Claudia Cowan
Published January 13, 2013
California already has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Buying a handgun requires registration, a safety certificate, a 10-day waiting period and a rigorous background check. All direct person-to-person sales are banned and concealed-carry permits are rare.
But now, in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, lawmakers in the Golden State have launched into a new legislative frenzy to restrict firearms further. And they’re confident the measures will pass, given Democrats have a two-thirds “super majority” in both chambers — which means they have the power to pass legislation and get constitutional amendments on the ballot without a single Republican vote.
Political analysts say the political landscape puts California in the pole position to test gun-control limits.
“Almost any idea that anybody in this country has, as to further regulate and limit access to weapons or ammunition, is probably going to get passed in California,” said Democratic strategist and USC law professor Susan Estrich.
The problem with their logic, other than being willing crime victims, is that they cannot point to a single instance of gun confiscation working out ok for the population. The Brits are a generation or two away from Islamic law. Likewise the Scandinavians. There can certainly be a camelot period where the guns are gone but the people have yet to be enslaved. That period always ends.
To the extent necessary, it already has been. I'll explain.
The trial court in the case against Miller and Layton DISMISSED the charges on Second Amendment grounds with no detailed explanation.
It was the prosecution which appealed the decision directly to the US Supreme Court.
The prosecution, in their brief, made two major claims to overturn the lower court dismissal. Firstly, they proposed that the Second Amendment only protects members of an organized Militia. Secondly, they proposed that the particular weapon which required a government license under the National Firearms Act of 1934, a short-barreled shotgun, was not useful to a Militia and therefore the Second Amendment did not protect the possession of such a weapon.
On the first point, the Supreme Court didn't even respond. It was evidently so obvious that the Second Amendment protects a "right of the people" that it was not necessary to even comment on the idea that Miller was not the subject of the protection.
As to the assertion that the particular weapon was not useful to a Militia, the Supreme Court agreed with the prosecution (an agreement which would have been irrelevant to the case had Miller not been the subject of the Second Amendment) but pointed out that there had been no evidence submitted which would provide guidance to the Supreme Court as to whether the short-barreled shotgun would be protected.
Because the Supreme Court lacked evidence regarding the shotgun, they REVERSED the dismissal and REMANDED the case back to the lower court.
Since short-barreled shotguns had been used as trench guns in World War I, there is no reason to believe that the lower court would find that such weapons were not protected by the Second Amendment and a second dismissal should have resulted.
Because one of the original defendants, (there were two; Miller and Layton) had died and the other had taken a plea bargain, no such trial was ever held.
In a series of acts of supreme tyranny, the lower courts fabricated a "collective rights" interpretation of US vs Miller which was without legal foundation whatever. And the Supreme Court enabled this tyranny by refusing to review these lower court decisions for almost seventy years until the Heller decision in 2008.
The Heller decision DID overturn the narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment in Miller that only weapons suitable for a Militia were protected. By recognizing the legitimate right of self-defense with arms, we now have TWO categories of arms which are to be protected.
The Heller decision allows for exceptions to the protection of the Second Amendment "in sensitive places" and certain persons and unusual or dangerous weapons may still be regulated.
It would be a stretch to claim that AR type rifles and normal capacity magazines are too unusual or dangerous given that every soldier and most police departments use them.
Wrong. The first Federal one was the 1934 National Firearms Act.
I still interpret this as the Roosevelt Administration playing rough with an indigent defendant to get the outcome the President wanted for political reasons.
And yes, the NFA would appear to be ripe for revisitation, especially as regards suppressed and short-barreled weapons. Under Heller, SCOTUS might agree -- if we could see a case there before Obama assassinates CJ Roberts and elevates Diesel Kagan to be his Vanguard CJ and Sister in the Righteous Struggle of the Narodny Proletariat -- that fully-automatic weapons are armory weapons and ought to be kept there, but any man of reasonable military age ought to be found to be a member of the Unorganized Militia and able to obtain them without onerous and confiscation-minded federal legal or processual attachments.
Estrich is the bigtime feminist she-pleader who managed Michael Dukakis's 1988 presidential campaign.
All teeth and attitude, extremely unpleasant woman. I'd like to lock her in a closet with Alan Dershowitz.
The nice thing about "select-fire" rifles is that one need not trust to an "armory" to store one's arms. One's machinegun is just a selector switch click away. If one needs only semi-auto fire, then select THAT.
Storing community owned weapons in a common location is just exactly what motivated the government to move on Lexington and Concord. We should learn from history and not repeat its mistakes.
Whoever has the keys to the armory is fully armed. Whoever doesn't have the keys, is, at least partially, disarmed.
Good point. But I was only speaking of armory weapons, which I'd define as explosives-projector and crew-served weapons such as mortars and HMG's.
One's personal weapons, whether a brace of flintlock pistols running all the way up a broad leather sash (a la Edward Teach) or a modern Uzi, would, of course, be the citizen's business.
Congress could attempt, still, to interfere in citizens' attempts to arm themselves, by using its Article I power to prescribe the armament of the Militia. If they say single-shot caplocks only, then that's a problem for the People.
No. Nor was it the National Firearms Act of 1934, nor was it the Sullivan Act of 1911 ... Gun control, as an evil act of repression, was invented in the 1800s. Weapons control laws predate guns ... and have ALWAYS bee designed to give government oppressors an advantage over the oppressed population.
This is what the Constitution says:
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, ..."
"To provide for arming the Militia" is not synonymous with "disarming the People". The federal government can provide all the weapons that it wants. It lacks the power to deprive any law-abiding person of their weapons.
Buried on the property of Jones' Tavern were "... three massive pieces, firing 24-pound shot, that were much too heavy to use defensively, but very effective against fortifications, with sufficient range to bombard the city of Boston from other parts of nearby mainland." [From Wikipedia]
The article says that the British commander knew there were arms buried there. These three pieces were destroyed. Those that were moved elsewhere were saved.
There's very little justification for storing ANY arms in a central location, known to the government, if it is at all practical to leave the arms in trusted private hands.
"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.", 18 November 1993, as U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, Associated Press interview
Nelson "Pete" Shields III, known as "Peter Shields"
Founder of Handgun Control, Inc., now the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily ... given the political realities ... very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.", 26 June 1976, New Yorker Magazine
" Our ultimate goal - total control of all guns- is going to take time ... The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal.", 26 July 1976, New Yorker Magazine
"We're going to have to take this one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal- total control of handguns in the United States- is going to take time...The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced...The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of handguns and all handgun ammunition- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors- totally illegal.", 26 July 1976 New Yorker Magazine
Chairman, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, formerly Handgun Control, Inc. & Wife of James "Jim" Brady
"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough.", 1 July 1988
"Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.", January 1994, In a letter to Senator Howard Metzenbaum, The National Educator.
"We must get rid of all the guns.", September 1994, Phil Donahue Show Interview
"There is no personal right to be armed for private purposes unrelated to the service in a well regulated militia.", 6 June 1997, Richmond Times-Dispatch
"I don't believe gun owners have rights.", October 1997, "Handguns in America", Hearst Newspapers Special Report
"I believe that the interpretation of the second amendment does not necessarily give every individual the right to keep and bear arms. However, I, personally, am not against the ability for any law abiding person to keep and bear arms for legitimate purposes.", 9 February 2001, ABC News Interview
Board Member, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, formerly Handgun Control, Inc. & Husband of Sara Brady
"It is not a loss of freedom. It's a measure to protect it.", 21 March 1991, On gun control, congressional testimony.
"I just believed that what I was doing was right. I told the NRA (National Rifle Association) I would make it my life's ambition to see you all don't exist anymore and I will do this until I put them out of business. That keeps me going when I have to deal with rude people.", 21 May 1994, Hartford Courant
"For target shooting, that's okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that's why we have police departments.", 26 June 1994, Parade Magazine Article
United States Senator, Liberal Democrat, California
"And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.", 27 April 1995, C-Span
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.", 18 November 1993, Associated Press
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in,' I would have done it.", 5 February 1995, CBS, 60 Minutes, Interview
United States Attorney General, Clinton Administration 1993-2001 Dade County Florida State Attorney
"The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace.", 1991, Speech to B'nai B'rith, Ft. Lauderdale FL Gathering
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.", December 1993
"Gun registration is not enough.", 10 December 1993, Good Morning America Interview
United States Senator, Liberal Democrat, Ohio
"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns.", 1993, Brady Bill Debate
United States Senator, Liberal Democrat, New York
"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!", 8 December 1993, NBC Interview
Michael K. Beard
President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun.", 6 December 1993, Washington Times
Mary Ann Carlson
Vermont State Senator
"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. .If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."
Washington Post, writer
"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.", 5 April 1996, Washington Post
President Clinton White House Official, Specializing in gun control
"We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns [to ban]", 22 October 1997, Los Angeles Times
U.S. House of representative, from Illinois, Liberal Democrat
"If it were up to me we'd ban them all [firearms].", 9 December 1993, CNN Crossfire
Washington Post, writer
"We must reverse this psychology (of needing guns for home defense). WE can do it by passing a law that says anyone found in possession a a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail- period!", 1981, Washington DC Syndicated Columnist
"A complete and universal federal ban on the sale, manufacture, importation and possession of handguns , 1985, Washington Post Article.
Note: Rowan in 1988 was arrested and tried for shooting a teenager skinny dipping in his pool that he shot with an unregistered .22 caliber pistol.