- Comms
- Law
- Medic
- News
- Opinion
- Threat Watch
- Training
- Warrior Tools
- Accessories
- Ammo
- Body Armor
- Books
- Clothing
- Commo
- Gear
- Handguns
- Holsters
- Knives
- Long Guns
- ACC
- Accuracy International
- Barrett
- Benelli
- Beretta
- Blaser
- Bushmaster
- Custom
- CZ
- Desert Tactical Arms
- DPMS
- FN
- Forums
- HK
- IWI
- Kel-Tec Long Guns
- LaRue
- LWRC
- McMillan
- Mosin Nagant
- Mossberg
- Para
- Remington
- Rock River Arms
- Ruger Long Guns
- Sabre Defense
- Sako
- SIG Sauer
- SKS
- Smith & Wesson Long Guns
- Springfield
- Styer
- Weatherby
- Wilson Combat
- Winchester
- Magazines
- Maintenance
- Navigation
- Optics
- Sights
- Tech
- Warriors
Posts Tagged constitution
Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban
From: Gallup
PRINCETON, NJ — A record-low 26% of Americans favor a legal ban on the possession of handguns in the United States other than by police and other authorized people. When Gallup first asked Americans this question in 1959, 60% favored banning handguns. But since 1975, the majority of Americans have opposed such a measure, with opposition around 70% in recent years.
Could HR 822 be amended like the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986?
The fears presented in the previous post on the dangers of amendments to HR 822 are not unfounded, they are based on precedent, and the fact that the NRA seems to have ignored addressing this issue is troubling. The net result  in 1986 was that the “Firearm Owners Protection Act” created a de-facto ban on the ownership of “machine guns” from that day forward.
This was not the original intent of that legislation and yet that is the legislation that was passed into law.
I’m not a legal expert and I would love to have the NRA experts explain to us how another Firearm Owners Protection Act debacle can be avoided.
From: Wikipedia
Machine Gun Ban: The Hughes Amendment
As debate for FOPA was in its final stages in the House before moving on to the Senate, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed several amendments including House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332 [4]that would ban a civilian from ownership or transfer rights of any fully automatic weapon which was not registered as of May 19, 1986. The amendment also held that any such weapon manufactured and registered before the May 19 cutoff date could still be legally owned and transferred by civilians.
In the morning hours of April 10, 1986, the House held recorded votes on three amendments to FOPA in Record Vote No’s 72, 73, and 74.
Recorded Vote 72 was on H.AMDT. 776, an amendment to H.AMDT 770 involving the interstate sale of handguns; while Recorded Vote 74 was on H.AMDT 770, involving primarily the easing of interstate sales and the safe passage provision.
Recorded Vote 74 was the controversial Hughes Amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding as Chairman over the proceedings, claimed that the “amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to.” However, after the voice vote on the Hughes Amendment, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) ignored a plea to take a recorded vote and moved on to Recorded Vote 74 where the Hughes Amendment failed.[5][6]
The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75 on a motion to recommit. Despite the controversial amendment, the Senate, in S.B. 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill. The bill was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan to become Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act.
H.R. 822: Protecting Gun Owners rights or handing more control to the Federal Government?
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Law, News on 14/Oct/2011 17:12
The NRA has come out strongly in favor of H.R. 822, while the National Association for Gun Rights has taken the exact opposite view, warning that H.R. 822 is a dangerous threat to the rights of gun owners.
The National Association for Gun Rights calls the bill a “Trojan Horseâ€, warning that although the bill looks OK on the surface, it’s writers are naively allowing the Federal Government more control in an area that needs to remain solidly under the authority of the States.
The position of the National Association for Gun Rights is that the Constitution grants Americans the right to bear arms, we don’t need or want the Federal Government to have any more control, adding layers of bureaucracy, making it more difficult for Americans to own and carry firearms.
Dudley Brown, of the NAGR, says, “While the idea that all states should recognize a concealed weapons permit is sound public policy, the use of the anti-gun federal bureaucracy to implement it is simply foolish.â€
The NAGR warns that the current bill makes it too easy for a rider or amendment to be slipped in, turning H.R. 822 from a positive-sounding measure to something that hands more power to the Federal Government – that gun owners face the serious risk politicians will pull a fast one and gun owners will lose ground that we will not be able to take back.
Dudley Brown said,
“So-called “pro-gun†Republicans even KILLED an amendment that would have allowed permit holders to defend themselves in the District of Columbia, one of the most dangerous cities in the country.
Over the past two days, amendments have been offered to require REAL ID-type government requirements on state CCW permits as well as giving Eric Holder the power to classify even more gun owners as “terrorists.â€
And while these amendments may have failed in the House, Harry Reid’s Senate is sure to put the screws to gun owners.
The Senate DOES have the votes to impose a HOST of anti-gun amendments to H.R. 822 much like they have done with legislation in the past.â€
Brown also warns:
“This bill isn’t just about the right to carry for self defense — it’s a battle over the role of government and the ability to restrict our Second Amendment rights.
Many statists in Washington will co-opt H.R. 822 as part of their grab for more federal power and less individual liberty.â€
That is the real danger here.
These are few of the potential threats the NAGR says could result from H.R. 822 being passed:
- More onerous standards to acquire a permit, so that only FBI agents can pass muster (look at New York’s permit system);
- Higher fees;
- More training requirements;
- A demonstration of “Need†for a permit;
- More frequent renewal periods;
- Federally-mandated waiting periods;
- A national database of all permit holders, accessible by Attorney General Eric Holder;
- An extensive, federally-created list of Criminal Safezones, where only criminals will carry and where law-abiding gun owners are vulnerable
We’d like to think that the NRA stands solidly with gun owners, that they are using their political and financial clout to protect the rights of gun owners, but there is a precedent for bills starting out to be supportive of gun rights but winding up actually legislating stricter gun control.
A classic example of this was the the bill H.R. 4332, which eventually became the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act.
“The gun rights movement lobbied Congress to pass the FOPA to prevent the abuse of regulatory power — in particular, to address claims that the ATF was repeatedly inspecting FFL holders for the apparent purpose of harassment intended to drive the FFL holders out of business (as the FFL holders would constantly be having to tend to ATF inspections instead of to customers).â€
The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 addressed the abuses noted in the 1982 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee report. Gun rights advocates pushed for it and this is what they got:
- It reopened interstate sales of long guns on a limited basis, allowed ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service (a partial repeal of the Gun Control Act),
- ended record keeping on ammunition sales, except for armor piercing,
- permitted travel between states supportive of Second Amendment rights even through those areas less supportive of these rights, and
- addressed several other issues that had effectively restricted Second Amendment rights.
“However, the act also contained a provision that banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement.
Thus, in the ensuing years, the limited supply of these arms available to civilians has caused an enormous increase in their price, with most costing in excess of $10,000.”
So, although H.R. 4332 was intended to improve the status of gun owners, the Hughes Amendment ended up banning machine guns – which has not been reversed. In an Orwellian turn of events, the “Firearms Owners’ Protection Act” ended up preventing Americans from owning an entire class of firearms.
Rights are easy to lose and very difficult to re-gain.
Man ordered to surrender guns – because of what he wrote on blog
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Law, News on 30/Sep/2011 11:20
‘My life’s in danger now. I can’t defend myself, I can’t defend you’
By Joe Kovacs
“An Arizona man has filed a federal lawsuit against some of the state’s top judges, claiming they’re taking away his freedom of speech and right to own firearms, all because someone didn’t like what he wrote on his blog.
“You can’t suspend someone’s constitutional rights [for blogging],” said Mike Palmer, who is bringing forth the legal action. “Everybody in America blogs or Twitters, so it’s a First and Second Amendment issue.”
The scenario started when Palmer, a 55-year-old Christian missionary from Phoenix, was online discussing “spiritual death” often referred to in the Bible.
But, according to the suit, a woman from Prescott, Ariz., Melody Thomas-Morgan, complained to authorities that Palmer was threatening her with “death,” keeping that word in quotes in her legal filings.
Kenton Jones, superior court judge for Yavapai County, went along with the woman’s harassment complaint and ordered Palmer to surrender his guns.
“The order says that I am not allowed to possess firearms or ammunition, and directs me to turn over any weapons to the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office,” Palmer told WND.
“I certainly want my gun rights,” he added. “There is no law in Arizona which allows the courts to suspend any constitutional right, but in this instance, my Second Amendment right. And, of course, my life’s in danger now. I can’t defend myself, I can’t defend you. I can’t defend my fellow man.”
9/11 Completely Changed Surveillance in U.S.
Posted by Gary in Comms, Law, News, Threat Watch on 12/Sep/2011 15:46
From: Wired
Former AT&T engineer Mark Klein handed a sheaf of papers in January 2006 to lawyers at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, providing smoking-gun evidence that the National Security Agency, with the cooperation of AT&T, was illegally sucking up American citizens’ internet usage and funneling it into a database.
The documents became the heart of civil liberties lawsuits against the government and AT&T. But Congress, including then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois), voted in July 2008 to override the rights of American citizens to petition for a redress of grievances.
Congress passed a law that absolved AT&T of any legal liability for cooperating with the warrantless spying. The bill, signed quickly into law by President George W. Bush, also largely legalized the government’s secret domestic-wiretapping program.
Obama pledged to revisit and roll back those increased powers if he became president. But, he did not.
Prosecutors Demand Laptop Password in Violation of Fifth Amendment
From: EFF
Prosecutors Demand Laptop Password in Violation of Fifth Amendment
EFF has urged a federal court to block the government’s attempt to force a woman to enter a password into an encrypted laptop. During the investigation, the government seized the device from the home she shares with her family, and then asked the court to compel the woman to type the password into the computer or turn over a decrypted version of her data. But EFF told the court that the demand is unconstitutional, violating her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
SWAT Team Raids Stockton Man’s Home For Not Paying His Student Loan
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Law, News, Threat Watch on 18/Jul/2011 16:15
New regulation requires firearms dealers along border to report multiple sales
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Law, News on 12/Jul/2011 17:53
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
WASHINGTON — “The Obama administration on Monday approved a new regulation requiring firearms dealers along the Southwest border to report multiple sales of certain semiautomatic rifles, a rule intended to make it harder for Mexican drug cartels to obtain and smuggle weapons from the United States.
Under the rule, dealers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas will be required to inform the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives if someone buys — within a five-day period — more than one semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and uses ammunition greater than .22 caliber. Such weapons include AK-47s.
…Mr. LaPierre contended that it should take an act of Congress to impose such a requirement, not a regulation developed by the executive branch alone. He noted that the similar rule requiring dealers to report multiple handgun sales was part of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
“We view it as a blatant attempt by the Obama administration to pursue their gun-control agenda through backdoor rule making, and the N.R.A. will fight them every step of the way,†he said. “There are three branches of government and separation of powers, and we believe they do not have the authority to do this.â€
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker Signs Concealed-carry Bill into Law
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Law, News on 10/Jul/2011 17:24
ROTHSCHILD, Wis. (AP) — “Wisconsin has become the 49th state to legalize the carrying of concealed weapons.
Gov. Scott Walker signed a bill Friday removing the state’s ban. Except for a few minor aspects, the bulk of the law goes into effect in November.
Under Wisconsin’s law, people who obtain a permit and go through training will be allowed to carry concealed weapons in most public buildings, including the state Capitol and city halls, unless a sign is posted saying they are not permitted.”
http://www.newsmax.com/US/ConcealedCarry-Wisconsin/2011/07/09/id/403027?s=al&promo_code=C95C-1
Department of Education SWAT Raid
Posted by Brian in Law, News, Threat Watch on 8/Jun/2011 13:50
This news story comes from The Daily Mail Online, a British publication:
Mr Wright was later told by Stockton police that the order to send in the SWAT team came from The U.S. Department of Education who were looking for his estranged wife to collect defaulted loan payments.
He says he was then detained for six hours while officers looked for his wife – who no longer lives at the house.
More from Reason.com
It appears that every department of the federal government will eventually be militarized. This situation is the exact reason the second amendment was added to the Constitution.
NRA’s LaPierre: Obama will wait second term to gut Second Amendment rights, Eric Holder should resign
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Law, News, Opinion on 30/Apr/2011 15:28
“President Barack Obama will wait until a second term frees him from political concerns to gut Second Amendment rights, NRA Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre tells Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview.
Speaking Saturday at the NRA’s 140th annual meeting in Pittsburgh, LaPierre also called for the resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder over a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms sting that sold weapons to figures associated with the Mexico drug trade.
“Operation Fast and Furious may have gotten one or perhaps two federal agents killed, and countless other innocent victims have been murdered with the illegal guns that our own government allowed into Mexico all to advance a political agenda,†he said, adding that Holder has claimed he didn’t OK the sting..
“He’s the attorney general of the United States of America – the highest law enforcement officer in our land,†LaPierre said. “Who’s in charge? If he didn’t know, then who’s minding the store? If Holder didn’t know, Holder has got to go.
Incoming DNC Head Wants All Gun Purchases Screened
From The Hill:
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the current law, which allows private firearm sales without background checks, is “outrageous.” The Florida Democrat is sponsoring a soon-to-be-released proposal extending the screening requirements to all gun purchases, commercial or private.
This will only hurt the Democratic Party and the President if any kind of bill is introduced. Every time the Democrats propose something related to guns we all know that it is intended as a stepping stone to eventual disarmament of the American public. For those that have forgotten:
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
“A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” (emphasis added)
Tell Congress: It’s Time for Some Sanity when it comes to Security
Posted by Gary in Law, News, Opinion, Threat Watch on 16/Apr/2011 12:44
It’s not often that the ACLU and I are on the same side of an issue.
From: ACLU
A 6-year old getting patted down at the airport — leaving her confused and in tears because she thought she did something wrong — is an example of the out-of-control searches and security measures in our airports.
Aviation security requires striking a delicate balance between the personal safety of passengers and their right to privacy. Unfortunately, TSA has developed increasingly invasive methods of searching passengers that are encroaching upon their rights. The TSA has subjected passengers to “enhanced” pat-downs, which have resulted in reports of people feeling humiliated and traumatized, and, in some cases, reports comparing their psychological impact to sexual assaults.
Tell Congress to support the bipartisan Aircraft Passenger Whole-Body Imaging Limitations Act of 2011. Read more.
Charlton Heston’s “A Torch With No Flame”
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Law, News, Opinion on 29/Mar/2011 18:44