Gun confiscation in Britain, the U.S. is next

Didn't bother to click on the link, as the title of this thread would indicate a lack of understanding of the differences between the U.S. Constitution and Britain's system. Ever heard of ex post facto????
 
Didn't bother to click on the link, as the title of this thread would indicate a lack of understanding of the differences between the U.S. Constitution and Britain's system. Ever heard of ex post facto????
Click to expand...

Oh you must be one of the ones that think the constitution is not under fire so to speak?
 
Oh you must be one of the ones that think the constitution is not under fire so to speak?
Click to expand...

Nope, just somebody who sees no nexus between what's happening to the Queen'sasskissers and us. :D'

Ever heard of ex post facto, I reiterate??
 
Ever heard of ex post facto, I reiterate??
Click to expand...

ex post facto

United States
In the United States, ex post facto laws are prohibited in federal law by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and in state law by section 10. Over the years, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in the Calder v. Bull case of 1798, in which Justice Chase established four categories of unconstitutional ex post facto laws. The case dealt with Article I, section 10, since it dealt with a Connecticut state law.

However, not all laws with ex post facto effects have been found to be unconstitutional. One current U.S. law that has an ex post facto effect is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. This law, which imposes new registration requirements on convicted sex offenders, gives the U.S. Attorney General the authority to apply the law retroactively.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Doe (2003) that forcing sex offenders to register their whereabouts at regular intervals and the posting of personal information about them on the Internet does not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, because compulsory registration of offenders who completed their sentences before new laws requiring compliance went into effect does not constitute a punishment.[2]

Another example is the so-called Lautenburg law where firearms prohibitions were imposed on those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses and subjects of restraining orders (which do not require a criminal conviction). These individuals can now be sentenced to up to 10 years in a federal prison for possession of a firearm, regardless of whether or not the weapon was legally possessed at the time the law was passed. Among those that it is claimed the law has affected is a father who was convicted of a misdemeanor of child abuse despite claims that he had only spanked his child, since anyone convicted of child abuse now faces a lifetime firearms prohibition. The law has been legally upheld because it is considered regulatory, not punitive - it is a status offense.
 
Gun confiscation in Britain, the U.S. is next
Click to expand...

zOMG TEH KOMMIES R COMING FUR AR GUNZ!!!!!!1111!!!!11!

The US isn't "next."

The US will be the last. And they'll never succeed. Not because of a misplaced sense of lazy sunshine patriotism that "it'll never happen here," but because of the people that I know and respect as Americans. Because of my lobbying efforts, and the efforts of likeminded people.

Let them come. In fact, many are already here. We're fighting the good fight, and we'll win.
 
Didn't bother to click on the link, as the title of this thread would indicate a lack of understanding of the differences between the U.S. Constitution and Britain's system. Ever heard of ex post facto????
Click to expand...

Oh you must be one of the ones that think the constitution is not under fire so to speak?
Click to expand...

No, just one of the ones who doesnt think the sky is falling...
 
We have this Gizmo called the 2nd Amendment! They did not have one. If WE THE PEOPLE, FIGHT FOR IT ,IT WILL NOT JUST ROLE UP AND GO AWAY!
 
The US is not next- the situation in the US is far more complicated in that the US has both a Federal Government and States.

Secondly there is a strong pro gun culture in the US that would never tolerate confiscation- particularly after seeing prohibition fail.
 
It's not next.

But surely you don't need more than a bolt action for hunting or target shooting.

If you're only target shooting you don't need more than a .22.

And so on. Chip, chip, chip.
 
At first there will not be mass confiscations of firearms. Odds are they will start by either A. Imposing a huge (10,000%) tax on ammunition or B. Require manufacturers to serial number each round thereby greatly limiting the amount of ammo available and drastically increasing the cost. Both ideas have been discussed for some time now. Next if the commie libs take control, :barf: they will stack the courts and rule the 2nd Amendment does not apply to handguns and confiscate them or possibly certain ones (SA) leaving revolvers. Then the snowball rolls outta control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top