WINSTON THE WOLF
Moderator
you got me thinking about this. What about having a notary sign off. On your GUN models and serial numbers?
That would be proff that you had them. before the ban
HR 6257 - AWB Reinstate
- Thread starter ShortTimer
- Start date
you got me thinking about this. What about having a notary sign off. On your GUN models and serial numbers?
That would be proff that you had them. before the bancopenhagen
New member
"Out of my cold dead hands." (rest in peace Mr. Heston) At any rate, who cares? That's like trying to prove that you are only one 16th Jew in Nazi Germany. I think my Granddad said something about wrestling with pigs making you smell like a pig?
Thats a hard one since the court has said that we do have the right to self defense with a firearm in our home. So if someone with alot of time and money could prove all those guns listed as banned were guns that could be used in self defense then why not strike the AWB down.
Trying to keep this related to assault weapons, but I need to tie in the Heller case. Seems that the majority opinion was of the thinking that assault weapons and possibly even assault rifles might be acceptable as militia weapons in common use at the time (present day). This will be another battle that will have to be fought. Hopefully, it will give the gun controlling left pause to think about whether any new law will violate the Second Amendment, which we now have a USSC ruling telling everyone it protects an individual right, not the right of states to arm their militias.
Certainly, a semiautomatic firearm, such as an AR15, would be useful for militia duties and is relatively common at this time. Thus it should pass the US vs. Miller scrutiny as far as which arms are protected by the 2nd A. The anti's can no longer cloud the issue by saying that it doesn't matter because the 2nd amendment only protects the rights of states to form and arm their miltias. That debating point has been snuffed out like a cigar butt on cold pavement.
Certainly, a semiautomatic firearm, such as an AR15, would be useful for militia duties and is relatively common at this time. Thus it should pass the US vs. Miller scrutiny as far as which arms are protected by the 2nd A. The anti's can no longer cloud the issue by saying that it doesn't matter because the 2nd amendment only protects the rights of states to form and arm their miltias. That debating point has been snuffed out like a cigar butt on cold pavement.
Last edited:
As scary as it is to think about the reinstatement-nay-the expansion of the 1994 ban, it might be very beneficial to us to have the current Supreme Court revisit the application of US vs. Miller. If they reject assault rifle-derived semi-autos (ARs and AKs, for example) as not being "ordinary military equipment," then it would have to be because bona-fide military organizations tend to use actual selective fire rifles. That would actually open the door for the legalization of true assault rifles. If they do hold them to be "ordinary military equipment," then at least the military style semi-autos, complete with flash suppressors, are good to go. Of course, selective-fire and sub-guns would be cool too (and also legal with a proper application of US vs. Miller), but I wouldn't hold my breath. That may take a challenge of the 86 ban specifically.
Northern Sod Breaker
New member
I guess you guys haven't figured out yet that the NRA only cares about high dollar trap guns. That's the main reason I declined to join. I came close once. But I saw the NRA sticker on too many Cadies and not enough on Fords. I figured that told me everything I wanted to know. I also went to a sanctioned trap shoot. They looked down their noses at me for having a Mossy that also shoots squirrels and deer slugs. Mean while they shot their break opens that costed more then a brand new Chevy car.
I figured if they didn't want me part of their "club" that's fine, No hard feelings. But yet my money's good enough for them so now there is bad blood. Besides It's been brought up more then once (and promptly ignored/dismissed by the faithful) that the high ups of the NRA have supported gun control going all the way back to 1934. It's been discussed on TFL so many times I'm not going to bring it back. Anyone interested can search TFL for it. There have got to be at least 30 pages worth of this.
Silver Bullet
New member
Oh boy! "Gridlock" !
Silver Bullet
New member
You're right; I haven't figured that out.
This is another example of one simple truth. Republicans can no longer be considered "conservative" by default. No more straight ticket voting. If you do, you might as well vote for the other side too as there is little difference these days, between a democrat and a republican.
Vote only for conservatives or hand over your weapons, gentlemen.
Vote only for conservatives or hand over your weapons, gentlemen.
copenhagen
New member
Six of One, Half Dozen of the Other. I for one am an Independent Constitutionalist Libertarian.
Master Blaster
New member
Like Curly Joe Fine once said:
" I cant see I cant see"
Mo Fine replied " What sa Matter?"
Curly replies: I GOT MY EYES CLOSED
I say horse crap, join the NRA, and find a different gun club.
Northern Sod Breaker
New member
Don't take my words for it. Just do a search here at TFL when you get spare time. Something about then president of the NRA saying the NFA was perfectly alright.
Master Blaster posted:
Being a HUGE Three Stooges fan, (NYUK, NYUK, NYUK), I have to correct this. Sorry. It was Moe Howard and Curley Joe Howard. They also had a brother named Shemp Howard who was part of the Three Stooges in some of their movies and shorts. Larry was Larry Fine.
Remember when Moe, Larry, and Curley were doctors? "Doctor Howard, Doctor Fine, Doctor Howard".
wooob wooob woooob woooob. Ah wise guy, eh? ruff. ruff. ruff.
Being a HUGE Three Stooges fan, (NYUK, NYUK, NYUK), I have to correct this. Sorry. It was Moe Howard and Curley Joe Howard. They also had a brother named Shemp Howard who was part of the Three Stooges in some of their movies and shorts. Larry was Larry Fine.
Remember when Moe, Larry, and Curley were doctors? "Doctor Howard, Doctor Fine, Doctor Howard".
wooob wooob woooob woooob. Ah wise guy, eh? ruff. ruff. ruff.
I apologize if someone already mentioned this, but here's my prediction.
If McCain wins the Presidency, and the democrat gains in congress are not a route, the new AWB will never see the light of day. They could get it passed, but not with veto proof majority. McCain would veto. Thus, it will not get sent to McCain as a bill.
If McCain wins, and democrats route republicans in congressional races, the dems will pass a new AWB, McCain will veto, and the democrats will over ride the veto. We get a new AWB. It will be challenged in due time, but how long will that take? Long enough for there to be some new judges on the Supreme Court? McCain better try to nominate conservative justices. However, if the dems control the Senate, he won't get any conservative justices through Leaky Leahy and his band of merry makers. McCain will have to settle for moderates. They may decline to hear a case, rather than bump up against Heller.
If Obama wins, the new AWB will be presented to him within the first few weeks in office, and he will sign it. There will be challenges, but again, how long will it take to get those challenges to the USSC? Will Obama have appointed new liberal justices to the court? Will they ignore Heller and rule that the AWB is constitutional under a lower level of scrutiny? Will they refuse to take the case? These are all events that could take place and must be considered as we vote this fall. Not just for President but for Senators and House members. If you don't want to vote for McCain, at the very least, get to the polls and vote for your conservative candidates for the House and Senate. Also, vote for conservatives at the state and local levels. Notice i didn't say republicans. Some of them are not conservatives, but are liberals wearing stinking GOP badges! Rant over.
If McCain wins the Presidency, and the democrat gains in congress are not a route, the new AWB will never see the light of day. They could get it passed, but not with veto proof majority. McCain would veto. Thus, it will not get sent to McCain as a bill.
If McCain wins, and democrats route republicans in congressional races, the dems will pass a new AWB, McCain will veto, and the democrats will over ride the veto. We get a new AWB. It will be challenged in due time, but how long will that take? Long enough for there to be some new judges on the Supreme Court? McCain better try to nominate conservative justices. However, if the dems control the Senate, he won't get any conservative justices through Leaky Leahy and his band of merry makers. McCain will have to settle for moderates. They may decline to hear a case, rather than bump up against Heller.
If Obama wins, the new AWB will be presented to him within the first few weeks in office, and he will sign it. There will be challenges, but again, how long will it take to get those challenges to the USSC? Will Obama have appointed new liberal justices to the court? Will they ignore Heller and rule that the AWB is constitutional under a lower level of scrutiny? Will they refuse to take the case? These are all events that could take place and must be considered as we vote this fall. Not just for President but for Senators and House members. If you don't want to vote for McCain, at the very least, get to the polls and vote for your conservative candidates for the House and Senate. Also, vote for conservatives at the state and local levels. Notice i didn't say republicans. Some of them are not conservatives, but are liberals wearing stinking GOP badges! Rant over.
