You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
O.K. they're suing Gun Makers, What can we do
- Thread starter leedesert
- Start date
Maybe send emails and faxes to the White House telling His Billness to cruise around the projects without his armed bodyguards?
Lee, I hate to sound pessimistic, but there's not a got-damn thing we can do. This is a president who rules by fiat instead of law, for whom the standard rules of conduct don't apply, and who can have people killed with a word. Even if we succeeded in bringing him to court on any of the hundreds of crimes he's committed, there's no way to enforce penalties, since he's above the law and need not comply.
Sorry for the rant, but this bovine exhaust has my blood pressure redlined.
------------------
"The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it."
-- John Hay, 1872
Lee, I hate to sound pessimistic, but there's not a got-damn thing we can do. This is a president who rules by fiat instead of law, for whom the standard rules of conduct don't apply, and who can have people killed with a word. Even if we succeeded in bringing him to court on any of the hundreds of crimes he's committed, there's no way to enforce penalties, since he's above the law and need not comply.
Sorry for the rant, but this bovine exhaust has my blood pressure redlined.
------------------
"The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it."
-- John Hay, 1872
We take a blood oath to defeat every liberal for every office in every election. Make the elections as contentious as possible and then make it more so. Vow to destroy every liberal who seeks office. Every single election from dogcatcher on up.
These people have committed treason by violating oaths of office. Let them know, and I for one will never forget or forgive. We figure out how to get them charged, prosecuted and punished for treason no matter how long it takes be it next year or 40 yrs from now. Treat them like the Nazi war criminals they embrace.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
These people have committed treason by violating oaths of office. Let them know, and I for one will never forget or forgive. We figure out how to get them charged, prosecuted and punished for treason no matter how long it takes be it next year or 40 yrs from now. Treat them like the Nazi war criminals they embrace.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
This is La Vendetta
If a liberal wins, hold their feet to the fire and stay on them constantly. Keep them under the microscope so they will dread getting out of bed each and every morning. Make them justify and explain every single move, even if its not in their purview. They will whine and complain up the chain of command and those people are getting the same treatment.
I'm serious...make a liberal in politics the worst job in existence; make the stress level so high, so miserable and so fierce that those who don't stroke out, have heart attacks and ulcers will never run again
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
If a liberal wins, hold their feet to the fire and stay on them constantly. Keep them under the microscope so they will dread getting out of bed each and every morning. Make them justify and explain every single move, even if its not in their purview. They will whine and complain up the chain of command and those people are getting the same treatment.
I'm serious...make a liberal in politics the worst job in existence; make the stress level so high, so miserable and so fierce that those who don't stroke out, have heart attacks and ulcers will never run again
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
Since all the cities and Hud are filing all these law suits can't we get all these cases rolled in to one case?? Also maybe the U.S Government should be named as a defendant after they train people to shoot(Law Enforcement and Military) and sell surplus weapons... I believe the same thing about Tobacco, after all don't they subsidize tobacco too?? I also believe that if a gun manufacturer or distributor is being sued by an entity, that entity should not sell to city X until the law suit is settled. If city X wants to start a law suit against Glock then maybe Glock should not sell them any more guns or parts untill the suit is settled (goes for ammunition too) Maybe if LEO's had to go out one the street unarmed because some bureaucrat was suing a gun manufacture it would change some minds. Maybe the police should use these “unarmed” officers to guard the politicians who propose the law suits.
After all if they put all the manufacturers out of business were will the LEO get their weapons, but by then they will say that since the population is unarmed that LEOs don’t need guns either. Would some of you LOEs like to comment on that?? Be just like jolly ole England..
[This message has been edited by Alan B (edited December 08, 1999).]
After all if they put all the manufacturers out of business were will the LEO get their weapons, but by then they will say that since the population is unarmed that LEOs don’t need guns either. Would some of you LOEs like to comment on that?? Be just like jolly ole England..
[This message has been edited by Alan B (edited December 08, 1999).]
DC:
I believe that you might be a bit off-base on your "unelect liberals theme". Henry Hyde of Il. is hardly "liberal", yet he is pretty much, down the line, ANTI GUN. He is problematic for other reasons too. Never-the-less, supported some worth while proposals, like reform of civil forfeiture.
Were I a voter in his district, I would vote against Hyde, assuming any reasonable alternative.
It's not party label, how many times have the Republicans sold us down the river. Rather it is a question of, or should be, is any particular office holder, supportive of constitutional rights, in particular rights involved in and with the Second Amendment.
If he or she isn't, get rid of them. Other considerations become secondary.
I believe that you might be a bit off-base on your "unelect liberals theme". Henry Hyde of Il. is hardly "liberal", yet he is pretty much, down the line, ANTI GUN. He is problematic for other reasons too. Never-the-less, supported some worth while proposals, like reform of civil forfeiture.
Were I a voter in his district, I would vote against Hyde, assuming any reasonable alternative.
It's not party label, how many times have the Republicans sold us down the river. Rather it is a question of, or should be, is any particular office holder, supportive of constitutional rights, in particular rights involved in and with the Second Amendment.
If he or she isn't, get rid of them. Other considerations become secondary.
Ed Brunner
New member
It seems that this legal action could be defended by pointing out that the nature of the gun trade is exactly what the government has made it. The government decides who can make or import the guns. They decide who can sell the guns and simply stated they qualify all the buyers. On top of that they control the manner of storage, possession and use of guns AND they collect taxes and/or fees at every step.
It is high time that vote the bastards out and return to a Constitutional government.
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
It is high time that vote the bastards out and return to a Constitutional government.
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
Join, and donate to, the SAF.
From another board: "The Second Amendment Foundation has already submitted papers to the court system in Washington DC to sue the US Council of Mayors and select cities who are attempting to sue gunmakers. Today they responded by saying if HUD pursues lawsuits they are prepared to countersue them, too."
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
From another board: "The Second Amendment Foundation has already submitted papers to the court system in Washington DC to sue the US Council of Mayors and select cities who are attempting to sue gunmakers. Today they responded by saying if HUD pursues lawsuits they are prepared to countersue them, too."
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
If these arms are as inherently dangerous and an unsafe product as manufactured, why don't the feds simply pull their license to manufacture? Because the fabric of lies would come apart right before their eyes.
Here's a plan. Pursuant to the ruling in Prinz wherein Justice Thomas stated:
". . . The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority. That Amendment provides:
"[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment.
[n.1] If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to "keep and bear arms," a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment's protections. ..."
Why don't the manufacturers simply set up in each state and only sell within that state? What do you think would happen if someone were to set up a gun mfg co in a state and, using only materials purchased in that state, employees who live in that state, and facilities common only to that state, and only sold their product within that state? Yes, the feds would come after him but if he does not participate in interstate commerce, they should have no jurisdiction. I'm sure that they would claim so if someone who bought one of their guns took it across the border.
[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited December 09, 1999).]
Here's a plan. Pursuant to the ruling in Prinz wherein Justice Thomas stated:
". . . The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority. That Amendment provides:
"[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment.
[n.1] If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to "keep and bear arms," a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment's protections. ..."
Why don't the manufacturers simply set up in each state and only sell within that state? What do you think would happen if someone were to set up a gun mfg co in a state and, using only materials purchased in that state, employees who live in that state, and facilities common only to that state, and only sold their product within that state? Yes, the feds would come after him but if he does not participate in interstate commerce, they should have no jurisdiction. I'm sure that they would claim so if someone who bought one of their guns took it across the border.
[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited December 09, 1999).]
1. Persons who live in public housing or any housing regulated by HUD have not been permitted to possess guns since about '95 under the terms of their aggreements, they contract away their Rights.
2. So how can the gun makers be serving a non existant market?
3. US Code Title 18, Chapter 13, Sec. 241
"Conspiracies Against Rights"
"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured - They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. "
Seems pretty obvious doesn't it???
------------------
What part of "INFRINGED" don't they understand?
2. So how can the gun makers be serving a non existant market?
3. US Code Title 18, Chapter 13, Sec. 241
"Conspiracies Against Rights"
"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured - They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. "
Seems pretty obvious doesn't it???
------------------
What part of "INFRINGED" don't they understand?
This article doesn't tell us anything we don't know, but, mirable dictu, it's from the Left of Mao New York Post.
http://www.nypost.com/editorial/596.htm
THE PRESIDENT MISFIRES
President Clinton's threat to launch a nationwide class-action lawsuit against gun makers is no surprise: Coming up with a constitutionally dubious and wholly inappropriate response to a legitimate problem is standard operating procedure at this White House.
To obtain legal standing, the Clintonites say they'll file suit through the Department of Housing and Urban Development on behalf of federally-financed housing projects, where gun violence allegedly remains prevalent. Ironically, however, the announcement comes just weeks after the FBI disclosed that the homicide rate is at its lowest level since the nationwide crime explosion began in 1967 -- and that the drop is attributed to police effectiveness in removing guns from the streets.
According to Clinton and HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, the lawsuit is mainly intended to pressure gun makers to settle 29 lawsuits filed by state and local governments. But, as usual, this administration is out to cripple a legal industry that uses perfectly legal methods to sell a legal product.
The president insists he's more interested in forcing a negotiated settlement rather than in waging a courtroom war against gun makers -- but another legal industry that's been bludgeoned by the Clintonite meat ax, tobacco, will tell a far different story.
In fact, the case against the gun industry has far less substance than the White House war on cigarettes. As least it can be argued that tobacco manufacturers tried to hide the dangers of their product; no one has ever been unaware that guns are designed to injure and kill. But they have a legitimate use, as well: self-defense against predators. And survey after survey demonstrates that a perp's worst nightmare is an
armed victim.
But in the wake of the recent rash of school shootings, the Clintonites -- their fingers eternally on their poll results -- feel the need to score political points by very publicly "doing something." No matter if they could do more to address the problem by enforcing laws already on the books that are meant to keep illegal guns out of the wrong hands.
Indeed, the superiority of the enforce-existing-laws approach is manifest in Cuomo's unintentionally revealing justification for this lawsuit threat. "When only 1 percent of the [gun] dealers are selling over 50 percent of the guns used in crimes," he said, "obviously something is wrong and we should be taking action against that 1 percent."
Exactly -- but this administration is not doing that. When 50 percent of the guns used in crimes can be traced to just 389 federally licensed dealers out of more than 100,000 nationwide, it means only a tiny segment is causing the problem. Just how does that justify a class-action suit against the entire industry?
And as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms admitted last summer, this administration simply has turned a blind eye to violators of the Brady Bill, a gun-control law the Clintonites fought hard to pass. Of the more than 400,000 felons and other barred from buying guns under that law, fewer than 1,000 have been prosecuted for lying on their applications; in fact, federal gun-law prosecutions are down 25 percent under this supposedly "get tough on guns" administration.
There are legitimate ways to make guns safer and to keep them out of the hands of criminals and mentally diseased people. As usual, however, Bill Clinton would rather look good than do good.
-- 30 --
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
http://www.nypost.com/editorial/596.htm
THE PRESIDENT MISFIRES
President Clinton's threat to launch a nationwide class-action lawsuit against gun makers is no surprise: Coming up with a constitutionally dubious and wholly inappropriate response to a legitimate problem is standard operating procedure at this White House.
To obtain legal standing, the Clintonites say they'll file suit through the Department of Housing and Urban Development on behalf of federally-financed housing projects, where gun violence allegedly remains prevalent. Ironically, however, the announcement comes just weeks after the FBI disclosed that the homicide rate is at its lowest level since the nationwide crime explosion began in 1967 -- and that the drop is attributed to police effectiveness in removing guns from the streets.
According to Clinton and HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, the lawsuit is mainly intended to pressure gun makers to settle 29 lawsuits filed by state and local governments. But, as usual, this administration is out to cripple a legal industry that uses perfectly legal methods to sell a legal product.
The president insists he's more interested in forcing a negotiated settlement rather than in waging a courtroom war against gun makers -- but another legal industry that's been bludgeoned by the Clintonite meat ax, tobacco, will tell a far different story.
In fact, the case against the gun industry has far less substance than the White House war on cigarettes. As least it can be argued that tobacco manufacturers tried to hide the dangers of their product; no one has ever been unaware that guns are designed to injure and kill. But they have a legitimate use, as well: self-defense against predators. And survey after survey demonstrates that a perp's worst nightmare is an
armed victim.
But in the wake of the recent rash of school shootings, the Clintonites -- their fingers eternally on their poll results -- feel the need to score political points by very publicly "doing something." No matter if they could do more to address the problem by enforcing laws already on the books that are meant to keep illegal guns out of the wrong hands.
Indeed, the superiority of the enforce-existing-laws approach is manifest in Cuomo's unintentionally revealing justification for this lawsuit threat. "When only 1 percent of the [gun] dealers are selling over 50 percent of the guns used in crimes," he said, "obviously something is wrong and we should be taking action against that 1 percent."
Exactly -- but this administration is not doing that. When 50 percent of the guns used in crimes can be traced to just 389 federally licensed dealers out of more than 100,000 nationwide, it means only a tiny segment is causing the problem. Just how does that justify a class-action suit against the entire industry?
And as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms admitted last summer, this administration simply has turned a blind eye to violators of the Brady Bill, a gun-control law the Clintonites fought hard to pass. Of the more than 400,000 felons and other barred from buying guns under that law, fewer than 1,000 have been prosecuted for lying on their applications; in fact, federal gun-law prosecutions are down 25 percent under this supposedly "get tough on guns" administration.
There are legitimate ways to make guns safer and to keep them out of the hands of criminals and mentally diseased people. As usual, however, Bill Clinton would rather look good than do good.
-- 30 --
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.