This news digest is from the Calnra.org.
http://www.calnra.org/rw4-17-00.html
CalNRA.org
"Get the News to Protect Your Freedom"
The week in review.
Gore, Feinstein call for more useless gun control laws.
The rule of law. Who me?
By Ralph Weller
CalNRA.org
April 17, 2000
Al Gore's useless gun control law
Vice President Al Gore called for a federal ban on guns in places of
worship this past week. He claims that some twenty or more
states allow concealed carry permit holders to carry guns into
churches. In an Associated Press report he said, "Our children
can't reach for their dreams if they're ducking for cover." Huh?
From law-abiding citizens? Where does this guy get this stuff?
The facts are, the federal government has no business sticking its
legislative nose into what a church allows or doesn't allow.
Frankly, it's not the business of government. If the First Church
on the Right in Brawley wants to worship a non-functional .50
caliber machine gun, it isn't the feds business anymore than if the
church allows concealed carry permit holders into its pews or
let's worshipers dance in the aisles. Besides, what constitutes a
church? Is the pastor's home on the same church property part of
the church? And, what is it about Gore suggesting that
church-going Americans that have a concealed carry permit are a
danger to children in church?
His call for another useless gun law is a shining example of
making laws for the sake of laws with absolutely no ability to
enforce such nonsense. More CCW holders probably pass through
the doors of Wal-Marts each week than churches, yet we don't see
a call from Gore to ban guns at the mall. Please Al, stop the
emotional political nonsense. Your internet invention was a
marvelous feat. So don't dilute your accomplishments with such
ridiculous proposals of law that can't be defended in the Supreme
Court, let alone enforced.
Feinstein wants us to move one step closer to her dream
Meanwhile, Senator Dianne Feinstein, (D-California), has
launched her drive to eventually have "Mr. and Mrs. America turn
them all in." Feinstein made that statement several years ago
during her fight to ban certain semi-automatic firearms. So, as a
step on the way to achieving her dream, the government first
needs to know which law-abiding citizens own semi-automatic
firearms by making them all get licenses with pictures and
fingerprints.
Of course, Senator Feinstein is not assuming that felons violating
current laws, by illegally possessing a firearm, will line up to get
their license. She knows felons aren't going to join in the
festivities. Everyone knows that. She wants the government to
have a list of law-abiding citizens who own semi-automatic
firearms and establish the government as the sole determining
factor as to whether you, as a law-abiding citizen, can own one or
not. That's part one of her plan. In a matter of seconds, the
government can simply deny or revoke any or all licenses for
virtually any reason it so chooses.
In other words, the right of a law-abiding citizen to own a firearm
will no longer be a constitutional right, it becomes a regulatory
decision by bureaucrats. It's the same kind of system run by
bureaucrats in California that control concealed carry permits.
They can simply shut off all licensing at a whim. They'll let the
court system sort it out, which will take years. Every gun maker,
distributor and dealer that doesn't have enough government
business to keep them alive will go out of business and the entire
firearms manufacturing and sales infrastructure will collapse.
Mission accomplished. Meanwhile, before they shut off the gun
sales spigot for semi-autos, here's the kind of harassment gun
owners can expect from the gun registry folks under Feinstein's
program in an effort to reduce the level of gun ownership in
America. California concealed carry permit applicants in
California may recognize these scenarios.
"It seems Mr. Smith that you made an illegal right hand turn on March 23,
1998. In light of the fact that you don't follow the rule of law we'll have to
deny you a license to possess a firearm." A little ridiculous? Maybe.
But, how about several examples that are far more plausible:
"It seems Mr. Smith that you own two firearms. We don't mind that you
have a "constitutional right" to defend yourself in your home, but in light of
the fact that you own far more firearms than hands to hold them all, we'll
deny you the right to purchase a third firearm."
"Mr. Smith, our records show that you discharged a firearm in your home
supposedly because an armed intruder was inside. Now... we don't mind
people owning firearms, but our intent is not so you can shoot just anyone
that walks into your home. That's for the police to handle. That's why we
have 9-1-1. What if that person was a relative? How would you feel? What
if it was a police officer investigating a neighbor's report of a strange
person in the neighborhood? No, Mr. Smith, we know you will shoot
anyone that comes into your home. Fortunately, you missed hitting the
intruder, otherwise you would be in far more serious trouble than you are
today. Your license is revoked effective immediately. Please turn in your
firearms. Sir... Sir... please! We know you called 9-1-1 but we can't possibly
hold the police responsible for a criminal act. You know the rules Mr.
Smith. Indiscriminate discharge of a semi-auto firearm is subject to
confiscation of all your firearms and a lifetime ban on ownership."
"Mr. Smith, it seems that a firearm was stolen from your locked gun safe
during a burglary a few weeks ago. It's clear that you failed to properly
secure your firearm and, as such, your actions pose a risk to the community
and our children. Your request to purchase another to replace the stolen
firearm is denied. Please surrender your other firearm to local law
enforcement within 24 hours. Sir, calm down please Mr. Smith! It doesn't
matter that they used a blow torch and I'm very sorry the police didn't
respond to the alarm at your home, but we don't control the police here at
the gun registry. Rules are rules Mr. Smith!"
"Mr. Smith, our records show that you and your wife are seeing a licensed
psychologist for... shall we say "marital problems". In light of the fact that
you and your spouse are having some difficulties, we think it would be
prudent, for the safety of you and your family of course, that we deny your
application for a firearm."
Mr. Smith, our records indicate you started divorce proceedings three
months ago. Those kinds of things can be pretty nasty you know. Did you
know that a restraining order was taken out by your wife's attorney? You
didn't? Well, it seems your wife is concerned that you might want to steal
your corvette out of the garage, so you've been ordered to stay away from
the house. In light of this outstanding court order we must ask that you
turn in your firearms immediately. You may petition the court three years
after the divorce proceedings are final to get your guns back assuming you
don't make any illegal right hand turns between now and then."
Feinstein and her ilk will regulate the licensing process to the
point that owners of semi-automatics will be virtually extinct.
Then the ban will follow with the usual threats of prison for those
who don't turn in their firearms. That's part two of her plan. If
there has ever been a more insidious plan than this, one only
needs to look to Australia and England. The removal of firearms
from the law-abiding started with licensing and registration, and
ended with letters to gun owners threatening prison time if they
didn't turn them in. If there was ever one gun control law that
needed to be buried alive, licensing is it.
The rule of law is for who?
Meanwhile, in Philadelphia, the city has decided to file a lawsuit
against Smith & Wesson plus a dozen or more other gun makers.
But, by their actions they decided to knowingly violate
Pennsylvania state law which clearly prohibits cities and counties
from filing civil lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The
question Pennsylvanians needs to ask at the state capitol is:
When are the state police going over to the city buildings and
arrest the district attorney, mayor and those on the city council
that authorized the lawsuit? They broke the law didn't they?
Don't hold your breath. Arrests for violation of the laws are for
dolts like you and me, not politicians. For what ever reason,
government officials seem to be immune from the rule of law
while conducting business of the government, even if it's a
flagrant, in-your-face violation. And, the politicians charged with
making sure other politicians uphold the law haven't got the
nerve to do anything about it.
It's just another reason why more and more people are starting to
recognize that government officials are placing themselves on a
pedestal above the people they serve. And, when they mouth how
you and I should obey the rule of law, it smacks of children being
told: Do as I say, not as I do."
The bottom line is, some politicians in Philly need to be arrested,
charged with violation of state laws, and allow the state to prove
the Philly politicians are indeed the scofflaws they so blatantly
displayed this past week.
On second thought...never mind. I actually thought for a
moment that we are a nation of laws. Foolish me.
http://www.calnra.org/rw4-17-00.html
CalNRA.org
"Get the News to Protect Your Freedom"
The week in review.
Gore, Feinstein call for more useless gun control laws.
The rule of law. Who me?
By Ralph Weller
CalNRA.org
April 17, 2000
Al Gore's useless gun control law
Vice President Al Gore called for a federal ban on guns in places of
worship this past week. He claims that some twenty or more
states allow concealed carry permit holders to carry guns into
churches. In an Associated Press report he said, "Our children
can't reach for their dreams if they're ducking for cover." Huh?
From law-abiding citizens? Where does this guy get this stuff?
The facts are, the federal government has no business sticking its
legislative nose into what a church allows or doesn't allow.
Frankly, it's not the business of government. If the First Church
on the Right in Brawley wants to worship a non-functional .50
caliber machine gun, it isn't the feds business anymore than if the
church allows concealed carry permit holders into its pews or
let's worshipers dance in the aisles. Besides, what constitutes a
church? Is the pastor's home on the same church property part of
the church? And, what is it about Gore suggesting that
church-going Americans that have a concealed carry permit are a
danger to children in church?
His call for another useless gun law is a shining example of
making laws for the sake of laws with absolutely no ability to
enforce such nonsense. More CCW holders probably pass through
the doors of Wal-Marts each week than churches, yet we don't see
a call from Gore to ban guns at the mall. Please Al, stop the
emotional political nonsense. Your internet invention was a
marvelous feat. So don't dilute your accomplishments with such
ridiculous proposals of law that can't be defended in the Supreme
Court, let alone enforced.
Feinstein wants us to move one step closer to her dream
Meanwhile, Senator Dianne Feinstein, (D-California), has
launched her drive to eventually have "Mr. and Mrs. America turn
them all in." Feinstein made that statement several years ago
during her fight to ban certain semi-automatic firearms. So, as a
step on the way to achieving her dream, the government first
needs to know which law-abiding citizens own semi-automatic
firearms by making them all get licenses with pictures and
fingerprints.
Of course, Senator Feinstein is not assuming that felons violating
current laws, by illegally possessing a firearm, will line up to get
their license. She knows felons aren't going to join in the
festivities. Everyone knows that. She wants the government to
have a list of law-abiding citizens who own semi-automatic
firearms and establish the government as the sole determining
factor as to whether you, as a law-abiding citizen, can own one or
not. That's part one of her plan. In a matter of seconds, the
government can simply deny or revoke any or all licenses for
virtually any reason it so chooses.
In other words, the right of a law-abiding citizen to own a firearm
will no longer be a constitutional right, it becomes a regulatory
decision by bureaucrats. It's the same kind of system run by
bureaucrats in California that control concealed carry permits.
They can simply shut off all licensing at a whim. They'll let the
court system sort it out, which will take years. Every gun maker,
distributor and dealer that doesn't have enough government
business to keep them alive will go out of business and the entire
firearms manufacturing and sales infrastructure will collapse.
Mission accomplished. Meanwhile, before they shut off the gun
sales spigot for semi-autos, here's the kind of harassment gun
owners can expect from the gun registry folks under Feinstein's
program in an effort to reduce the level of gun ownership in
America. California concealed carry permit applicants in
California may recognize these scenarios.
"It seems Mr. Smith that you made an illegal right hand turn on March 23,
1998. In light of the fact that you don't follow the rule of law we'll have to
deny you a license to possess a firearm." A little ridiculous? Maybe.
But, how about several examples that are far more plausible:
"It seems Mr. Smith that you own two firearms. We don't mind that you
have a "constitutional right" to defend yourself in your home, but in light of
the fact that you own far more firearms than hands to hold them all, we'll
deny you the right to purchase a third firearm."
"Mr. Smith, our records show that you discharged a firearm in your home
supposedly because an armed intruder was inside. Now... we don't mind
people owning firearms, but our intent is not so you can shoot just anyone
that walks into your home. That's for the police to handle. That's why we
have 9-1-1. What if that person was a relative? How would you feel? What
if it was a police officer investigating a neighbor's report of a strange
person in the neighborhood? No, Mr. Smith, we know you will shoot
anyone that comes into your home. Fortunately, you missed hitting the
intruder, otherwise you would be in far more serious trouble than you are
today. Your license is revoked effective immediately. Please turn in your
firearms. Sir... Sir... please! We know you called 9-1-1 but we can't possibly
hold the police responsible for a criminal act. You know the rules Mr.
Smith. Indiscriminate discharge of a semi-auto firearm is subject to
confiscation of all your firearms and a lifetime ban on ownership."
"Mr. Smith, it seems that a firearm was stolen from your locked gun safe
during a burglary a few weeks ago. It's clear that you failed to properly
secure your firearm and, as such, your actions pose a risk to the community
and our children. Your request to purchase another to replace the stolen
firearm is denied. Please surrender your other firearm to local law
enforcement within 24 hours. Sir, calm down please Mr. Smith! It doesn't
matter that they used a blow torch and I'm very sorry the police didn't
respond to the alarm at your home, but we don't control the police here at
the gun registry. Rules are rules Mr. Smith!"
"Mr. Smith, our records show that you and your wife are seeing a licensed
psychologist for... shall we say "marital problems". In light of the fact that
you and your spouse are having some difficulties, we think it would be
prudent, for the safety of you and your family of course, that we deny your
application for a firearm."
Mr. Smith, our records indicate you started divorce proceedings three
months ago. Those kinds of things can be pretty nasty you know. Did you
know that a restraining order was taken out by your wife's attorney? You
didn't? Well, it seems your wife is concerned that you might want to steal
your corvette out of the garage, so you've been ordered to stay away from
the house. In light of this outstanding court order we must ask that you
turn in your firearms immediately. You may petition the court three years
after the divorce proceedings are final to get your guns back assuming you
don't make any illegal right hand turns between now and then."
Feinstein and her ilk will regulate the licensing process to the
point that owners of semi-automatics will be virtually extinct.
Then the ban will follow with the usual threats of prison for those
who don't turn in their firearms. That's part two of her plan. If
there has ever been a more insidious plan than this, one only
needs to look to Australia and England. The removal of firearms
from the law-abiding started with licensing and registration, and
ended with letters to gun owners threatening prison time if they
didn't turn them in. If there was ever one gun control law that
needed to be buried alive, licensing is it.
The rule of law is for who?
Meanwhile, in Philadelphia, the city has decided to file a lawsuit
against Smith & Wesson plus a dozen or more other gun makers.
But, by their actions they decided to knowingly violate
Pennsylvania state law which clearly prohibits cities and counties
from filing civil lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The
question Pennsylvanians needs to ask at the state capitol is:
When are the state police going over to the city buildings and
arrest the district attorney, mayor and those on the city council
that authorized the lawsuit? They broke the law didn't they?
Don't hold your breath. Arrests for violation of the laws are for
dolts like you and me, not politicians. For what ever reason,
government officials seem to be immune from the rule of law
while conducting business of the government, even if it's a
flagrant, in-your-face violation. And, the politicians charged with
making sure other politicians uphold the law haven't got the
nerve to do anything about it.
It's just another reason why more and more people are starting to
recognize that government officials are placing themselves on a
pedestal above the people they serve. And, when they mouth how
you and I should obey the rule of law, it smacks of children being
told: Do as I say, not as I do."
The bottom line is, some politicians in Philly need to be arrested,
charged with violation of state laws, and allow the state to prove
the Philly politicians are indeed the scofflaws they so blatantly
displayed this past week.
On second thought...never mind. I actually thought for a
moment that we are a nation of laws. Foolish me.