Democrat-Controlled Congress Has New Gun Control Plans

[CurrieS103]

Received this on a Google News alert.  Link at the bottom.

07 Jan 2009
Democrat-Controlled Congress Has New Gun Control Plans
H.R. 1022, Assault Weapon Ban, Carolyn McCarthy, Democrats, Gun Control

Barack Obama carefully avoided advocacy of new gun control measures during his presidential campaign, but that does not imply that there is the slightest likelihood of his vetoing any gun control legislation emanating from the new Congress.

Alan Korwin warns about H.R. 1022, the renewal of the (so-called) Assault Weapons Ban, introduced by gun control fanatic Carolyn McCarthy and 67 co-sponsors in February 2007. Korwin predicts that, in the new Congress, the same bill will include a much more spectacular feature.


Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Bradys plan to introduce shortly.

I have an outline of the Brady’s current plans and targets of opportunity, I’m working on getting that news out asap after these ban lists, probably be ready in the next few days. It’s horrific. They’re going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They’ve made little mention of criminals. ...

Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will:

Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any “semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.” Note that Obama’s pick for this office (Eric Holder, confirmation hearing set for Jan. 15) wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home.

In making this determination, the bill says, “there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.”

In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.

That presumption can be challenged only by suing the federal government over each firearm it decides to ban, in a court it runs with a judge it pays. This virtually dismisses the principles of the Second Amendment.

The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn’t have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose—is that devious or what? And of course, “sporting purpose” is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.

WorldNetDaily takes Korwin’s posting and accompanies it with a big brass band.

A perfect storm is developing for Second Amendment opponents that could allow President-elect Barack Obama’s choice for attorney general – Eric Holder – to “ban guns at will” despite the 2008 affirmation from the U.S. Supreme Court that U.S. citizens have a right to bear arms.

And this particular threat is only the first of what will undoubtedly be many.

By JDZ

http://neveryetmelted.com/index.php/democrat-controlled-congress-has-new-gun-control-plans/

[cooptire]

Received this on a Google News alert.  Link at the bottom.

07 Jan 2009
Democrat-Controlled Congress Has New Gun Control Plans
H.R. 1022, Assault Weapon Ban, Carolyn McCarthy, Democrats, Gun Control

Barack Obama carefully avoided advocacy of new gun control measures during his presidential campaign, but that does not imply that there is the slightest likelihood of his vetoing any gun control legislation emanating from the new Congress.

Alan Korwin warns about H.R. 1022, the renewal of the (so-called) Assault Weapons Ban, introduced by gun control fanatic Carolyn McCarthy and 67 co-sponsors in February 2007. Korwin predicts that, in the new Congress, the same bill will include a much more spectacular feature.


Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Bradys plan to introduce shortly.

I have an outline of the Brady’s current plans and targets of opportunity, I’m working on getting that news out asap after these ban lists, probably be ready in the next few days. It’s horrific. They’re going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They’ve made little mention of criminals. ...

Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will:

Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any “semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.” Note that Obama’s pick for this office (Eric Holder, confirmation hearing set for Jan. 15) wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home.

In making this determination, the bill says, “there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.”

In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.

That presumption can be challenged only by suing the federal government over each firearm it decides to ban, in a court it runs with a judge it pays. This virtually dismisses the principles of the Second Amendment.

The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn’t have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose—is that devious or what? And of course, “sporting purpose” is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.

WorldNetDaily takes Korwin’s posting and accompanies it with a big brass band.

A perfect storm is developing for Second Amendment opponents that could allow President-elect Barack Obama’s choice for attorney general – Eric Holder – to “ban guns at will” despite the 2008 affirmation from the U.S. Supreme Court that U.S. citizens have a right to bear arms.

And this particular threat is only the first of what will undoubtedly be many.

By JDZ

http://neveryetmelted.com/index.php/democrat-controlled-congress-has-new-gun-control-plans/

A perfect sh!tstorm is more like it! To edit a popular bumper sticker, Sit down, buckle up, hang on but DON'T shut up! Let's be loud and united.

[PoorSoulInJersey]

so.... what would happen to all the people who bought AR's and other banned weapons? I can't imagine the government reimbursing people for weapons legally purchased, and I can't see the owners giving up a $1000+ gun for free.

[runstowin]

so.... what would happen to all the people who bought AR's and other banned weapons? I can't imagine the government reimbursing people for weapons legally purchased, and I can't see the owners giving up a $1000+ gun for free.

The enemy is evil ugly and devious. Katrina was a trial balloon that worked, people gave up their arms in the face of deadly force.

[tombogan03884]

The enemy is evil ugly and devious. Katrina was a trial balloon that worked, people gave up their arms in the face of deadly force.

I don't know about evil or devious, but Pelosi is certainly ugly 
As for the rest of your post, the "You got to KILL me" draw against the drop attitude may work for you and I , I have no responsibilities, a rather dead end job, and nothing much to lose except my life. But, as has been pointed out to me after a few of my more incendiary rants, What about the guy with his kids and wife in the next room ? Or the guy who is supporting the wife and kids with a job that will fire him for resisting authority, He's going to think about the livelihood and the family, and he's going to cave.

[Sponsor]

[cooptire]

I don't know about evil or devious, but Pelosi is certainly ugly 
As for the rest of your post, the "You got to KILL me" draw against the drop attitude may work for you and I , I have no responsibilities, a rather dead end job, and nothing much to lose except my life. But, as has been pointed out to me after a few of my more incendiary rants, What about the guy with his kids and wife in the next room ? Or the guy who is supporting the wife and kids with a job that will fire him for resisting authority, He's going to think about the livelihood and the family, and he's going to cave.

I hate to say it but, with 4 young kids, a wife and employees and their families to think about, I have to be really careful what I do and say. That is why I already sold all my EBR's. Got a great price too.   

[tombogan03884]

I hate to say it but, with 4 young kids, a wife and employees and their families to think about, I have to be really careful what I do and say. That is why I already sold all my EBR's. Got a great price too.   

There you go, Runstowin, . During the Revolution only 1 in 3 people actually supported the rebellion at all. Chances are that the vast majority of those who agree with us will NOT actually DO anything that risks the lives and / or livilyhoods of those who depend on them. They may feed us or hide us when we are on the run, they will pass us information and post fliers write letters etc. But they will not choose the cause over their immediate responsibilities. That does not make them bad people it's just the way it is, That's why not everyone in Europe came to the "New World" and why even many very poor people did not go West. The IRA in Ireland faced the same reality. The Continental Army and the IRA both found ways to adapt, we will as well.

[runstowin]

I think you misconstrued my post, my position on this subject, as far as I can tell, is the same as yours. I think most people who own firearms will submit to being disarmed in the face of deadly force, or some other form of duress.

[Dharmaeye]

Have you seen the movie V ?
Strange that it is made in England - rather naive on the degree of violence that would be involved.
When Juries don't exist or are corrupted then it is time.

[Rob10ring]

Have you seen the movie V ?
Strange that it is made in England - rather naive on the degree of violence that would be involved.
When Juries don't exist or are corrupted then it is time.

Are you talking about the TV movie "V", or "V for Vendetta"? "V" was a TV movie in the 80's where aliens try and trojan horse earth for a takeover. "V for Vendetta" is only a few years old and is about everything going all Nazi, big brother-like and the ensuing rebellion.