• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Hr 347

quarter horseman

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
345
Location
Allegan co Michigan, USA
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
It seems that the law contains less ambiguity or room for interpretation. The language between the two is the nearly the same but is rearranged/combined and less wordy.

The provisions for where violations will be prosecuted has been removed.

The only down side is the removal of the below:

(d) None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.


What seems to be the issue with this rewritten law?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
T

TWG2A

Guest
It seems that the law contains less ambiguity or room for interpretation. The language between the two is the nearly the same but is rearranged/combined and less wordy.

The provisions for where violations will be prosecuted has been removed.

The only down side is the removal of the below:

(d) None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.


What seems to be the issue with this rewritten law?


"What seems to be the issue", you ask? Well, it's a good thing you asked, or this thread would be even shorter than it already is....

The "issue" is that it's the same as saying "I promise that I will never take your guns away, as long as our Second Amendment is in place."

Simply remove the Second Amendment, THEN take your guns.

Duh.
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
I can see where this bill COULD be used to stifle the 1st ammendment, but I see no impact on the 2A. The reason is, as with a lot of "criminal acts" these days, there is an additional charge "if armed".

Do I like it? No, I do not think it is necessary, or necessarily good. It will give the SS an opportunity to flex their muscle anywhere someone starts a protest where a "protected person" may be.
 
T

TWG2A

Guest
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
~Ayn Rand
 
Top