• 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.

Gun Grab by President on its way?

T

TOF

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
443
Location
Happy Jack, Arizona, USA
imported post

:cuss:
Click to expand...
I got the following by Email this morning. Thought you all should be aware:

Code: 
Subject: Re: [AssociationofRetiredPhoenixOfficers] Hey Guys Check This Out!!!

Tighter restrictions on gun ownership for those over 60 
Guns to Be Banned for Elderly 
Staff Reports
United Press International
Washington

Deputy Attorney General Designate David Ogden is circulating a draft of an executive order in which, among other things, firearms possession would be severely limited to people over 60.

An assistant to Ogden told us, "It appears that in these changing times, it is no longer necessary to allow the elderly to be armed. With all of their physical ailments and increasing senility, to leave them in control of a deadly weapon would be ludicrous."

While the Executive Order may sound too powerful, experts in Constitutional law state that it is not actually un-Constitutional.

"It's a question of wording." states Columbia Law Professor, Dr. John Braxton. "The Constitution forbids the Congress, that is, the legislative branch, from passing any laws infringing on gun ownership. The executive branch is not included in this proviso. As long as the Congress doesn't get involved, it's technically a non-issue."

The Justice Department was tossing the idea of a gun ban for seniors during the Carter and Clinton Administration, but public opinion stopped these initiatives. Now, the Obama White House believes differently.

An unnamed aide close to Ogden agreed to talk on the condition of anonymity.

"Clinton and Carter didn't have as much of a mandate as President Obama. They were both Southerners, and the Second Amendment was sacrosanct to their constituents. However, President Obama comes from a new sort of politics, where divisive issues like firearms do not apply to him."

"Quite frankly, it's a shame that no one has had the good conscience to have done this already. It's a simple process, and the majority of the American people will understand it and follow the law."

The enforcement mechanism for this particular executive order has not been published. It is likely that the confiscation of weapons will be similar to Great Britain 's handgun ban, in which citizens willingly gave the weapons to police.

It is expected that the executive order will be given around July 1, when senior-related gun deaths reach their peaks.

The aide to Ogden stated: "For eight years you see the rolling back of regulation, and crime has skyrocketed. In fact, in Massachusetts alone, murders have risen 50% since 2002. Armed robbery has also risen dramatically. With such circumstances, we must act boldly."
Click to expand...
 
wylde007

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
imported post

It appears that in these changing times, it is no longer necessary to allow the elderly to be armed. With all of their physical ailments and increasing senility, to leave them in control of a deadly weapon would be ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Because being older and more feeble makes them LESS of a target?

It's a question of wording." states Columbia Law Professor, Dr. John Braxton. "The Constitution forbids the Congress, that is, the legislative branch, from passing any laws infringing on gun ownership. The executive branch is not included in this proviso. As long as the Congress doesn't get involved, it's technically a non-issue.
Click to expand...
You know what's also a non-issue? Executive orders.

The three branches of government are specifically ordered and defined in the Constitution. The legislative writes the law. The judicial interprets it. The executive enforces it.

Given those three simple statements, no arbitrary order issued by the President is legally binding on ANYONE.

The Constitution forbids congress from passing any laws infringing on gun ownership (and they've really honored that, haven't they?) The Constitution furthermore forbids the EXECUTIVE BRANCH from writing laws, period.

For a "law perfesser" he is quite a dullard.
 
wylde007

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
imported post

I'm skeptical of anything that starts out:

I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.

Translation: RUN AWAY.

Anybody else watch the animated movie The Iron Giant and notice some disturbing and poignant parallels to the fed.gov?

How about cheering for the "bad guy" during Live Free Or Die Hard?
 
B

bobcat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
167
Location
Great Lakes, , USA
imported post

Interesting story, but a cite is really necessary to vet it. Even then I doubt this would be the approach. Why just seniors? Sound fishy to label all over 60 as senile or likely to be. We've all likely known many folks in their 80's and 90's that are sharp as a tack and fewer that are senile...

You can bet a grab is on the way, but with the control the Dems have in Congress why not go big?It appears that theyhave the votes top to bottom to get it done, just a matter of if they think what they do won't jeopardize 2010 for them. Other than phone/letter pressure when they start something on the floor, that is about all that would stop them frompassing it and the Bamster would gleefully sign it.

Also, if they wait around a bit and see the economy 'spode with the attendant riots/disturbances, they'll get a golden reason(s) that most sheople would lap up...
 
T

TOF

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
443
Location
Happy Jack, Arizona, USA
imported post

It was vetted about as well as the Tax Dodger appointments being made.

I placed a question mark at the end of the title for a reason. I do consider it a good possibility however.
 
Michigander

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
imported post

Any serious threat to gun rights will almost always be on record on easily accessible government web sights. With that in mind, it is always wise to check the facts before taking a legal rumor seriously.
 
T

TOF

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
443
Location
Happy Jack, Arizona, USA
imported post

NRA's "RUMOR CONTROL" Comments:

Code: 
Now don't take all this to mean that we underestimate our anti-gun opponents, or that we don't believe they would happily and readily seize the opportunity to adopt and enforce any of these measures. We know full well that they would. Rather, our message is this: Rumors abound, so don't believe everything you read. If it's a legitimate concern, rest assured your NRA-ILA will promptly address it and will give you the straight story.

We are now only suposed to believe rumors the NRA wants us to believe.

Have a good day folks
 
F

flintlock tom

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
405
Location
San Diego, California, USA
imported post

I got suspicious when a "Law professor" said:
"It's a question of wording." states Columbia Law Professor, Dr. John Braxton. "The Constitution forbids the Congress, that is, the legislative branch, from passing any laws infringing on gun ownership. The executive branch is not included in this proviso. As long as the Congress doesn't get involved, it's technically a non-issue."
Click to expand...
I don't believe a "Law Professor" would allow his name to be attached to such a fundamental error.
The "Congress shall make no law" language appears in the first amendment, but is conspicuously absent from the 2nd.
 
B

bugly

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
310
Location
Taco-Ma, Washington, USA
imported post

Dustin wrote:
AllAmerican wrote:
More bogus info flying around. I suspect the POTUS loves this because while we're worried about these rumors they are doing other things.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The smoke screens have been thrown on the battlefield.
Click to expand...
Remind anyone else of the Clinton years? Sex scandals, Whitewater, etc. it's all a bunch of garbage to feed the masses while they're up to more scandalous acts of Constitution shredding.
...And don't think I don't include the last 8 years of inept "leadership", they were probably worse than the rest.
We need to remind them who is supposed to be the boss (that would be us, by the way, for those of you that never had the occasion to learn that...) and master of the government. The servant NEVER has more rights or power than the master, unless the master gives that power away, either by weakness or ignorance.
BTW, don't even bother trying to read into my comment and think I'm racist, I use the terms "master" and "servant" in the proper context here, not a "slave/master" relationship.
Get involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top