[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: It is here: Court ruling paves way for mass confiscation of firearms in America
Source: Intellihub
URL Source: https://www.intellihub.com/it-is-he ... cation-of-firearms-in-america/
Published: Oct 22, 2015
Author: Alex Thomas
Post Date: 2015-10-22 11:19:50 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 13230
Comments: 92

Gun control proponents and media allies also continue to push for mass confiscation

By Alex Thomas

(INTELLIHUB) — In a ruling that directly paves the way for mass confiscation of firearms in America, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a much-anticipated decision, has upheld the constitutionality of the New York SAFE Act of 2013.

Shockingly, the court ruled that nearly all of the most drastic gun control law in the history of the United States did not violate the Second Amendment and is therefore constitutional.

That’s right, a law passed in the wake of Sandy Hook that included and paved the way for confiscation of millions of legally purchased firearms has been ruled “constitutional” with proponents already calling for a similar law to be enacted at the federal level.

As an article published by the American Thinker noted, “If the SAFE Act is upheld by the Supreme Court, nothing prevents Congress from summarily outlawing tens of millions of firearms overnight. Once those firearms become contraband, the government may confiscate and destroy them without compensating the owner (just as the government confiscates and destroys illegal drugs).

“The Second Circuit’s decision leaves the Second Amendment in its gravest peril ever.  Second Amendment rights are now hanging by a one-vote margin in the same Supreme Court that upheld Obamacare and declared a national right to gay marriage.

Constitutional conservatives and Second Amendment supporters ought to be terrified over the prospect of Justice Scalia having a heart attack during a Hillary Clinton presidency.” (and as we know Clinton is calling for mass confiscation herself)

Australian style mass confiscation is coming

In the weeks since the most recent mass shooting in the country, literally dozens of mainstream publications have promoted Australia as the country to look towards when considering new gun control laws in America.

“Despite the fact that for years gun control groups and anti-gun liberals have claimed that they only want “common sense” gun control, news outlets such as Salon and Slate are once again openly praising Australia’s controversial 1996 gun control law, a law that included a mandatory gun buy back program under the threat of government force.

After the Oregon school shooting, highly trafficked liberal news outlet Slate republished an article praising Australia’s gun control law that was originally released in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre.

In the weeks since the recent shooting the article has become the top read report on the site as well as linked by dozens of other liberal news outlets. (emphasis mine)

On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia.

The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

Like most other articles praising Australia’s gun laws, the author of the Slate article completely leaves out the fact that the buyback program was mandatory which means that anyone that refused to go along with the program was subject to government raids and or violence.”

“Remember, these are the same liberals who claim that they do not want to take away all guns while literally writing articles promoting a gun law that not only included gun confiscation but also banned purchasing guns for use in self-defense!”

Another recent article published in the mainstream press, this time by CNN, dreamed of disarming all Americans whiling calling for banning all guns “once and for all”.

The article, written by liberal poet and Middlebury College professor Jay Parini, was a perfect example of how on one hand gun control advocates and their media allies tell the public that they only want “common sense” reform while on the other they are pushing for a full-scale ban.

Parini gets to the crux of his and the many who share his views on the lefts agenda which is the confiscation of millions of legally owned firearms under the threat of government attack and subsequent outlawing of all handguns and rifles.

Let me dream for a moment: I would much prefer to live in a country where only hunters who pass appropriately strict tests for mental competence and a knowledge of gun safety can still acquire rifles that are appropriate for hunting.

Handguns and assault rifles would be banned, period.

Banned. Period. There you have it folks, CNN letting a hard left authoritarian use their platform to “dream” about disarming America. It gets worse.

So let’s get rid of guns in this country, once and for all, making it a felony to possess a handgun or assault rifle. Over a period of years, illegal guns will gradually disappear. Guns don’t kill people, as they say.

People who acquire guns — legally or illegally — do. And we should make it extremely difficult for them to get their hands on these weapons.

Liberal media now pushing for gun owners to be shot

Not only are the mainstream media and gun control advocates pushing for a mass confiscation plan in the United States, they are also making it clear that they have no problem with gun owners being shot which would be a likely and obvious outcome if the government decided to outlaw millions of firearms overnight.

Just days ago, author and Coppin State University writing teacher D. Watkins published an article on the prominent hard left news outlet Salon.com that called for all gun owners to be shot if they wanted to use their 2nd Amendment right.

“Starting out the article with the writers dreams of charging five thousand dollars per bullet, Watkins then makes his position on gun ownership in America startlingly clear.” (emphasis mine)

Rock was definitely on point, $5000 bullets would be great but I’d take it a step further––I believe that being shot should be requirement for gun ownership in America. It’s very simple. You need to have gun, like taking selfies with pistols, can’t live with out it? Then take a bullet and you will be granted the right to purchase the firearm of your choice.

If we could successfully implement this rule, I guarantee the mass shootings will stop. Watching cable news now in days makes me physically ill.

Week in and week out we are forced to learn about another coward, who can’t stand to deal with the same rejection that most of us face–– so they strap themselves with guns and then cock and spray at innocent people. Heartbroken survivors and family member images go viral, as our elected officials remain clueless.

So there you have it. A court has upheld a New York law that paves the way for mass confiscation in America while at the same time the mainstream media is pushing this plan for confiscation and making it clear that if gun owners have to be shot to achieve this agenda then so be it.

The one question that remains is whether or not the American people will stand by as their 2nd Amendment right is openly destroyed right before their very eyes.

This article originally appeared on Intellihub.com.

About the Author

Alex Thomas is a reporter and opinion journalist who has worked in the alternative media for over three years. His work has been featured on numerous news outlets including Infowars and RT. You can contact him hereAlex is an exclusive weapon of IntellihubRead more articles by this author here.

Feel free to post the above article in part or in full on your website or blog leaving the byline and all original links intact.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0 US)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 56.

#4. To: Deckard, Stoner (#0)

In a ruling that directly paves the way for mass confiscation of firearms in America, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a much-anticipated decision, has upheld the constitutionality of the New York SAFE Act of 2013.

What the Court actually held:

At pp. 4-5:

Before: Cabranes, Lohier, and Droney, Circuit Judges.

Before the Court are two appeals challenging gun-control legislation enacted by the New York and Connecticut legislatures in the wake of the 2012 mass murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The New York and Connecticut laws at issue prohibit the possession of certain semiautomatic "assault weapons" and large-capacity magazines. Following the entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants on the central claims in both the Western District of New York (William M. Skretny, Chief Judge) and the District of Connecticut (Alfred V. Covello, Judge), plaintiffs in both suits now press two arguments on appeal. First, they challenge the constitutionality of the statutes under the Second Amendment; and second, they challenge certain provisions of the statutes as unconstitutionally vague. Defendants in the New York action also cross-appeal the District Court's invalidation of New York's seven-round load limit and voiding of two statutory provisions as facially unconstitutionally vague. We hold that the core provisions of the New York and Connecticut laws prohibiting possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment, and that the challenged individual provisions are not void for vagueness. The particular provision of New York's law regulating load limits, however, does not survive the requisite scrutiny. One further specific provision—Connecticut's prohibition on the non-semiautomatic Remington 7615—unconstitutionally infringes upon the Second Amendment right. Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part the judgment of the District Court for the District of Connecticut insofar as it upheld the prohibition of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, and REVERSE in part its holding with respect to the Remington 7615. With respect to the judgment of the District Court for the Western District of New York, we REVERSE in part certain vagueness holdings, and we otherwise AFFIRM that judgment insofar as it upheld the prohibition of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines and invalidated the load limit.

SAFE Act decison by cseiler8597

nolu chan  posted on  2015-10-22   16:44:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: nolu chan (#4)

" What the Court actually held: "

Help me out here nc, I have been splitting firewood all day, I am tired, and my glasses are broke.

Please, if you can, give me a bottom line "what the court held. "

Thanks in advance

Stoner  posted on  2015-10-22   19:31:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Stoner (#5)

Please, if you can, give me a bottom line "what the court held."

The 2nd Circuit wrote, "We hold that [...] laws prohibiting possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment...."

It's going to SCOTUS. I think it is an overreach contrary to the 2nd Amdt, but it would not exactly disarm the masses.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-10-22   21:31:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: nolu chan (#7)

"I think it is an overreach contrary to the 2nd Amdt"

Didn't Congress pass the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994? That was challenged, but found constitutional.

Why do you think the New York law will be found unconstitutional?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-10-24   11:00:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: misterwhite (#23)

I think it is an overreach contrary to the 2nd Amdt"

Didn't Congress pass the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994? That was challenged, but found constitutional.

Why do you think the New York law will be found unconstitutional?

I opined that I thought it was an overreach contrary to the 2nd Amendment while documenting that, with a few excepted parts that were overruled, the NY law was held to be constitutional.

I did not opine that the NY law would be found unconstitutional by the courts. At #12, I noted, "Recent SCOTUS precedents indicate no propensity toward confiscation of guns or denial of an individual right to keep and bear arms." The 1994 Act exempted weapons already lawfully possessed.

I object to these laws on my belief that the 2nd Amendment language and hisory show it to protect, in part, the right of the people of the States to protect their State from an overreaching, usurping Federal government.

While this may be anachronistic, I believe changing the Constitution should be done by amendment, and not by some judicial morphing of a "living" Constitution.

At #12, I stated:

Even if given maximum enforcement and 100% citizen capitulation, it would not disarm the citizenry. For example, the opinion specificly held, "New York's law regulating load limits" to seven rounds "does not survive the requisite scrutiny. "One further provision — Connecticut's prohibition on the non-semiautomatic Remington 7615 — unconstitutionally infringes upon the Second Amendment right."

Someone with a Remington 7615 is not exactly unarmed. The law does not remotely appear to infringe upon a Remington 700 either.

Upholding the New York or Connecticut laws would not make that the law of any other jurisdiction, state or federal. It would affirm that a state can choose whether or not to prohibit certain specific categories of weapons or require registration of semiautomatic weapons. The law has already been in effect for nearly three years, registration required for nearly two years.

If not upheld by SCOTUS, the laws would obviously do nothing.

If upheld by SCOTUS, the laws would not disarm the United States.

[...]

Recent SCOTUS precedents indicate no propensity toward confiscation of guns or denial of an individual right to keep and bear arms.

As you point out, Congress passed an assault weapons ban in 1994. I believe that is a part of the ‘‘Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,’’ see below. It has been around for twenty years. America has not been disarmed. In like manner, the NY law did not threaten to disarm NY, much less America.

Note that a NY law, if upheld as constitutional by SCOTUS, remains solely the law of NY. It does not become the law of the other 49 states. The other 49 may adopt such a law, at their discretion.

If a NY law is struck down as unconstitutional, then any such law in any state is struck down as repugnant to the Constitution, and no state may adopt such a law.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3355enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3355enr.pdf

H. R. 3355

One Hundred Third Congress of the United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four

An Act To control and prevent crime.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994’’.

[...]

TITLE XI—FIREARMS

Subtitle A—Assault Weapons

SEC. 110101. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ‘‘Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act’’.

SEC. 110102. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

(a) RESTRICTION.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

‘‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—

‘‘(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;

‘‘(B) any firearm that—

‘‘(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;

‘‘(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or

‘‘(iii) is an antique firearm;

‘‘(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or

‘‘(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine. The fact that a firearm is not listed in Appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from Appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

‘‘(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—

‘‘(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);

‘‘(B) the transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;

‘‘(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic assault weapon transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; or

‘‘(D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Secretary.’’.

(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON.—

Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

‘‘(30) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means—

‘‘(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as—

‘‘(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

‘‘(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;

‘‘(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC–70);

‘‘(iv) Colt AR–15;

‘‘(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC; H. R. 3355—203

‘‘(vi) SWD M–10, M–11, M–11/9, and M–12;

‘‘(vii) Steyr AUG;

‘‘(viii) INTRATEC TEC–9, TEC–DC9 and TEC–22; and

‘‘(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

‘‘(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—

‘‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

‘‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

‘‘(iii) a bayonet mount;

‘‘(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

‘‘(v) a grenade launcher;

‘‘(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—

‘‘(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

‘‘(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

‘‘(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

‘‘(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

‘‘(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

‘‘(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of—

‘‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

‘‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

‘‘(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

‘‘(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.’’.

(c) PENALTIES.—

(1) VIOLATION OF SECTION 922(v).—Section 924(a)(1)(B) of such title is amended by striking ‘‘or (q) of section 922’’ and inserting ‘‘(r), or (v) of section 922’’.

(2) USE OR POSSESSION DURING CRIME OF VIOLENCE OR DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME.—Section 924(c)(1) of such title is amended in the first sentence by inserting ‘‘, or semiautomatic assault weapon,’’ after ‘‘short-barreled shotgun,’’.

(d) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS FOR SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.—Section 923(i) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The serial number of any semiautomatic assault weapon manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall clearly show the date on which the weapon was manufactured.’’.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-10-24   22:19:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: nolu chan (#28)

I'm looking to get the Beretta ARX-100 when the price comes down a little more. It's got all of those features, including a rail for a grenade launcher.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-10-25   12:35:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: misterwhite (#38)

I'm looking to get the Beretta ARX-100 when the price comes down a little more.

I hope you know someone who can do some trigger work on it, I hear it's gritty and close to 12lbs...

CZ82  posted on  2015-10-25   17:17:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: CZ82 (#48)

"I hope you know someone who can do some trigger work on it, I hear it's gritty and close to 12lbs..."

Yeah. I've read 10-12. But it was built as a 2 MOA assault rifle, not a sniper rifle.

I'm looking to get a SPARC II red dot, and that reticule is only 2 MOA.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-10-25   19:26:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 56.

        There are no replies to Comment # 56.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 56.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com