Unannounced Gun Control


PDA






YankeeClipper
July 24, 2005, 10:22 AM
1 With out some of us noticing the Government, walking hand in hand with the ATF and the Shumers and Kennedy's have lowered the bar for felenies that have nothing to do with violence or firearms to releave the general population of the 2nd amendment rights. So God fearing, NRA good people have fallen pray to this ruling. Remember the democrats never saw a gun control rule or law they didn't like and the Republicans break out in hives at the thought of someone saying they might be soft on crime. Tell your representation you are on to them and this move. It wouldn't hurt to send a short note to the NRA. We need help here and fast.

If you enjoyed reading about "Unannounced Gun Control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
org
July 24, 2005, 10:29 AM
Could you be a little more specific?

bogie
July 24, 2005, 10:41 AM
I've always noticed that I can type more clearly if I remove the tinfoil first.

YankeeClipper
July 24, 2005, 11:15 AM
I'm on my way to Church now I will give you the full story later. When you see it and how clever it worked you will see Lottenburg all over it. Thanks for reading and your questions.

rick_reno
July 24, 2005, 11:32 AM
My dog mentioned this to me this morning but couldn't provide the details - the aliens attacking with their killer rays required his immediate attention.

Third_Rail
July 24, 2005, 11:36 AM
Yeah, way to take the high road, bogie, rick_reno. Real nice.

Justin
July 24, 2005, 12:33 PM
We need more details, as well as a source for the information. Without that, the post doesn't help much, unfortunately.

bogie
July 24, 2005, 01:31 PM
Justin, don't worry.

Don't feel left out.

They're out to get you to!

The bats! The bats!

DirksterG30
July 24, 2005, 01:36 PM
House Passes Extreme Penalties For Some Who Use Guns In Self-Defense
-- Bill could also make your hunting party a "criminal street gang"

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Tuesday, June 28, 2005


Let's assume that you and your family are on your way home from church. You have a gun in the glove compartment that is there for self-protection.

After driving within 1,000 feet of a school (which is almost unavoidable), you stop by the grocery store to pick up a few items for lunch.

As you are exiting your car, you are approached by a gang of teenagers, armed with long screwdrivers and wrenches. Realizing that you are about to be mugged, you brandish your firearm in order to scare them off -- although this act on your part is a violation of state law which requires that you first retreat, rather than defend yourself.

Congratulations. Under legislation that recently passed the House, all the members of your family are now subject to a MANDATORY MINIMUM sentence of ten years in prison -- and up to life imprisonment.

The judge would have NO DISCRETION to release you before the end of the ten-year period -- but an anti-gun judge could sentence you and your family to LIFE IMPRISONMENT.

Sound ridiculous? Welcome to the new "tough-on-crime" House of Representatives.

It's not as though Republicans like House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) have no experience with the "unintended" broad consequences of anti-gun laws.

Remember the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO)? That bill was passed with the ostensible purpose of going after the Mafia.

But it was poorly drafted. At its core, a person or business only had to commit two of a broad list of sometimes-fairly-innocuous crimes in order to be subject to stiff prison sentences. As a result, lawsuits and criminal prosecutions soon sprouted against legitimate banks and businesses and pro-life protestors.

Never capable of learning from its mistakes, Congress is about to go after gun owners in the same way.

This new bill -- touted as anti-gang legislation -- is numbered H.R.
1279 in the House, where it passed by a 279-144 margin on May 11.
Twenty Republicans -- including pro-gun stalwarts like John Hostettler (R-IN), Ron Paul (R-TX), and Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) -- voted against it. It now goes to the Senate, where its counterpart (S. 155) is sponsored by anti-gun zealot Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT).

Similar to RICO, these two bills, at the core, would define "criminal street gangs" to be formal OR INFORMAL groups of three or more individuals who commit two or more of a long list of "predicate"
crimes.

What are these predicate crimes, of which two or more could get you thrown into the slammer for the rest of your life? Check these out:

* Violation of the Kohl 1,000-foot "gun-free-school-zone" law would be a predicate crime in the House bill.

* Having a gun in violation of the Lautenberg amendment -- because you spanked your kid or spat on your husband -- would be a predicate in both the House and Senate versions.

* Accidentally shooting a doe instead of a buck (or shooting the wrong kind of duck) would be a "crime of violence" (under the 18 U.S.C. 16 definition) and could therefore be a "predicate" crime if some of the worst provisions from both bills end up in the final version that goes to the President.

And, as mentioned above, your family's trip past the school -- as you're driving home from church -- could send all of you to jail if you use your gun in self-defense, rather than first retreating as required in some states.

This is because:

* A "criminal street gang" exists as soon as this "informal" group of 3 or more individuals (your family) commits "2 or more gang crimes... in relation to the group" if one of the crimes is a "crime of violence."

* Violation of the Kohl "gun-free-school-zone" amendment (18 U.S.C.
922(q)) is a "gang crime."

* The threat to use a firearm against the muggers is both a gang crime and a crime of violence because it involves a "threat" of "force" against a person.


The bills have other anti-gun provisions, as well:

1. Mandatory Prison Sentences For Gun Owners

The "street gang" provisions in the bill (as mentioned above) could send you and your family to jail for 10 years-to-life if you defend them with a gun under certain conditions.

But even apart from those RICO-style provisions in the bill, there is other language in the bill that could send you to jail for twenty years MINIMUM if you use a gun in self-defense... even without your family being nearby.

Federal law prohibits the mere possession of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. The term "crime of violence"
clearly includes brandishing or even opening your coat to display a firearm to defend yourself against a mugger -- without retreating -- in states that require retreat. Hence, a concealed carry permit holder who opens his suit jacket and displays a firearm to a potential mugger in these states is liable under this section because "crime of violence" means the threatened use of force against person or property.

Section 114 of H.R. 1279 would increase the MINIMUM penalty for shooting the mugger (i.e., a Bernie Goetz-type offense) to TWENTY years in prison.

2. Expanding The Lautenberg Gun Ban

Section 109 of the House bill -- and its counterpart on the Senate version -- makes it more likely that a person will NOT get bail if they possessed a firearm after committing a "Lautenberg misdemeanor."
Again, a person could be held to commit such a misdemeanor if the person spanked their kid or spat on their spouse. So for having committed this small infraction (and for owning a gun) a person faces a higher probability of being held in jail until trial.

ACTION: Contact your United States senators. Ask them to oppose anti-gun so-called "gang" legislation.

You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators a pre-written e-mail message.

-----Pre-written letter-----

Dear Senator:

H.R. 1279 and its counterpart, S. 155, are supposedly "anti-gang"
measures. But they are so poorly drafted that they could lead to lifetime prison sentences for fathers who protect their families from muggers.

Under H.R. 1279, a family which drives within 1,000 feet of a school (which is almost unavoidable) with a gun in the glove compartment could be a criminal gang if the father or mother brandished the gun to scare off a mugger. All members of the family could be subject to a MANDATORY MINIMUM sentence of ten years in prison -- and up to life imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.

The Senate bill is only slightly better.

Please oppose these anti-gun abominations.

Sincerely,


****************************

Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable.

To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location.

Justin
July 24, 2005, 01:55 PM
Justin, don't worry.

Don't feel left out.

They're out to get you to!

The bats! The bats!

We can't stop here! This is bat country!

veloce851
July 24, 2005, 01:56 PM
I don't think he's being paranoid at all... based on what little information that was given. He makes a good point.

Little by little we are being turned into felons for doing things that less than 10 or 20 years ago would have been considered normal. Just take most if not all of the provisions in the AWB that just ended *thank God*
Many of those "rules" made many of us, law abiding good citizens, felons.
Had we been caught and successfully charged we would have been stripped of our right to bear arms.

"There's no way to rule innocent men. 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...you create a nation of law-breakers and then you cash in on guilt."
Ayn Rand

GunGoBoom
July 24, 2005, 02:04 PM
RICO was abused - this will be too - anyone know the status of it now?

scubie02
July 24, 2005, 03:16 PM
Yeah, way to take the high road, bogie, rick_reno. Real nice.

I'm with you--too many rude peeople on this board that immediately jump in with ridicule, often in a fairly offensive manner.

The poster is correct. Many "crimes" that once upon a time nobody would have been very concerned about have been turned into felonies. You can lose your gun rights just for being accused of domestic violence, which is a common divorce tactic when trying to get custody--claim domestic violence, which doesn't even have to be physical violence, it can be "psychological"--so you can lose your rights because she says you once called her fat. Seems to go along with what the original poster was saying to me.

The local distruct attorney guy told me not so long ago that basically if you get into almosy ANY sort of scrape--DWI, whatever--even f its not violent or a felony, they will yank your permit.

JohnBT
July 24, 2005, 03:37 PM
I got as far as the part about "...the Government, walking hand in hand with the ATF..."

The ATF is a government agency - part of the goverment. Right? That walking hand in hand stuff makes about as much sense as saying the U.S. Park Service is walking hand in hand with the government. Calling Captain Obvious, come in please. ;)

John

CentralTexas
July 24, 2005, 03:58 PM
this has become a real issue. Many laws that were once misdemeanor offenses are felonies. There are may group lobbying for more felony laws. Do some research on how we have gone from "The defense industry" to the "Prison industry".
How about a few Texas agriculture laws that are felonies?


Operating a Grain Warehouse Without a License
Unlawful Grain Delivery
Fraudulently Issuing a Grain Scale Weight Ticket or Receipt
Changing a Grain Receipt or Scale Weight Ticket
Depositing Grain Without Title
Selling Horsemeat for Human Consumption
Here is the actual statute-
149.003. TRANSFER OF HORSEMEAT
(a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) transfers horsemeat to a person who intends to sell the horsemeat, offer or exhibit it for sale, or possess it for sale as food for human consumption; and
(2) knows or in the exercise of reasonable discretion should know that the person receiving the horsemeat intends to sell the horsemeat, offer or exhibit it for sale, or possess it for sale as food for human consumption.

Wow, we actually have horse slaughter houses here and we export the meat for human consumption to France and Germany but if a Texan want's some....
Here are a few more random ones-
Selling or Manufacturing Alcohol in a Dry Area
Making a Loan to a Candidate or Officeholder from a Non-Financial Corporation
Making a Contribution to a Political Party from a Corporation or Labor Union Less than 60 Days Before an Election
Defamation of a Credit Union
Disposing of Litter in a Cave
Illegally Operating a Bingo Game
Possessing a Live Wolf



Here are a few more. Some folks better spend more time learning and seeing what is happenening aound them and less time being schoolyard bullies.
CT :fire: :banghead: :fire:

CentralTexas
July 24, 2005, 04:00 PM
These are all non-penal code offenses....
CT

RevDisk
July 24, 2005, 04:01 PM
1 With out some of us noticing the Government, walking hand in hand with the ATF and the Shumers and Kennedy's have lowered the bar for felenies that have nothing to do with violence or firearms to releave the general population of the 2nd amendment rights. So God fearing, NRA good people have fallen pray to this ruling. Remember the democrats never saw a gun control rule or law they didn't like and the Republicans break out in hives at the thought of someone saying they might be soft on crime. Tell your representation you are on to them and this move. It wouldn't hurt to send a short note to the NRA. We need help here and fast.

Okey, I'll try to cut this up into slightly more understandable chunks.

1. ATF and "Shumers and Kennedy's". - You do realize we have a one party government at the moment. Here's a hint, it's not Democrat that handed down the most recent ATF determination re part kits and C&R weapons. Gonzales, and to an extent Bush, are responsible for it. ATF is part of the DoJ.

2. Creation of new categories of felonies and expansion of current categories. - Yep. I can agree that it's a bad thing. I believe the US has the highest percentage of its population in prison, in the entire world. Impressive, really.

3. God fearing, NRA good people - Uhm. More than just "God fearing" and "NRA good people" are being punished by these swarms of new laws. I believe that atheists, agnostics, polytheists, etc are equally deserving of justice. Ditto non-NRA members like myself. I donate (only a few bucks, I'm not rich) to the NRA, but mostly to the JPFO and the GOA. NRA is rather partisan, thus my donations are adjusted according to their partisanship. Plus, I don't want to be badgered. The GOA and JPFO are more non-partisan, take a harder line on the 2A, and don't badger their membership as much.

4. Democrats love gun control, Republicans dislike being soft on crime - Yea, unfortunately Democrats love gun control a little too much, and some of us try to work on changing that. As for Republicans... Heh. I'm not sure which I hate more. The War on Drugs or gun control. Gun control has not caused the horrors of the new "search and seizure" laws. The Republicans have indeed focused on gutting other aspects of the Bill of Rights moreso than the Second Amendment, I agree. But protecting one amendment and gutting the rest is not a good thing in my book.

Tell ya what. I'll work hard at trying to bring more understanding of the Second Amendment with the Democrats, you try to convince the Republicans to stop gutting the rest of the BoR. Deal?

jefnvk
July 24, 2005, 04:03 PM
Yeah, way to take the high road, bogie, rick_reno. Real nice.

If people would bother to clarif what they are talking about when they post something, rather than rambling about hating the gov't and so on, there would be far fewer problems.

Third_Rail
July 24, 2005, 05:02 PM
Right, so instead of giving him a chance to later, we should jump all over him and ask questions later?


I learned my lesson about being polite to EVERYONE until they can at least make their position known. Then if you disagree with them, go right ahead with the mockery. :D

Majic
July 24, 2005, 05:28 PM
How much more time do you give in this situation? He posted this morning and now this evening he hasn't posted back. There has been a discussion about what he may have meant, but we have yet to find out exactly what he was talking about.

org
July 24, 2005, 05:33 PM
I could be wrong (I frequently am) but wasn't the "1000 ft. gun free zone" around schools ruled unconstitutional? I do know for a fact that in some states CCW holders can carry on school property if their states say so.

Not to completely diminish the various gun owners organizations, but it seems they are becoming more shrill as time goes on. If they confined themselves to the facts, instead of hyping every remotely bad law that comes along, their credibility would be a lot higher. I wonder if it's that with the lack of real gun control laws coming along these days the money is drying up, so they're trying to scare up donations, pun intended.

:confused:

Kamicosmos
July 24, 2005, 06:17 PM
I asked at Mocarry about the school zone thing. My real life example is that I live in a school zone, one block away from an elementary school.

So, if I'm out walking my dog and have my CCW with me, what could happen? Even if nothing happens regarding the gun in a violent way, I might just accidently expose the gun or maybe Officer Friendly feels like running my ID that day.

It was basically explained that the School Zone law is one of those rules they're only going to throw on to add to the charges list. If I go and shoot up the school, yeah, they're going to add Carrying a gun in a school zone. But walking my dog with a CCW down MY STREET is not going to get me carted off to The Big House.

(Not yet anyways...we'll have to see with the newly improved PA crap.)

Also, the local cops have to 'escalate' the issue to the Feds for the school zone stuff...not many locals want the FBI/ATF coming in unless they really need them. IE, they're not going to call the feds simply because a CCW'er was in a school zone.

org
July 24, 2005, 08:27 PM
Interesting. The reason I mention this is that until a couple of years ago, CCW was permitted on school property in CO, not withstanding the "1000 feet rule". It was specifically forbidden when the law was changed to "shall issue". Until that time, even though we had "may issue" most sheriffs issued as a matter of course and we had almost no restrictions on where we could carry. The change was a sop to the hand wringers to get the shall issue through. Even though we lost school carry, we still have fewer restrictions than almost any of the other states.

denfoote
July 24, 2005, 08:35 PM
You back from church yet???
What you talking about, Willis??
Inquiring minds want to know!!

Standing Wolf
July 24, 2005, 08:58 PM
RICO was abused - this will be too

Abusing the law is one of the few things government consistently does well.

Kurush
July 24, 2005, 09:05 PM
anti-gun zealot Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT).
Here are the sponsors:

Sen Cornyn, John [TX] - 1/25/2005
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 1/25/2005
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 1/25/2005
Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ] - 1/25/2005
Sen Nelson, Bill [FL] - 6/6/2005
Sen Santorum, Rick [PA] - 6/15/2005
Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] - 6/15/2005

The only dem other than DiFi is Bill Nelson. I wrote Santorum and Specter about this when I got the alert, looks like I just reminded them to sign on if anything :rolleyes: pigs

EDIT: I misread the summary status, DiFi is the main sponsor and is listed seperately.

chopinbloc
July 24, 2005, 09:21 PM
ATF is part of the DoJ.

uh, i'm pretty sure it's under the department of the treasury.

when this country was founded, the idea was to put a premium on personal freedoms. as my father taught me, responsibility balances freedom, so it was understood that folks were responsible for their own safety and for their own actions. as time wore on, the eloi wanted more and more protection, which the government was happy to grant to the point that now there are many "crimes" which can get a person a fair stretch in jail or prison without hurting another human being. it is my opinion that there should be no laws whatsoever regulating my behavior if that behavior doesn't cause actual, direct harm to another person. if i want to smoke myself to death on crack cocaine, so be it. that's darwinism in action.
we have created a society where people are cowed into submission. i am, in many ways, a traditionalist. as a man, it is my responsibility to provide for the safety and well being of my loved ones. if i want to do that in **********, for instance, i have some difficult choices to make. to protect them from violence, i risk prison. obviously if i am in prison i can't provide for them financially and emotionally. this is an ethical dilemma that government has no right to put a person in. it is a fundamental violation of our human rights. the question is: how long will we continue to give more and more power to our "masters", how long will we allow them to create crimes?

DMF
July 24, 2005, 10:27 PM
uh, i'm pretty sure it's under the department of the treasury. Uh, I'm definitely sure you're wrong. It was part of the Dept. of the Treasury until 2003, when Congress moved it to DOJ.

http://www.atf.gov/about/snapshot.htm
"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is a law enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice. Its unique responsibilities include protecting the public and reducing violent crime. ATF enforces the Federal laws and regulations relating to alcohol and tobacco diversion, firearms, explosives, and arson."

http://www.atf.gov/about/atfhistory.htm
"Effective January 24, 2003, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) was transferred under the Homeland Security bill to the Department of Justice. The law enforcement functions of ATF under the Department of the Treasury were transferred to the Department of Justice. The tax and trade functions of ATF will remain in the Treasury Department with the new Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

In addition, the agency's name was changed to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to reflect it new mission in the Department of Justice."

Flyboy
July 24, 2005, 11:46 PM
...and arson.
Hasn't BATF been involved in arson for a decade or so?

RevDisk
July 25, 2005, 12:04 AM
So is it the BATFE or the BATFEA now?

DMF
July 25, 2005, 12:36 AM
The full name is The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, but when abbreviated it is just ATF.

Kurush
July 25, 2005, 01:03 AM
Rather than adding new letters every five years they should just give it a general-purpose name, and rename it the Bureau of Saving Children :p

DMF
July 25, 2005, 01:20 AM
The name was changed once in the 33 year history of the agency. BTW, if you don't like it write your Congressman, as they are the ones that renamed it when moving it to Justice.

YankeeClipper
July 26, 2005, 08:33 PM
Good breakdown Rev. Here is the story in short form that gave me a wake up call.
The gov. gave a bone the the environmental wacko a few years ago and bared the use of a certain kind on farm chemical to pacify them. They said it left a harmful residue in the wheat. But Canada uses it all the time and we allow them to sell a bunch of wheat down here. The point is if it is so harmful why do we allow the wheat to come into the country? The farmers down here need the chemical to control some weeds. So the farmer went to canada whitch is 40 miles away and brought some back and some for his friends and neighbors. Even the now governer of the state used some. The farmer was fined $25,000.00 and about 3 years probation and the loss of his 2nd amendment rights. I may need some corrections but this is the story in a nut shell. If you are a democrat you have come to enjoy being screwed by democrats; if you are a republican you have come to enjoy being screwed by republicans.

WT
July 26, 2005, 08:56 PM
BATFE doesn't deserve a 3 initial acronym. They are not a REAL agency.

RevDisk
July 27, 2005, 12:44 AM
The full name is The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, but when abbreviated it is just ATF.

I dislike using the abbreviation "ATF" because it gives the BATFE a bit more respectable appearance. Any agency tasked with policing Constitutionally protected objects can only obtain so much respect.

Yes, I realize they are just doing their jobs. "I was just following orders" is not supposed to be considered a valid defense. Just my opinion. I fully realize it and $5 will get you a coffee at Starbucks.

Yes, I write my Congresscritters. And visit, and call, and email.


If you are a democrat you have come to enjoy being screwed by democrats; if you are a republican you have come to enjoy being screwed by republicans.

The version I like more is : If you vote Democrat, you're gonna get stabbed in the chest. If you vote Republican, you're gonna get stabbed in the back. Choose wisely.

YankeeClipper
July 27, 2005, 10:06 AM
REV: we're on the same page. Always remember that Paul was not innocent because he just held the robe. The Norenberg defence was "I was just following orders"

Sawdust
July 27, 2005, 10:09 AM
If you vote Democrat, you're gonna get stabbed in the chest. If you vote Republican, you're gonna get stabbed in the back. Choose wisely.

Ooohhh, that is choice, RevDisk. :)

May I use it in a sig someday...with appropriate attribution, of course?

Sawdust

Zundfolge
July 27, 2005, 10:24 AM
Hasn't BATF been involved in arson for a decade or so?

Yeah, but now the get to investigate arsons as well as commit them :p

RevDisk
July 27, 2005, 10:29 AM
REV: we're on the same page. Always remember that Paul was not innocent because he just held the robe. The Norenberg defence was "I was just following orders"

Yep. I suspected so. I just like being difficult. ;)


Ooohhh, that is choice, RevDisk.

May I use it in a sig someday...with appropriate attribution, of course?

Sure. No prob, use anything ya want.



Yeah, but now the get to investigate arsons as well as commit them

OH! Dang! So wrong, yet so funny, Zundfolge! :evil:

If you enjoyed reading about "Unannounced Gun Control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!