NRA Foe Ordered to Surrender His Guns


PDA






qlajlu
June 11, 2007, 01:11 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/06/nra_foe_jefferson_ordered_to_s.html


NRA foe Jefferson ordered to surrender his Guns
Marc Sheppard

June 09, 2007

When Rep. William Jefferson was arraigned on a boatload of corruption and racketeering charges on Friday, he was ordered to surrender his firearms. Apparently, while the Louisiana Democrat stores his FBI-marked bribe money in his freezer in Washington, he stockpiles his collection of rifles and shotguns in his home in New Orleans.

Of course, the confiscation of all those people-killing guns from a man who will likely be on a federally funded meal plan until our next visit from Halley's Comet should help Liberals sleep at night.

But the specter of a gun-toting gun opponent raises some rather curious questions, wouldn't you say?

You might ask yourself, what does a man who, in 2005, voted against a bill to protect law-abiding gun dealers and manufacturers from litigation blaming them for criminal misuse of their products by others, need with rifles? Did he own them when he voted against similar law in 2003?

Why would a legislator with an anti-Second-Amendment voting record that earned him an NRA rating identical to that of Chuckie Schumer and Nancy Pelosi own multiple shotguns?

When asked about the Jefferson mini-armory by U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III, the congressman responded that the guns were for -- what else? Why, hunting, of course:

"I've been hunting since I was 10 years old"

Naturally, had the camo-clothed Liberal been involved in an accidental discharge while stalking gallinules on the Bayou one hot summer's morn', there'd have been no one to blame but Remington.
Apparently what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander.

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA Foe Ordered to Surrender His Guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
El Tejon
June 11, 2007, 01:32 PM
No suprise. Antis are very well armed.

alucard0822
June 11, 2007, 02:28 PM
they are not against guns, they are aggainst the whole idea of common folk having them, and they are not against hunting, but the idea that people may use them to fight aggainst tyranny

Zen21Tao
June 11, 2007, 02:38 PM
Why would a legislator with an anti-Second-Amendment voting record that earned him an NRA rating identical to that of Chuckie Schumer and Nancy Pelosi own multiple shotguns?

Two words: "Elitist" "liberal"

While I love seeing a far left gun-grabbing hypocrite exposed, I do have to come out against ordering him to turn in his weapons. Yes, he has be INDICTED on criminal charges but he hasn't yet been convicted. IMHO, until he receives full due process and is convicted, he is still (according to the law) an innocent man and shouldn't have his firearms seized.

WeedWacker
June 11, 2007, 02:41 PM
If "liberal" was originally supposed to refer to liberty, why are so many of them against the liberty of owning firearms? Oh wait, only THEY can own them, not ordinary yokels like me.

HiroProX
June 11, 2007, 03:08 PM
The antis, for the most part, are aristocratic elitists. They really do think that they have more rights than the rest of us.

MrRezister
June 11, 2007, 04:13 PM
I bet he never would have accepted those bribes if he hadn't had those guns in his house. If he had stayed in their corrupting presence much longer, who knows what sort of evil misdeeds he may have committed. I'm sure he is releived to be freed from their diabolical influence.

Mumwaldee
June 11, 2007, 04:16 PM
Man,

I read that story and all I saw was

"he was ordered to surrender his firearms"

I gotta loosen the tin-foil...and check the perimeter...brb.

K3
June 11, 2007, 04:39 PM
Surrender 'em? Hell, I SOLD 'em!

Where do you think the money in the freezer came from? Some people are so dense. :neener:

LawBot5000
June 11, 2007, 04:42 PM
I heard he was facing something like 270 years in prison.

Tob
June 11, 2007, 07:22 PM
I'd like to know the last time he's been hunting.

Elza
June 11, 2007, 07:43 PM
I would like to know what kind of guns he owned. EBR's perhaps?

metallic
June 11, 2007, 09:18 PM
Wasn't this guy reelected too?

jselvy
June 11, 2007, 09:23 PM
Yep, even after this first became known.
Hard to believe isn't it?
How about a new Federal Law making Malfeasance of Office and betrayal of the Oath of Office a Capital Crime? Wouldn't that be fun.
We'd be electrocuting so many politicians that we'd never get the bill paid off.

Jefferson

Jim K
June 11, 2007, 09:41 PM
A great many people in power support gun control for the peasantry, not for themselves.

As to being ordered to surrender or transfer his guns, the law bans possession of a firearm by a person under indictment, whether he/she has been convicted of a crime or not. He would also have had to surrender his passport.

As to why "liberals" are so "un-liberal", that is a long story. Traditionally, support for gun control came from the nobility and the conservatives who were afraid of the people. In the early 20th century, the term "liberal" applied to those who opposed big business "trusts" and favored a better deal for workers. Teddy Roosevelt was often described as a liberal. But in the 1930's, the discredited Communist party infiltrated the liberal movement and turned it toward their agenda, which included subversion, destruction of the U.S. system, and the establishment of a Stalinist type dictatorship. While the old time Reds are gone, many of their ideas live on in the minds of modern "liberals." They, like the old nobility, see themselves coming to power in a "people's revolution" and they want to protect themselves against the real people.

Jim

ConstitutionCowboy
June 11, 2007, 10:39 PM
If "liberal" was originally supposed to refer to liberty, why are so many of them against the liberty of owning firearms? Oh wait, only THEY can own them, not ordinary yokels like me.

They are called "liberals" because of the absurd liberties they take with misconstrual of the language of the Constitution - the misconstrual of the Second Amendment being the most egregious. Next in line is the "Commerce Clause". Then the First and Fourth Amendments are tied, and all the rest of the liberties they take with the Constitution suck fairly equally.

Woody

You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood

ConstitutionCowboy
June 11, 2007, 10:49 PM
As much as I don't want William Jefferson roaming around the country with guns, he has every right to them, and the Constitution forbids any government or Court to take them from him. All the Court can do(or rather, is supposed to be able to do) is lock HIM up if he can't be trusted with his guns until he can be trusted with them.

That's the Supreme Law of the Land, folks. It applies to him as much as it applies to us.

Woody

As the Court said in Boyd v. United States: [p] "It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."

We should not wait solely upon the Court to protect our rights for us, but should take an active part in protecting our own sovereignty as well.

thexrayboy
June 11, 2007, 10:55 PM
That's the Supreme Law of the Land, folks. It applies to him as much as it applies to us.


That was the intended idea in 1786. 2 and a quarter centuries later it is an obvious fact that the "supreme law of the land" is not applied in anything even resembling a consistent fashion. If it was we would have a lot fewer issues to discuss in the L&P section of THR.

ConstitutionCowboy
June 11, 2007, 11:49 PM
Quite true, thexrayboy. And a lot less crime, fewer airliners flown into tall buildings with impunity, fewer people killed in college and school massacres, etc, etc.

Woody

stevelyn
June 12, 2007, 12:07 AM
Wasn't this guy re-elected too?

Yeah. Dosen't say much about the morals and integrity of the voters in his district either.:scrutiny:

ConstitutionCowboy
June 12, 2007, 12:51 AM
...or maybe the integrity of those in charge of tallying the votes...

Woody

Autolycus
June 12, 2007, 01:36 AM
Got to love the stereotypes about liberals. Lets not forget that many "conservatives" are hypocrites.

Johnnybgood
June 12, 2007, 02:10 AM
If I may. It is not LIBERAL elitist, there are many liberals who believe in the 2nd amendment. It is Leftist elitist. Just my 2 cents worth.

Frog48
June 12, 2007, 03:23 AM
Why would a legislator with an anti-Second-Amendment voting record that earned him an NRA rating identical to that of Chuckie Schumer and Nancy Pelosi own multiple shotguns?


"Do as I say, not as I do." What politician isnt a hypocrite?

jselvy
June 12, 2007, 10:16 AM
Ron Paul of Texas

Jefferson

LAR-15
June 12, 2007, 12:01 PM
He hunts moorhens on the bayou...............yeah right! :p

SWMAN
June 12, 2007, 02:30 PM
I went to the American Hunters and Shooters Association web site to see if Jefferson was a member in good standing. Much to my surprise I found this posted there: http://www.huntersandshooters.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=131&Itemid=33DC Gun Law

ASHA believes the DC gun law should be amended to allow law-abiding citizens the right to acquire and keep handguns in their homes and places of business.

AHSA supports the Second Amendment to the US Constitution and the use of firearms for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting. Moreover, AHSA agrees with the Justice Department of the United States that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse.

In1976 the Washington D.C. City Council enacted the Firearms Control Regulations Act that prohibits the possession of a handgun that was not registered with city police prior to Sept. 24, 1976 and re-registered by Feb. 5, 1977. The Firearms Control Regulations Act also requires the registration of all privately owned rifles and shotguns and requires that they be kept at home and stored unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.

By virtue of the fact that handguns acquired after Feb. 5, 1977 are effectively banned, the DC gun law is much more restrictive than the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).

Section 101 of the GCA states:

"[I]t is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes."

AHSA believes the Washington DC Firearms Control Regulations Act should be amended to allow law-abiding citizens the opportunity to acquire and possess handguns, rifles and shotguns in their homes or place of business consistent with the purposes of the Gun Control Act of 1968.



So, is this a new strategy by the antigunners to look progun? They still have alot of anti2A baggage hanging over their heads.
http://www.gunlawnews.org/asha.html

gopguy
June 12, 2007, 04:52 PM
SWMan that is part of the AHSA camoflage...they are supposed to be moderates..

I think Jefferson is guilty as sin. However I do object to how our rights are now taken without due process. It used to be they could only take your guns with a felony conviction . Now with a indictment or just a report of something untoward they confiscate your guns. We really need to get the Lautenberg Amendment repealed.

qlajlu
June 12, 2007, 05:31 PM
(1) Let's not forget that he is the only Congressman to have a search warrant issued and served on a Congressman's D.C. Capital Hill office!

(2) Doesn't the law state that a person under indictment or having been found guilty of a felony not be allowed to posses firearms? Where does it say that the firearms must be confiscated? I believe it only says that person cannot posses them. Does the law actually say he cannot own them?

These questions also apply to those under restraining (no contact) orders such as in spousal abuse or divorce cases.

Confiscation under any circumstances is scary and prone to abuse.

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA Foe Ordered to Surrender His Guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!