[Harry Tuttle]

Democratic Party 2004 Platform
http://www.democrats.org/platform/
see page 18, (22 of the pdf)
http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.

[Nazirite]

:rolleyes: :barf: :barf: :barf: :cuss:

[Diggler]

I'm so glad that I'm a terrorist and a criminal because I want to buy an AW at a gun show.

They can go to hell.

[edited to add]
On second thought, screw it. I've been looking into it, and I think I'm going to get some 80% receivers for a few AR's and an AK or two. Get everything through the mail with no NICS check. No serial numbers. Perfectly legal. They'd crap their pants if they realized what we can still lawfully do under the radar.

Who knows, maybe I need to build a semi-auto 1919, too. UPS will love me.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

How do they reconcile banning the legal ownership of firearms (semi-auto ban) with protecting American's Second Amendment rights...

O that's right, they don't believe the Second Amendment protects your right to own a firearm...

Judge Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"

Meteja (attorney for the Clinton administration): "Yes"

Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"

Meteja: "Exactly."

Meteja then said that even membership in the National Guard isn't enough to protect the private ownership of a firearm. It wouldn't protect the guns owned at the home of someone in the National Guard.

Garwood: "Membership in the National Guard isn't enough? What else is needed?"

Meteja: "The weapon in question must be used IN the National Guard."
(Excerpt of oral arguments in U.S. v. Emerson, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 13, 2000)

[MrAcheson]

Their national security plank is also pretty shoddy. It basically says: If we have to fight the terrorists it will be on our soil not theirs. But in general we're just going to talk a lot and cozy up to our allies who have always been there for us, like France.

[halvey]

So we can own a gun as long as it's not an assault weapon as defined by them and we can't buy them?

F them!

[R.H. Lee]

Come and get them, cretins.

[Gordon Fink]

From the Republican platform …

“We defend the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and we affirm the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms.… A Republican administration will vigorously enforce current gun laws … especially by prosecuting dangerous offenders identified as felons in instant background checks.… [W]e support background checks to ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of criminals.…”

Now that’s bold! :rolleyes:

~G. Fink

[Lone_Gunman]

How do they reconcile banning the legal ownership of firearms (semi-auto ban) with protecting American's Second Amendment rights...


Where do they say in their platform they want to ban semi-autos?

[Leatherneck]

Kinda puts to rest any confusion over which party's PLATFORM is more friendly to us, doesn't it? Now: any guesses as to how firmly either will stand behind their words? :scrutiny:

TC
TFL Survivor

[twoblink]

From the Libertarian's Website:

Libertarians, like other Americans, want to be able to walk city streets safely and be secure in their homes. We also want our Constitutional rights protected, to guard against the erosion of our civil liberties. In particular, Libertarians want to see all people treated equally under the law, as our Constitution requires. America's millions of gun owners are people too.

Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask anyone's permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity. Gun ownership, by itself, harms no other person and cannot morally justify criminal penalties.

Why if you are scrictly a 2nd Amendment voter, you should vote Libertarian.

[Standing Wolf]

I'll be voting Libertarian, thanks all the same.

[twoblink]

From Michael Badnarik's website on the 2nd:

I sincerely believe that statistical evidence supports the idea that crime increases exponentially wherever gun control is instituted as the governing policy. Washington DC, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles have the strictest gun control policies in the United States. The cities with the highest murder rates are Washington DC, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. It doesn't take a PhD to be able to draw the proper conclusion from this evidence. England and Australia have recently instituted strict gun control measures, and both countries have seen the statistics on violent crime quadruple. In contrast, I am told that the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a municipal ordinance that requires homeowners to have a firearm available. Home invasions have dropped to less than 10% of their original rate, indicating to me that criminals value their lives more than they value your property.

I have no doubt that members of the anti-gun crowd would be happy to offer statistical data which appears to contradict the numbers I have just mentioned. Even if they could, their alternate statistics are not enough authority to strip me of my inalienable right to keep and bear arms. My rights are non-negotiable. I don't care if someone else doesn't like it. I don't care if they toss and turn at night, anxiously worried about what I might do with my firearm. My rights are not predicated on whether or not you LIKE what I'm doing. You only have a complaint when I present a "clear and present danger", which is not the case if I have my firearm in a holster.

Repealing unconstitutional gun control laws will be one of my first priorities as President of the United States.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The emphasis is mine. If there is another presidential candidate who's willing to repeal all the unconsitutional gun laws from either the Republican or Democratic side, I'd vote for them.. But then again, we all know what the answer is..

[boofus]

Does the POTUS even have the power to repeal laws? I thought he could only appoint judges, veto or sign bills, and make treaties?

[Lone_Gunman]

How do they reconcile banning the legal ownership of firearms (semi-auto ban) with protecting American's Second Amendment rights...


I will ask again, where in their platform do they say they want to ban semi-autos???

I can't find it in their platform and need you to point that out please.

[Diggler]

Uh, it's proven day in and day out by Feinstein, Schumer, et. al.

[Lone_Gunman]

Diggler, that didn't answer the question.

[Nightfall]

The semi-auto ban is AKA the AWB. The AWB is a ban on semi-automatic firearms, and attempts have been made to expand it's reach by the Democrats. I believe this is what Bartholomew may have been referring too.

[Lone_Gunman]

Saying the AWB is a semi auto ban is a big stretch.

Semi autos were not banned, just flash hiders, bayonet lugs, and folding stocks.

Claiming the AWB is a semi auto ban is just as bad as the anti's showing a full auto weapon and calling it an assault weapon.

Just scare tactics.

Anyway, its kind of hard to use the AWB as a reason not to vote for the Democrats, since Bush says he would sign it too.

[boofus]

Feinswine said it herself. If she could have gotten 51 votes then Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in.

ALL guns obviously includes semi-autos.

The AWB needs to go away because gungrabbers can start twisting the law to include even more firearms. Remember when they convinced the ATF to make pistols with 2 handgrips (H&K SP89 and others) count as Any Other Weapon under the NFA? Or adding the USAS-12 and Striker 12 to Destructive Devices? Do you really want another law to linger around that they can abuse by amending it, or by pressuring ATF to consider every rifle stock that you can wrap a hand around a pistol grip?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Lone_Gunman - since all of the prominent Democrats have accused the gun manufacturers of evading the intent of the ban by continuing manufacture of guns without the cosmetic features banned, it seems plain that the intent of the ban is to ban a wide variety of semi-auto guns.

Does the 1994 law ban some semi-autos? Yes, it does. In fact, it bans more semi-autos than it does assault weapons (zero) and yet nobody seems to object to the irrational nomenclature of calling it the AWB.

[Lone_Gunman]

since all of the prominent Democrats have accused the gun manufacturers of evading the intent of the ban by continuing manufacture of guns without the cosmetic features banned, it seems plain that the intent of the ban is to ban a wide variety of semi-auto guns.


That's not how I interpretted your earlier comment, so I apologize for my confusion and appreciate your clarification.


Earlier you had said:

How do they reconcile banning the legal ownership of firearms (semi-auto ban) with protecting American's Second Amendment rights...

I took this to mean you were saying they wanted to ban all semi-autos. While a few of their more prominent members have advocated such, I do not think the party at large has adopted that as their platform.

Even regarding the AWB, not many Democrats are calling for its renewal.

[jfh]

...don't you mean to say assault rifles instead of assault weapons in this comment: "... it bans more semi-autos than it does assault weapons (zero)...."

My point is that assault 'weapons' are a legal identity found only in this bill and not in the standard lexicon of firearms. To the best of my knowledge, no where else would a semi-automatic pistol be considered the same as a Colt Sporter (for example).

[BB62]

Bartholomew Roberts,

Is there anywhere online (non RKBA site) you are aware of where Meteja's argument is online?

I would like to refer some anti's to it.


Thanks,
BB62

[GeneC]

I heard that they're getting a $100mil grant from the Govt for security, but they bitched last week when the Pres flew into Tampa here on AFO.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

jfh: yeah, it is a mishmash in terminology to be sure.

BB62: the original notes are direct from the oral arguments before the 5th CCA and were originally published by Tom Gresham I believe, at least that is the first place I saw them.

You might try some legal source; but I'm not sure where you would find a transcript of the oral arguments. However, here is a letter from the Solicitor General at the time confirming that the argument was made that the Second Amendment does not extend an individual right to keep and bear arms:

http://www.impactsites2000.com/site3/news/news70.htm

[Harry Tuttle]

Section 3: Definitions.
1) The term “assault weapon” shall mean:
a) Any semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic or pump-action rifle that is capable of
accepting a detachable magazine and that also possesses any of the following:
i) If the firearm is a rifle, a pistol grip located rear of the trigger;
ii) If the firearm is a rifle, a stock in any configuration, including but not limited to
a thumbhole stock, a folding stock or a telescoping stock, that allows the
bearer of the firearm to grasp the firearm with the trigger hand such that the
web of the trigger hand, between the thumb and forefinger, can be placed
below the top of the external portion of the trigger during firing;
iii) If the firearm is a pistol, a shoulder stock of any type or configuration,
including but not limited to a folding stock or a telescoping stock;
iv) A barrel shroud;
v) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;
vi) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the
hand that is not the trigger hand;
b) Any pistol that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine at any location
outside of the pistol grip;
c) Any semiautomatic pistol, or any semiautomatic, center-fire rifle with a fixed
magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
d) Any shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine;
e) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder;
f) Any conversion kit or other combination of parts from which an assault weapon,
as defined herein, can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under
the control of any person.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40415