alan
Member
Regarding the confiscation of firearms in N.O., above mentioned by some, it was my impression that this activity was mostly activity by police imports, some from California. My memory or understanding could be faulty though.
Congressional hearings: BATFE and H.R. 5005 (merged)
- Thread starter alan
- Start date
- Status
Manedwolf
member
Well, there's DynCorp, currently employed in New Orleans. Their people were running a sex-slave trade in Bosnia with girls as young as 12. Google for it, major newspapers.
That sick enough for you?
What is this fascination with Blackwater?
I probably have to go re-read the bill again, but I don't see anything glaring in there stating the "contractors" have to be US Citizens, or a US company. Just a contracted party.
I'm a little more worried about the implications of that.
Don't Tread On Me
Member
Well, Blackwater is just an example as it sticks out in everyone's head first. After all, they got a lot of publicity in Fallujah and even did some "work" in New Orleans...
This bill cleans up a lot of wrongs regarding the BATFE, forms/records, interpretations and some others stuff at the expense of empowering private contractors. I question that. It doesn't really give them greater powers, it just makes it easier for them to procure the weaponry they want. Less paperwork and hassle for them to get "happy switches"...I need to re-read it myself.
Interesting angle though. Perhaps this is the "don't shoot till you see the blue of their helmet" UN mercenary enabler bill. As someone else said in this thread -- Hessians.
woerm
Member
hows this?
Mssg to sponsor of 5005
Dear Mr. Smith
I am inquiring about the wording of your proposed changes to Federal firearms laws, HR 5005.
I am curious as to why there appears to be a provision granting mercenaries and their corporate sponsors access to new production NFA weapons when US citizens are denied access to those weapons by 922(o). It would make more sense to revoke section 922(o) than to carve out a benefit for hessians in US employ.
On a similar note the NICS check needs to REQUIRE a response from the Attorney General within 24 hours or some future Attorney General could prohibit firearms sales by refusing to reply to NICS requests. The transfers of NFA weapons needs to be routed through the NICS and not the BATFE’s examiners and the maximum time for a response needs to be set at about 1 hour. That could be done effectively by stating only felony convictions be listed in the NICS. I have seen examples where gun purchasers had transactions delayed because they had security clearances and that showed up in the NICS as an ‘open investigation’. The only constitutional grounds for barring a firearms transaction is a felony conviction or adjudication as mentally incompetent. Since there isn’t a national registry of mental cases, and I haven’t heard of one being created the only thing that should be in the NICS is felony convictions with picture, prints and description so it would be clear quickly if the person making the purchase was prohibited or not.
In conclusion, please modify the proposal, repeal section 922(o) and remove the roadbocks of CLEO signoff and BATFE organizational delaying tactics. Republicans have been in charge of congress for over 10 years now and it is time to peel away the leftist tripe that has abraded the constitutional rights of American Citizens.
Sincerely,
woerm
Mssg to sponsor of 5005
Dear Mr. Smith
I am inquiring about the wording of your proposed changes to Federal firearms laws, HR 5005.
I am curious as to why there appears to be a provision granting mercenaries and their corporate sponsors access to new production NFA weapons when US citizens are denied access to those weapons by 922(o). It would make more sense to revoke section 922(o) than to carve out a benefit for hessians in US employ.
On a similar note the NICS check needs to REQUIRE a response from the Attorney General within 24 hours or some future Attorney General could prohibit firearms sales by refusing to reply to NICS requests. The transfers of NFA weapons needs to be routed through the NICS and not the BATFE’s examiners and the maximum time for a response needs to be set at about 1 hour. That could be done effectively by stating only felony convictions be listed in the NICS. I have seen examples where gun purchasers had transactions delayed because they had security clearances and that showed up in the NICS as an ‘open investigation’. The only constitutional grounds for barring a firearms transaction is a felony conviction or adjudication as mentally incompetent. Since there isn’t a national registry of mental cases, and I haven’t heard of one being created the only thing that should be in the NICS is felony convictions with picture, prints and description so it would be clear quickly if the person making the purchase was prohibited or not.
In conclusion, please modify the proposal, repeal section 922(o) and remove the roadbocks of CLEO signoff and BATFE organizational delaying tactics. Republicans have been in charge of congress for over 10 years now and it is time to peel away the leftist tripe that has abraded the constitutional rights of American Citizens.
Sincerely,
woerm
Mr.V.
Member
So if I stick a lump of 238U in a jar of Smuckers, can I get an H&K G36?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353
I disagree and propose that the 1968 GCA felony disqualification is unconstitutional. Then again how many of our representatives have read this recently, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, .........unalienable Rights........" Obviously, Very few!
Since when are private citizens employed by a government approved private company more equal than me? Let me answer, since we elected unpatriotic traitors that refuse to abide by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution.
We need a law that criminally punishes politicians that initiate and/or vote for laws that violate the Constitution and their oath of office.
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353
woerm said:
I disagree and propose that the 1968 GCA felony disqualification is unconstitutional. Then again how many of our representatives have read this recently, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, .........unalienable Rights........" Obviously, Very few!
Since when are private citizens employed by a government approved private company more equal than me? Let me answer, since we elected unpatriotic traitors that refuse to abide by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution.
We need a law that criminally punishes politicians that initiate and/or vote for laws that violate the Constitution and their oath of office.
woerm
Member
point taken
Gunfire,
Point taken and under review, but AFAIK that's where it stands now.
inalienable rights are just that but the SCOTUS is stacked w/ fools.
and cowards (see Silviera/Sewart Raich et al.)
Gunfire,
Point taken and under review, but AFAIK that's where it stands now.
inalienable rights are just that but the SCOTUS is stacked w/ fools.
and cowards (see Silviera/Sewart Raich et al.)
Mr.V.
Member
Gunfire--
What IS in the constitution is the following:
Amendment IV:
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Amendment XIV:
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
What it means is that if you prosecute someone and a jury convicts, you CAN deny someone the rights of at least life, liberty, and property. So if the people want to deny someone convicted of assault the right to lawfully possess a firearm, they must do it through the process of law, just like you can deny them life or liberty.
There certainly isn't anything unconstitutional about it though...
How so? Inalienable rights are not defined in the U.S. constitution, the supreme law of the land. You have only cited Jefferson's feelings about that and the Declaration of Independence, neither of which are law.
What IS in the constitution is the following:
Amendment IV:
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Amendment XIV:
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
What it means is that if you prosecute someone and a jury convicts, you CAN deny someone the rights of at least life, liberty, and property. So if the people want to deny someone convicted of assault the right to lawfully possess a firearm, they must do it through the process of law, just like you can deny them life or liberty.
There certainly isn't anything unconstitutional about it though...
"self-evident" Cannot be revoked.
"endowed by their Creator" Cannot be revoked.
"that among these" Which includes the BOR's.
How so is that not defined?
The BOR's speaks of the people's rights, not the states and especially not the federal governments because it has no rights, "the people" do..
4th Amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
And the slurring of the 14th Amendment is a symptom of our present government.
http://federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm
No Amendment negates any other except the revocation of prohibition.
Mr.V.
Member
Gunfire--
I'm still unclear as to what you are arguing. Those terms are in the Declaration of Independence. The DoI is not law. The constitution is the law. And those terms aren't used in the constitution. If you can point out where in the constitution any of "endowed by their creator" and where "inalienable rights" are or that they include the Bill of Rights, I'd be happy to change my opinion.
As it stands, the law in the US is the Constitution. And in the constitution is the ability of the people (prosecution/judge/jury of peers) to deny an individual person "inalienable" rights such as "life and liberty", as well as, though not inalienable, "property". So a court conviction by a jury of one's peers can order the convicted individual to DIE (taking away life by due process) but can't take his/her guns (property) or right to bear arms away by due process?
You made the assertion that to deny someone a right after being convicted of a felony in a trial by judge and jury ("due process) is unconstitutional by using terms that appear only in the Declaration of Independence which is NOT a law in the United States.
Now if you're arguing that the Declaration of Independence from where you draw your terms should be law, that's a different matter altogether.
I'm still unclear as to what you are arguing. Those terms are in the Declaration of Independence. The DoI is not law. The constitution is the law. And those terms aren't used in the constitution. If you can point out where in the constitution any of "endowed by their creator" and where "inalienable rights" are or that they include the Bill of Rights, I'd be happy to change my opinion.
As it stands, the law in the US is the Constitution. And in the constitution is the ability of the people (prosecution/judge/jury of peers) to deny an individual person "inalienable" rights such as "life and liberty", as well as, though not inalienable, "property". So a court conviction by a jury of one's peers can order the convicted individual to DIE (taking away life by due process) but can't take his/her guns (property) or right to bear arms away by due process?
You made the assertion that to deny someone a right after being convicted of a felony in a trial by judge and jury ("due process) is unconstitutional by using terms that appear only in the Declaration of Independence which is NOT a law in the United States.
Now if you're arguing that the Declaration of Independence from where you draw your terms should be law, that's a different matter altogether.
My opinion is it's all one, the DOI, the Constitution, the BOR's, and all the written interpretations of the authors. What I argue is the 2nd is not negotiable. It doesn't say "shall not be infringed" except for due process, does it? And I agree to the states rights to make laws for the safety of the citizens. But if that felon is so dangerous to be disarmed after paying restitution, ie prison, parole, why is he allowed to be free? The government has made so many laws that they say are 'felonies' that the prison system is failing just as our health care system is failing but nobody talks about that. I would guess at least 50% of the prison population is drug related non-violent no victim crime. Our economy is becoming crime-prison driven. If the government wants to measure the 2nd amendment with felonies, a felony should be serious violent crimes where the xitizens liberty is taken for a long time and so their firearms rights. No early release. When they are released to a long parole they are still in state custody and can be denied firearms rights. That would satisfy most peoples concerns. no? And it wouldn't violate the 2nd.
As it is now, not showing for court, bad check, multi-dui, tax related, an ounce of pot, can get you a felony.
They pay their dues and show they are law-abiding citizens again they should be allowed to own firearms for self defense on their own property.
As it is now, not showing for court, bad check, multi-dui, tax related, an ounce of pot, can get you a felony.
They pay their dues and show they are law-abiding citizens again they should be allowed to own firearms for self defense on their own property.
Mr.V.
Member
Gunfire--
I agree with much of what you're saying. I'm particularly concerned about people with violent crimes getting their hands on guns again. (Not that they couldn't anyway, if they wanted a gun...but at least they'd go to prison again for that reason alone if they were caught).
I also agree that many things that shouldn't be felonies are. But most of that is our own damn fault. I hear a lot of people saying "the government" is concocting a big plot to make everything a felony so they can deny everyone their rights. But there's a simpler explanation. We keep voting for people who are "tough on crime" because it sounds good without understanding what that means. Meanwhile to be "tough on crime" they write legislation to make more minor crimes felonies and increase sentencing lengths.
I suppose the tipping point will be when offending your neighbor's sense of style becomes a felony and either there'll be a revolution, or a lot of felons with poor color coordination.
I agree with much of what you're saying. I'm particularly concerned about people with violent crimes getting their hands on guns again. (Not that they couldn't anyway, if they wanted a gun...but at least they'd go to prison again for that reason alone if they were caught).
I also agree that many things that shouldn't be felonies are. But most of that is our own damn fault. I hear a lot of people saying "the government" is concocting a big plot to make everything a felony so they can deny everyone their rights. But there's a simpler explanation. We keep voting for people who are "tough on crime" because it sounds good without understanding what that means. Meanwhile to be "tough on crime" they write legislation to make more minor crimes felonies and increase sentencing lengths.
I suppose the tipping point will be when offending your neighbor's sense of style becomes a felony and either there'll be a revolution, or a lot of felons with poor color coordination.
beerslurpy
member
Cut this crap out. You know that what you are saying is not true.
As I have (repeatedly) pointed out already, this is not what the bill does. The bill exempts federal contractors (not just military or nuclear ones, not just homeland security, ANY contractors the federal government designates as "security contractors") from a broad range of federal and state laws regarding machine guns and destructive devices, including the 86 ban.
This bill does not contain a single clause, phrase or even sentence fragment releated to nuclear facilities or anything you claim as the legitimate purpose of this bill. You are lying. Please stop.
We do need reform. We do need checks on the ATFs abuses. We do need for gun laws to be improved. This bill does none of those things.
Mr.V.
Member
Why couldn't the second amendment read like Washington state's...
"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."
Then at least the blackwater/dyncorp/generic cartoonishly evil mercenary organization would be unconstitutional. (not that this fact would stop our fearless leaders...)
"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."
Then at least the blackwater/dyncorp/generic cartoonishly evil mercenary organization would be unconstitutional. (not that this fact would stop our fearless leaders...)
waterhouse
Member
Probably because the founders wanted us to be able to organize an armed body of men if necessary.
Mr.V.
Member
Waterhouse--
I guess I interpreted the Washington's clause to mean that they didn't want Microsoft or Don Corleone from hiring soldiers of fortune.
Also I'm not sure the founders wanted any old stooge organizing men because in the purpose clause to the 2nd, they do intend the militia to be well regulated which assumes by the people as opposed to a corporation. Not that the purpose clause denies eBay from keeping a merc army, but I'm not sure they intended it either.
I guess I interpreted the Washington's clause to mean that they didn't want Microsoft or Don Corleone from hiring soldiers of fortune.
Also I'm not sure the founders wanted any old stooge organizing men because in the purpose clause to the 2nd, they do intend the militia to be well regulated which assumes by the people as opposed to a corporation. Not that the purpose clause denies eBay from keeping a merc army, but I'm not sure they intended it either.
waterhouse
Member
Mr. V,
There are a bunch of "or" statements in the Washington State wording. One of the OR statements says that an individual doesn't have a right (authority) to organize with other individuals to form a group of armed men. I'm not as well read on the 2nd as most people here, but my understanding is that a militia is just that. . .a bunch of well armed individual citizens who organized into a group.
All I'm saying is that I would choose the current wording over the Washington State wording any day.
There are a bunch of "or" statements in the Washington State wording. One of the OR statements says that an individual doesn't have a right (authority) to organize with other individuals to form a group of armed men. I'm not as well read on the 2nd as most people here, but my understanding is that a militia is just that. . .a bunch of well armed individual citizens who organized into a group.
All I'm saying is that I would choose the current wording over the Washington State wording any day.
- Status
