Actually, this is pretty clever.
Very, very scary.
http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm
-f-
Frank you ruined what had been a fine day. I can't print what I just said. Not here.
These legislative attempts will raise the cost of ammo alone, even if the bills don't get passed, dur to the high costs of the lobbying efforts to kill the legislation.
I knee jerked and posted this before researching it a bit.
It appears that it is being defeated by states such as AZ: http://www.azcdl.org/html/2008_bills.html#hb2833
But this is just the start. I guarantee you that the anti-gunners will be bolstered by their election successes.
-f-
the SOB'S just don't give up on firearms. >:(
They don't give up because guns and ammo they don't control scare the &%$^**#@ out of them. Why? Because they know they deserve to be shot!
Now fellas, watch your language.... I don't think most anti-gun folk are rabid communists or anything of the sort. A lot of them are folks who've never had a gun and are under the mistaken perception that guns cause crime or that guns kill people, neither of which are true. I know good, honest people who just don't understand that a gun is a tool and nothing more or less. I think that a lot of people need an education about the hows and whys etc. of guns. Rather than getting our hackles up every time there is an attempt to diminish the 2nd amendment, I think it would be to the benefit of gun owners and freedom lovers to gently explain some things to folks rather than jumping on our soapboxes immediately. ;D That said, better buy up some ammunition while the getting is good. :-\ A lot of the same ones who are anti gun also don't want to be educated.
People who were borderline on this are now buying out the gun stores and ammo. Good move.
I heard months ago that Walmart was going to record and video ammo sales. First time I heard it was actually tried was today - they tried to get Whitlock to voluntarily fill out an ammo application and tried to get his ID.
I agree with Homegrown on her statement that a lot of the anti gun crowd have false ideas about guns. Many members of my extended family views guns as unnecessary and evil and think that the country (that should be read as Canada and/or the USA) would be better off if guns were harder to get. I have tried to convince some of them otherwise, but haven't had much success. OTOH, some members of K's extended family are avid gun owners. My greatest success is within my own immediate family; K tolerates them, has no problem with people who want to own and shoot guns. Our son is a gun "nut".
As for buying up ammo while the getting is good; that doesn't really help the way these bills are read. To use the AZ bill as an example it would eventually become illegal for anyone to possess ammo that did not have the required serial number on the base of each bullet and on the inside of each casing, after a certain date. >:( If that bill had passed, let it be noted that this requirement would have applied to all calibers; no exemptions. The AZ bill referenced all handgun and assault weapon ammo.
As well a half cent per round tax would have been applied. The record keeping would have become a horrendous task and MTL the act would have for all intents and purposes banned the sale of all applicable ammo in the state.
Quote from: glenn kangiser on December 01, 2008, 11:58:36 PM
People who were borderline on this are now buying out the gun stores and ammo. Good move.
I heard months ago that Walmart was going to record and video ammo sales. First time I heard it was actually tried was today - they tried to get Whitlock to voluntarily fill out an ammo application and tried to get his ID.
No problems buying ammo at Wal-Mart here in NM today. However, any merchant would be free to decide to record that info if they wanted to. Just like they can set the rules as to whether or not they will allow firearms to be brought into their stores. They just have to publicly post that info. The consumer has to make their own decision as to whether or not they will go by those rules.
The WalMarts are all a little different here with their ammo policy. We have three close by; the shotgun ammo is mostly on open self serve shelves, but in one of the stores the rifled slugs and buckshot are locked up. Go figure. d*
Quote from: glenn kangiser on December 01, 2008, 11:58:36 PM
People who were borderline on this are now buying out the gun stores and ammo. Good move.
I heard months ago that Walmart was going to record and video ammo sales. First time I heard it was actually tried was today - they tried to get Whitlock to voluntarily fill out an ammo application and tried to get his ID.
I couldn't believe this They asked me to fill out a voluntary application to buy pistol ammo >:(
I refused But was told that I could buy ammo as long as I showed them my I.D. I took it out and covered my name.
I wish I would of asked some questions or took one of the apps. with me.
They did tell me that ammo sells are up 400% at wallmart and they might stop selling ammo?
When something is up 400% why would you stop selling it?
Then I came home and got on the forum and saw this [scared]
Were is the list of cailbers to be coded ???
They say it won't work-
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=311&issue=100
I had a gander at several of the proposed bills. Most simply make mention of assault rifle ammo, some with all pistol ammo included. Some make note to exclude shotgun ammo... I wondered how they serialize all the pellets. [crz] The WA state bill seems to address only pistol (handgun) ammo but does not list amy calibers. Does that mean 22 caliber is included?
The bills I read make no mention of reloading. However they say that each loaded round must consist of a bullet and casing that have matching serial numbers. That would seem to make it impossible to reload casings. ???
The whole thing sucks big time.
Quote from: Whitlock on December 02, 2008, 01:23:47 AM
They say it won't work-
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=311&issue=100
Unfortunately, that an expert may testify to the deficiencies in a serialization system, is absolutely no guarantee that such legislation will not introduced time and time again.
[quote author=Homegrown Tomatoes link=topic=5743.msg73933#msg73933 date=1228192700]
Now fellas, watch your language....
[/quote]
Hi, Homegrown, I was referring to the politicians who year after year keep trying to steal our rights. They took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. IMHO, they're at least liars, and arguably traitors. And you know what the punishment for treason is.........
glen, are you saying thay whitlock did NOT have to fill out an app and show ID to purchase ammo at walmart? i haven't bought ammo at walmart so i just wanted to know as i am going to purchase .22 ammo there in a day or two.
dan
Quote from: Whitlock on December 02, 2008, 01:23:47 AM
They say it won't work-
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=311&issue=100
Whitlock, thanks for this posting. I searched the nra site and came up dry.
Here's hoping it gets soundly defeated in all states. Looks like it has to have a 2/3 majority to pass; I think many democrats won't go for it, and I don't think any republicans will. You never know with politicians though... cash talks.
-f-
Here's another interesting 2nd Amendment story:
http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/newsbriefs/
Quote from: apaknad on December 02, 2008, 09:12:14 AM
glen, are you saying thay whitlock did NOT have to fill out an app and show ID to purchase ammo at walmart? i haven't bought ammo at walmart so i just wanted to know as i am going to purchase .22 ammo there in a day or two.
dan
It was presented as voluntary...he didn't volunteer. The girl required ID- he kept his thumb over his name - she, obviously a low dollar droid let it go and sold him ammo. No telling how it will be elsewhere.
ok, this is how it is in michigan 2 hrs. ago. just purchased a 550 block of .22(lr) hollow points for$16.97 and a box of 50 rds, .38 SPCL+P(JHP), 125 gr., for $18.97 no ID check, no asking for voluntary forms, no nothing. had a nice talk w/sales person and he told me that some guy from down south comes up and buys out all his ammo in certain calibers because it is cheaper up here. comes in 3-4 times a year. checked out a few rifle/shotgun prices and cabela's still has the best prices.
I remember when I was back in school in the mid 70's, I had a job at a small retail sort of place... called "Magic Mart". I worked the sporting goods / hardware counter and all ammo that could go into a handgun had to be recorded on a form with a driver's license.... I think this was true for .22 ammo too, but can't remember for sure. This was in Arkansas....
I just bought some pistol ammo for my CCW refresher qualification, and was not required to show any ID here in NM.
But the times, they are a-changing.
-f-
I could have the date wrong, but I think there was a federal law up to the late sixties maybe, that required recording that information. ???
Somebody correct me if I'm out to lunch on this one, but I believe that some, or maybe most, of the people who are in favor of outlawing guns believe that doing so will make themselves and the rest of us safer.
One of the things that really irks me is that the efforts expended to make me "safer" from gun violence could achieve greater results if drunk drivers could be kept off the roads. I stand a better chance of being killed by a drunk driver every time I head up to the mountains than I do of ever getting shot.
That's what it is I believe but that's not the way it is. So if the law abiding citizens can only fist fight and the criminals don't give up their guns, how does that make us safer? hmm
What libs don't understand though, is that the 2nd amendment wasn't put in place to protect us from street thugs, it was written to protect us from our government.
(There's a high hanging pitch for you Glenn :) )
I like this quote from C. Heston, directed toward Bill Clinton and his administration:
One of his most notable jabs was delivered in 1998 as the president of the NRA to the then-President Clinton, ''America doesn't trust you with our 21-year-old daughters, and we sure, Lord, don't trust you with our guns.''
I was actually going to bring that up, Frank but didn't want to tell the whole story. I left it for you. :)
Yup -- it's like follow the money... to see why something is done by government criminals just look at what is motivating them. Gun control is wanted by them because they know that the foundations of American freedom were based on the ability of Americans to control their government.
THEY KNOW THAT THEY ARE OUT OF CONTROL AND WANT TO REMAIN ALIVE.
We have the destruction of government power controls, the SOLD OUT COMPLICIT CONGRESS who is helping steal the financial system, along with the PRIVATE FEDERAL RESERVE, and the bought SUPREME COURT [rofl2] who is ignoring the fact (since he won't prove otherwise) that Osbama is a Kenyan citizen and cannot be president.
The gun grab is directly related to the fact that with the obfuscation of the rights of the citizens, these criminals are in fear for their own lives because they know that at some point the people will get their fill of it, snap and remove them from power by force. I have news for them.
I think they better take the guns from the military also. I think there are enough abused patriotic citizens in the military that when they try to turn them against the citizens, as they are by deploying them in the US, there will be a revolt there also.
Totally against the laws set up by the founding fathers against having a standing army to be used against the citizens, they now walk among us. I think they will wake up also. These kids have parents who will not likely be voluntarily dropping their guns and rolling over. I think these veteran parents will likely have an influence on their child soldiers.
QuoteOne of the things that really irks me is that the efforts expended to make me "safer" from gun violence could achieve greater results if drunk drivers could be kept off the roads. I stand a better chance of being killed by a drunk driver every time I head up to the mountains than I do of ever getting shot.
Imagine if the gun owners could shoot the drunk drivers... ok lets not go there. d*
Glenn you're dead on. For some reason the government has the idea they own us.
Just wanted to share some thoughts by others on this matter:
"The gun control debate generally ignores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny . The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms." - Dr. Ron Paul
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature ... laws not preventive but fearful of crimes.:" - Beccaria
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government"
George Washington
To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state. It is to reserve final judgment about whether the state is encroaching on freedom and liberty, to stand ready to defend that freedom with more than mere words, and to stand outside the state's totalitarian reach."
- Jeff Snyder, "A Nation of Cowards"
- "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." - Justice Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U. S. Supreme Court Justice
Osbama is above even the Supreme Court. No need to prove he is a citizen of the US.
http://www.borderfirereport.net/sher-zieve/obama-too-important-to-respond-to-us-supreme-court.html
If allowed to be POTUS then he will not need to follow the Constitution or have fear of any laws including the 2nd Amendment.
The premise of the article is wrong. The premise is if he was not born in the united states, he can not be POTUS. This has been ruled on and disproved. The other problem with this is that the woman clearly doesn't understand the basic workings of the U.S. legal system, courts, or the structure of the U.S. government. This was ruled on in 2000 when John McCain ran for president. McCain was born at a hospital in Panama, not a on U.S. soil. The argument ruled on that anyone with parents from the united states is still a natural born U.S. citizen.
Now to the break down of the courts.
Here is the current docket.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm
The case was dismissed originally.
It was picked up by one member of the court and distributed.
For the court to even consider a Writ of Cert. It needs to get by the rule of four. It is not even close to there yet. It would be highly unusual and against normal supreme court practice for the person who is not the movant to respond.
Next the original suit was a last minute stay to holding the election on November 4 in NJ. The court is limited to only the issues put before them. The original issue is whether he could even ask for a stay of the certification of the results in NJ. Even if they ruled in favor of Donofrio, they would be limited to the state of NJ and whether it was proper for the lower court do dismiss the case without argument.
This is a publicity stunt to take advantage of people not familiar with the courts. If the person wanted to actually have done anything he would have filed it in federal court against the Condoleezza Rice. This would have made it a national argument instead of a state of NJ argument. Also he would have filed before November 3. The supreme court is now limited to ruling on the proper procedure of the state laws of NJ. Even if the supreme court granted the stay for the certification state of NJ results. BHO still has enough electoral votes for POTUS. This person framed the argument to be procedural and not actually accomplish anything or challenge actual merit.
Sorry to disagree with you, Squirl, but irregardless of the court system and the sold out Criminal Supreme Court, it would not be a problem for Obama to simply produce the required documentation and none of this joke "Legal" posturing would be necessary.
It is now quite obvious that shadow government handlers pushing Obama have groomed him for the job and that no US CONSTITUTION is going to stand in his way.
This will be a treasonous Supreme Court installation just as the installation of Bush was the first time. It is based on technicalities and the ability to twist the law to no end to stop a legitimate investigation of the facts.
QuoteSupreme Court Ruling or lack thereof, as I see it
Obama is not legally eligible to become president.
So what?
Screw your Constitution.
Screw your founding fathers and their controls on big government.
Screw the American People.
Don't feel bad about my view on Obama. McCain was no better. Just an allowed choice by the controllers of the world.
Would you mind enlightening us a bit more on your background, Squirl and why this is so important to you, to remove all doubts about Obama?
You almost seem like you are working for the Fed with your opinions. rofl of course. Right? hmm
No, but I have prepared a few Writs of Certiorari before. I am used to the procedure of the courts. When I see an article like that one that draws conclusions on a false premise it does make me scratch my head. ??? If you are used to waking up everyday and the sky is blue and then someone wrights an article saying that it proves their point because the sky is not green today, you say to yourself, but the sky wouldn't be green anyway. Same with the article. It has been common law in the united states for almost 200 years that if either of your parents are natural born U.S. citizens then when you are a natural born U.S. citizen regardless of where you are born. The other conclusions she draws from the procedure of the courts is the same way. The courts don't usually have the procedure that she seems to think they are supposed to have.
I wouldn't mind an actual case on the merits. But none has been brought. The one is on procedure. Then again, no matter what the ruling, people will believe what they want to believe.
Thanks, Squirl.
It doesn't much matter anyway the way I see it. They will do whatever they want.
I believe we've hashed out this Obama citizenship thing before, and whether or not he qualifies to be POTUS. We also ran through the same thing on McCain. This is getting old. It has been stated before that it does not matter one iota where he was born as his mother was a US Citizen. The Supreme Court doesn't need to get involved.
I never voted for him but to try and blacken his name this way is unjust.
The only reason I bring it up again is because it is still and issue. If there is not a problem he should just present the factual piece of paper.
I am a US citizen and I think it is OK if I want him to present proof that he deems necessary to withhold. If there really was not a problem he would present the proof and I would not question this issue again. I would move onto the next one. d*
This is no different than if Arnold decided he wanted to be president then went ahead and did it without proper proof he was eligible, even though many in the US know he is not.
I don't need to blacken his name as he is doing a great job of it himself by ignoring this issue. He may be headed for office but that does not mean he has proved he is eligible.
Squirl, could you tell us why he will not just bring out the legitimate proof if there is not an issue?
Honestly, I have no hostility. I just want to know why he won't present the proof and settle this.
The reason I want this proven is that the gun issues should not be presented by someone who does not respect the Constitution enough to follow the guidelines set by the founding fathers.
Your wanting to just let it slide is just rolling over and letting the elite who installed him do anything they want to to you is not the way this country is supposed to be. The checks and balances put into the Constitution are being brushed aside for a Fascist, Socialist government. We are supposed to be the REPUBLIC for which it stands. The Republic is supposed to have checks and balances.
Won't work even if it passed.
Taser has been putting tags in their cartridges for years. The only people who DON'T buy on the black market are the cops.
Taser also says you can't buy on the black market. I bought a 12 pack recently of the XP's that are restricted by Taser, to police.
If the fellow I bought them from knows who I am, he's psychic.
"- "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." - Justice Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U. S. Supreme Court Justice"
This is exactly right, and points up very effectively one thing that is exactly wrong today: the intentional blurring of the distinction between a constitutional republic and a democracy. IMO, it is absolutely imperative that
the voters of this country understand clearly what Justice Jackson was talking about, if we are to reestablish our liberty and survive as a free nation.
What do your children's history and civics books have to say on this?
Quote from: glenn kangiser on December 04, 2008, 11:45:21 PM
Squirl, could you tell us why he will not just bring out the legitimate proof if there is not an issue?
Honestly, I have no hostility. I just want to know why he won't present the proof and settle this.
II was reading the supreme courts website today and found a new docket.
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a469.htm
Now this was an actual case challenging the merits of the law. My original point was that he doesn't need to have proof, his mother was American. This was English common law for over 500 years and interpreted for the constitution in the case of Chester A. Arthur. His father was an Irish immigrant and he was born in Canada. He claimed to be born in New York, but had no documentation of that and his family owned a farm in Canada and by all accounts he was raised there in early life. The supreme court decided 140 years ago that it didn't matter, his mother was an American citizen. This case challenges that interpretation of the law. Because the precedent has been standing for over 140 years and we have already had a president with this exact case before, it would be highly unusual for the courts to hear it again. But then again slavery and segregation was a settled issue of law in the U.S. at one point.
QuoteBut then again slavery and segregation was a settled issue of law in the U.S. at one point.
Would you be referring to the scotus decision on Dred Scott?
Yes, and Plessy v. Fergusson
Deat God!
Its starting to sound like opencarry.org here! :-\
Thanks Squirl.