Traders Gun Shop Told to Close June 1(more jackbooted batfe abuse)

http://www.ebpublishing.com/ ^ | 5 18 06 | Jim Knowles

[Stone Mountain]

If they kept a few hookers on staff, I might never leave... : )

[justshutupandtakeit]

The only problem with unlimited arming of the population with weapons of massive firepower is the danger posed by living as close together as people do today. Then there are large numbers of people who are too irresponsible to have firepower. The "People" spoken of by our founders were not composed of welfare deadbeats without a trace of responsibility in their bones or large criminal gangs. Do I want to see large welfare high rises filled with people armed to the teeth? No. Do I fear a person who has been trained in the safe use of weapons of any caliber or rapidity of fire? No.

The Absolutists act as though we do not have huge populations of non-taxpaying leechs who would be happy to be able to prey upon the productive classes.

Modern firepower is not as simple and easily controlled as those of 1789. If "infringement" means there is no control over firearms and that ANY individual, no matter how criminal or mentally ill or immature or untrained, can get ANY arm he wishes then I am for infringement.

If "infringement" means the disarming of responsible citizenry who are trained in the use of weapons then I am opposed to it.

But the idea of the People today is far different than the Founders had and its quality has declined precipitously in the intervening centuries. Our Founders would have seen no problem in the disarming of criminal or irresponsible individuals.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The only derangement illustrated on this thread is from you vemonously spitting insults on my character as well as such eminences as John Marshall one of our greatest patriots and leaders of the Revolutionary generation. Such behavior is typical of the fanatic.

As for hating an inanimate object that is silly beyond comprehension. Guns are fascinating and marvelous things I wish I could afford an entire armoury filled with them. This is obvious to any but the delirious since I have repeatedly indicated it is only their possession by some people too irresponsible to have them. However, you appear to worship them. That I do not.

[epow]

Is there even the remotest chance thaat the JBTs are right on this one case?

As much as I detest and disrespect BATF, I would have to say yes.

I owned and operated a small gun shop as a sideline for almost 3 years in the early '90s. If the shop in SF can't account for over 1700 firearms there is something seriously amiss in that store. Every firearm that becomes part of the store's inventory or is kept on the licensed premises must be logged into a "bound book" registry with serial #, model, manufacturer, caliber, type, name and address of source, and date of acquisition. All that data is kept on record and is subject to inspection once a year by BATF agents.Then, when a firearm is sold or transferred to any other party in any way the name, type of ID, and address of the buyer or recipient is entered in the bound book registry and the original copy of the 4473 form filled out by the buyer is kept on file permanantly.

IMHO it would be incredibly careless and reckless for a FFL dealer to run such a slipshod operation that the multiple required records of over 1700 firearms acquired and disposed of in just one year could have just innocently slipped through the cracks somehow. I hope I'm wrong, but it seems quite likely to me that this dealer is sitting in some very deep doo-doo.

[Nova]

1700 seems like a lot of errors. But I don't see any reason that they should be closed simply because of bookkeeping errors. Such errors might be a reason for a fine, but nothing more.

If the ATF has evidence that they broke laws, that might be different, but book errors don't justify anything more than a fine.

[BJungNan]

what state?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Since you have alerted shown yourself to be a liar many times over it does little good to tell you what you probably known but Madison's discussion of the BoR applying to the states was ONLY that. That interpretation was rejected by the Congress hence the BoR did not apply to the states. Another student of this point says " the fact that Madison had proposed more general language that would have applied to the states and that the First Congress, which drafted and proposed the Bill of Rights, based upon a first draft provided by Madison, REJECTED Madison's language in favor of the language which restricts only 'Congress'." Hence you are caught misrepresenting Congress's intention by quoting Madison out of context and reversing his impact on the question. Pretty dishonest.

Your vile slander of the greatest Chief Justice and misrepresenting his opinion also will not pass. Marshall was practically infallible when it gave to logic and legal reasoning and this opinion is a masterpiece of both though possibly too intricate and complex for ideologues. That irrefutable logic was one of the reasons Jefferson hated him so much. At any rate I will reconstruct that reasoning wrt to the BoR which anyone can check by reviewing Barron v Baltimore. Likely as not you are familiar with it but in your mad frenzy to slander all who do not worship guns you ignore it.

Marshall points out the obvious fact that the Constitution was written to govern the FEDERAL government NOT for the governance of the individual states. "The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in GENERAL terms, are naturally, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations on power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes."

Within the states they have imposed such restrictions on their respective governments, "as their own wisdom suggested, such as they deemed most proper for themselves."

Article I section 9 contains the limitations on federal power. "Some of them use language applicable only to Congress, others are expressed in general terms....The ninth section having enumerated, in the nature of a bill of rights, the limitations intended to be imposed upon the powers of the General Government, the tenth proceeds to enumerate those which were to operate on the State legislatures."

Marshall also points out that limitations placed upon States are EXPRESSLY phrased to specifically apply to them. "No State shall...." And they are placed upon ONLY those matters delegated to the General Government. "The question of their application to States is not left to CONSTRUCTION. It is averred in POSITIVE words."

He continues: "If the original Constitution, in the ninth and tenth sections of the first article, draws this PLAIN and MARKED line of discrimination between the limitations it imposes on the powers of the General Government and on those of the State; if, in every inhibition intended to act of State power, words are employed which DIRECTLY EXPRESS that intent; some strong reason must be assigned for departing from this safe and judicious course in framing the amendments before that departure can be assumed. We search in vain for that reason." STRICT construction vs. reading INTO the document.

Then he states an argument I used earlier ignored by you because it cannot be refuted. If the states wished to limit their own power they could have done so within their constitutions. But they were ONLY concerned with limiting the power of the General Government NOT their own. "The unwieldy and cumbrous machinery of procuring a recommendation from two-thirds of Congress and the assent of three-fourths of their sister States could NEVER have occurred to ANY human being as a mode of doing what might be effected by the State itself.

And for those who have not had enough punishment, Marshall nails the nail of history into their coffin. The great opposition to the creation of the Constitution was concerned about the possible loss of Liberty thereby. Hence, "[i]n almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- NOT against those of the local governments."

I expect to see you admit you were wrong to slander Marshall and that it is false to declare he was "rewriting the Constitution."

[justshutupandtakeit]

My discussion concerns the law.

[epow]

Such errors might be a reason for a fine, but nothing more.

Believe me, I hold no sympathy for BATF thugs, they put my little operation out of business on trumped up accusations which I lacked the financial resources to contest in court simply because Clinton wanted to radically cut the number of Federal Fireams Licensees by whatever means necessary. A goal which BATF accomplished far above and beyond Clinton's most optimistic expectations by every kind of skullduggery and bald faced lying tactic known to the government-employed criminal's mind.

But my point was that such an incredibly high number of record keeping errors, provided that those errors were not "manufactured" out of thin air by BATF agents, indicates to me either an inexcusable lack of training and oversight of sales and/or clerical employees, or a deliberate attempt to bypass federal and state firearms laws. Which like it or not the firearms dealer is obligated to observe or face the consequences.

I live on the other side of the continent so I know nothing at all about that firearms dealer or his operation. I just have a very hard time believing that so many record keeping errors could have been committed unintentionally when every FFL merchant, and a high volume merchant in particular, knows very well that BATF is sitting on ready just waiting to pounce at the first sign of illegality or error in his or her business operation.

[Nova]

"I hold no sympathy for BATF thugs, they put my little operation out of business on trumped up accusations"

Exactly why the BATF should, at a minimum, have to assert a violation of law before they can attempt to close-down a legitimate buisness. It is not illegal to sell firearms. It is not a major crime to make bookkeeping errors.

If the BATF can prove criminal activity, that's a different issue.

The BATF should not be allowed to even threaten closure of a perfectly legal and legitimate buisness over bookkeeping errors.

[WLR]

"Tell us what Globalism is."

One description from self proclaimed "Globalists" themselves.

http://globalism.rmit.edu.au/about/about_us.html

"At a time of acute sensitivity to questions of social dislocation, economic inequity and political upheaval, the Globalism Institute is committed to rethinking the relationship between the global and the local. Its primary intellectual task is to understand the processes of change and continuity, and to think through cultural-political questions about sustainable living in a globalising world. In particular, it is concerned to facilitate and enhance activities of cultural dialogue across the continuing and positive boundaries of cultural diversity in the world today.

This entails responding to key political issues of the new century across all levels of community and polity: from the remaking of institutions of global governance and the reconstitution of the nation-state to the re-formations of local regions and communities. It entails working across the divide between abstract theory and applied research. We begin with the place in which we live—Melbourne—and seek to draw lines of co-operation and reciprocal connection locally, regionally, nationally and internationally."

Perhaps Globalism is well described as...

A group of open conspirators seeking to impose their will and view of the world over all nations and peoples under the guise of mutual interest and concern.There actual motives being nothing new but in fact the age old base desires of men with evil intent to dominate others.

Those individuals and groups seeking to establish a "Uniform Global Culture" i.e. Uniform Global Fascism (C). A philosophy and political ideology which in fact to be achieved requires and seeks the subjugation and subornation of all other philosophies and ideologies. A goal which in order to be accomplished requires the active application of threats or fear of force or violence. This certainly suggest a somewhat less than legitimate aspiration on the part of the "Globaloneyists".

One of the most important requirements in order to achieve this fascistic goal is the disarming of all potential opponents under whatever ruse or guise. (Think of a neo Hitler or neo Stalin) Of necessity at times it requires the appearances publicaly of acting lawfully and in the "public interest".

This well explains the actual motives and objectives of the upcoming UN Conference on Small Arms. The "Globaloneyists" seek to prevent the possession of arms by people leaving firearms and the means of legitimate self defense only in the hands of "Governments". Governments the Globaloneyists seek to control....er influence.

A lot of people know what Globalism and Globaloney is and the very real and proven dangers it represents to the lives and liberty of Americans, in fact all of humanity.

We have seen it before from Tojo, Hitler, Stalin... and others. We see it today only the faces have changed not the intent.

From "Open Borders and Amnesty to the upcoming UN Conference on Small Arms seeking to disarm the peoples of the world (especially Americans). It is interesting to contemplate such a conference seeking to disarm the American people under a guise of "Treaty" being held on American soil during the days surrounding our 4th of July Independence Celebrations (made possible by the individual possession and
application of arms). The BATFE sadly is but one more player with an agenda in the game.

Globaloney and Globalists are like ravenous Wolves seeking to devour the hard won freedoms of Americans in particular and humanity in general.


W,

[Dead Corpse]

That interpretation was rejected by the Congress hence the BoR did not apply to the states.

No. Actually. It wasn't. Nor will you find anything in Elliot's or the Anti-/Federalist papers to support such a follish notion. Hence the wording of the Constitution itself. Your hero worship of a judge who changed the plain meaning of the Constitution to undercut our civil Rights is disgusting.

Vile Slander? Now that is laughable. Get a grip on yourself. How is it infallible logic that the retard couldn't even put "Supreme law of the Land" and "shall not be infringed" and come up with the correct calculus? Further, you could reconstruct a two-piece jigsaw puzzle without an instruction manual. You have already shown you know NOTHING about how a Constitution, nor a Republic, work.

Take your idiot democracy elsewhere...

If the states wished to limit their own power they could have done so within their constitutions.

Actually, as I pointed out in Elliot's, which apparently neither your nor your Lord Marshall bothered to read... This very fact was argued. It was concluded that sine some States did NOT include a Bill of Rights, that one should be included in the Constitution to cut down on confusion between States, that all Citizens would havea common and recognizable set of Rights, and that certain Rights so vital for freedom would be codified and that much harder to infringe. Also, it was mentioned that having duplication in those protections in the State Constitutions was not a bad thing and that States were still free to enact even MORE protections.

They never dreamed that idiots like you would come along and cheerlead the REMOVAL of said protections at the State level.

What you and Marshall both miss is that in order to ratify an Amendment, Congress and the States both have to sign off on it. This was done in accordance with the Constitution for the BoR and needed no assbat judges signoff before it could be "incorperated".

[Joe Brower]

You are correct about the problems created when too many people live in too small a space, an ever-growing problem as our nation becomes more and more the dumping ground from every war-torn hellhole on the planet. I have said for a very long time that "more people = less freedom". This is only one of the reasons why Thomas Jefferson was of the opinion that "The mobs of the great cities add just so much to the support of pure government as sores do to the strength of the human body." (Notes on Virginia Q.XIX, 1782. ME 2:230)

Keeping firearms out of the hands of "criminal or irresponsible individuals" makes sense on its face. However, the definition of "criminal or irresponsible" varies considerably depending on who's in charge. From living in California for almost twenty years, I learned that the majority of self-anointed demagogues in that states' quasi-totalitarian government consider anyone who owns so much as a .22lr single-shot is considered "criminal or irresponsible".

They themselves were always immune to this definition, however. Interesting how that works...

[Dead Corpse]

The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.

---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.

[Dead Corpse]

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244

But, apparently... despite all this from people actually involved in WRITING the Constitution and the BoR, one "judge" can overturn it all...

I don't think so...