Guns to Be Banned for Elderly (Is the story real or satire??)

Jumping in Pools blogspot ^ | January 27, 2009 | Staff Reports, UPI

[CedarDave]

Deputy Attorney General Designate David Ogden is circulating a draft of an executive order in which, among other things, firearms possession would be severely limited to people over 60.

An assistant to Ogden told us, "It appears that in these changing times, it is no longer necessary to allow the elderly to be armed. With all of their physical ailments and increasing senility, to leave them in control of a deadly weapon would be ludicrous."

While the Executive Order may sound too powerful, experts in Constitutional law state that it is not actually un-Constitutional.

"It's a question of wording." states Columbia Law Professor, Dr. John Braxton. "The Constitution forbids the Congress, that is, the legislative branch, from passing any laws infringing on gun ownership. The executive branch is not included in this proviso. As long as the Congress doesn't get involved, it's technically a non-issue."

The Justice Department was tossing the idea of a gun ban for seniors during the Carter and Clinton Administration, but public opinion stopped these initiatives. Now, the Obama White House believes differently.

[mamelukesabre]

first...they take away guns from the unfit because they think it’s too dangerous.

Then...they take away guns from the TOO fit, because they think they don’t need them.

Then...they take away guns from the poor, because they think it’s too tempting for them to do crime.

Then...they take away guns from the rich, because they think it’s not right. They can just hire a body guard.

See where I’m going with this? There’s always SOME reason to take guns away from SOMEONE. It never ends. Not until there’s only one person left that is allowed to own a gun.

[griffin]

May we live in strange and interesting times.

[oyez]

It is satire it is very hard satire.

"The Constitution forbids the Congress, that is, the legislative branch, from passing any laws infringing on gun ownership. The executive branch is not included in this proviso. As long as the Congress doesn't get involved, it's technically a non-issue."

Sounds like a form of executive terrorism to me.

All I can say is "Just try it, Obbie, just try it." We will have a Constitutional emergency.

I'm 63 and have been shooting most of my life, so I'm in good practice.

--

If the elderly can be prohibited form gun ownership, then there is a certain ethnic group that has a lopsided record with gun death and violence, so then that group should be banned from gun ownership as well.

[George Smiley]

Stupid move.

I'm willing to bet that there are plenty of skilled elderly gunowners who don't have any particular reason to fear incarceration or death and who would do something along the lines of what the protagonists in "Unintended Consequences" did.

[paratrooper82]

Whether this is true or not, I suspect that it is with this socialist in the white house, they (the government) will have to kill me to take my parents weapons from them! If they can take my parents weapons from them, they can take any Americans weapons by executive order!

Keep your powder dry, history is about to repeat itself, remember Lexington and Concord!

[jusduat]

All I’ll say is that it’s taken me over a month to get my
CC in an very conservative state, I don’t have it yet.
I’ve got a secret clearance and was in the navy reserves
for several years. Oh, I’m 59.

[griffin]

59. How does it feel to be on the ‘brink’ of Alzheimer's (/sac)

[jusduat]

I am really feeling old. Somedays I’m glad I’m not a
young person in this world. I remember the good old days.

[EggsAckley]

“Fanciful” is a great old word that has kind of fallen out of our lexicon. I love it.

[ConservaTexan]

If the elderly can be prohibited form gun ownership, then there is a certain ethnic group that has a lopsided record with gun death and violence, so then that group should be banned from gun ownership as well.

Post of the day!

[MathDoc]

"It's a question of wording." states Columbia Law Professor, Dr. John Braxton. "The Constitution forbids the Congress, that is, the legislative branch, from passing any laws infringing on gun ownership. The executive branch is not included in this proviso. As long as the Congress doesn't get involved, it's technically a non-issue."

1. This is almost certainly satire ... for now.

2. "Congress" is only mentioned one time in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment begins: "Congress shall make no law ...." The rest of the restrictions on government action are sweeping and apply to the entire government. The second Amendment is clear to anyone who understands English (except to those who hate freedom and want power over the little people) "... shall not be infringed." This isn't a restricted "Congress shall not" but a more general "shall not". If it was just a question of wording, the NRA could become a non-political club for shooters, since the wording is unambiguous. Unfortunately, it's a question of politics, and the other side doesn't care what the words used to say. In their "Living Constitution", the words now mean whatever they claim the Founding Fathers would have written if Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi had stood in for George Mason and James Madison.

It's time to pray for America.

[griffin]

yeah...these unethical, greedy idiots that think they rule us (go figure, most of them are attorneys) are sure giving it a good go at making our and our children's lives hell so they themselves can feel powerful....

..the jerks that gravitate toward power aggravate me ALMOST as much as the blind idiots that elect them.

[TYVets]

"to leave them in control of a deadly weapon would be ludicrous".

From what I have seen since January 20th, it is ludicrous to leave certain people in their 40's in control of deadly weapons

[Red_Devil 232]

It is satire. This is at the bottom of the article. Labels: Barack Obama, crime, David Ogden, elderly, guns, John Braxton, politics, President Obama, satire, second amendment

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I suspect it is bogus, for a technical reason. Age is not a typical criteria for restrictive laws. If it was for real, they would probably try to intertwine it with some other existing limitation.

For example, it could apply to individuals who had been denied a driver’s license due to incapability. Or because they no longer had legal power of attorney.

Or they could do like they did for police officers, banning them if there were child and spouse abuse problems or a restraining order.

Or they could use a PTSD excuse, like they did for banning guns from veterans.

Remember the moral of the Aesop fable: “A Tyrant Needs No Excuse”. But also remember that tyrants can and will produce infinite excuses anyway.

[VAarea]

I am really feeling old. Somedays I’m glad I’m not a
young person in this world. I remember the good old days.

---

Yea, I’m just a couple of years younger than you. Nearly every day, it seems, I give thanks for not have been born a day later than I was.

[dforest]

Never mess with an old person and their gun.

[wastedyears]

The Founding Fathers didn’t expect an American president to rule by fiat.

[sport]

I would take it seriously. But then again,this sob was voted into office by the American people. I would speculate that he got more than his share of the elderly vote. The words “free health care” and “I want to retire” come to mind.

When it happens the fools and idiots that voted for him will be getting what they deserve. And as for the rest of us, when it rains, it rains on the just as well as the unjust.

[An Old Man]

The enforcement mechanism for this particular executive order has not been published. It is likely that the confiscation of weapons will be similar to Great Britain's handgun ban, in which citizens willingly gave the weapons to police.

It is expected that the executive order will be given around July 1, when senior-related gun deaths reach their peaks.

Beginning July 1, I am going to take a nap in my new hammock. Come July 4th if these nitwits want, we can do the Independence Day thing over, just like we did back in 1776.