Posted on 12/19/2012 4:39:31 AM PST by Solson
Alert; possible executive order information
I wanted to share with everyone here what I heard today from a very well placed source inside the firearms industry- word is the Obama administration had the ATF a couple months ago do a study to see the feasibility of making all semi auto assault rifles NFA items- meaning they would be handled in the same way as an SBR in terms of procuring one; it is assumed there would be an amnesty period for current owners to register the assault rifles they already have then any transfer down the line would be the same procedure as a suppressor or SBR
The gut feeling is that if Obama doesn't get from congress an assault rifle ban he likes he will do what Bill Clinton did with the Street Sweeper and use his executive powers to make semi auto AR's, AK's, FAL's, G3's, Galils, etc. NFA weapons
I personally think this is a very likely scenario in case a ban gets deadlocked in the house or senate
Just an FYI - if I hear anything more on this topic or anything else related to a potential future ban I will drop in and give everyone a data dump
Be safe and try and keep your sanity
LAV _
_________________ VickersTactical.com
No it won’t... We’ll stand there with a boo boo lip and hand them over to the Gestapo...
Buying guns and using them on fellow Americans is completely different.
But, you see, that is TOTALLY pointless.
If the only thing anyone ever does is hide their gun, then what was the point of buying it?
At some point, We The People need to USE the guns -- and when gun confiscation is the looming threat, I think HIDING the gun is not much better than handing it to the BATF.
It moronic "the 14th Amendment doesn't exist, I'm a resident of the United States, not a United States Citizen so I don't have to pay taxes" Bravo Sierra. Don't worry about not understanding his rantings, worry if you start to think he make senses.
EO- Executive Order
SBR- Short Barrelled Rifle. Specific marking requirements and licensing. Less than for full NFA
NFA- National Firearms Act. 1934. Requires registration and paying a $200 tax. Closed to new firearms in May of ‘86 by the Lautenberg Amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act that further modified the Gun Control Act of ‘68. None of which are Constitutionally legal but have been upheld by activist courts just the same under the Commerce Clause.
Former .mil types get used to acronyms and tend to keep using them for life. ;-)
I pray you are correct in the assessment of our fellow Americans. I fear that you will merely be one of the above-mentioned half-dozen in your state.
They do this, it's time to put them to use.
Finally, someone who gets it!! Either way you look at it theres lots of win in your comment.
If you mean I wont comply then youre in good company. If you mean tatoo a s/n on it and register that along w/ anything else in your home w/ a s/n then thats good too! I call it Going Canadian. LOL!!!!
All I am doing is making a prediction, do not doubt me.
This may make some uncomfortable.
But this is our Lexington and Concord.
Like in 1775, the stand will be taken for the same reason.
The end of the Second Amendment means the compact known as the Constitution is broken, thus there is no longer a reason for the governed to give their consent to those who would rule over us.
I use POSOTUS.
****** “We either need a nuke or a billion voodoo dolls to defeat Obama now.”*******
Capitalism ... a billion voodoo dolls!!!!
I’ll take (1) Voodoo Doll Booth and the Beer Concession, where do I set up?
(It will be like “Dan’s Bake Sale” x (1) Million, what a hoot!)
TT
Maybe you would like to tell that to the USSC???
You may wish to learn the law, it just may save your azz someday
The Three United States
As early as the year 1820, the U.S. Supreme Court was beginning to recognize that the term “United States” could designate either the whole, or a particular portion, of the American empire. In a case which is valuable, not only for its relevance to federal taxes, but also for its terse and discrete logic, Chief Justice Marshall exercised his characteristic brilliance in the following passage:
The power, then, to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises, may be exercised, and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of states and territories. The District of Columbia, or the territory west of the Missouri, is not less within the United States* than Maryland or Pennsylvania ....
[Loughborough v. Blake, 15 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 317]
[5 L.Ed. 98 (1820), emphasis added]
By 1945, the year of the first nuclear war on planet Earth, the U.S. Supreme Court had come to dispute Marshall’s singular definition, but most people were too distracted to notice. The high Court confirmed that the term “United States” can and does mean three completely different things, depending on the context:
The term “United States” may be used in any one of several senses. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign* occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States** extends, or [3] it may be the collective name of the states*** which are united by and under the Constitution.
[Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]
[brackets, numbers and emphasis added]
This same Court authority is cited by Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, in its definition of “United States”:
United States. This term has several meanings. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations, [2] it may designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends, or [3] it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.
Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S. Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252.
[brackets, numbers and emphasis added]
In the first sense, the term “United States*” can refer to the nation, or the American empire, as Justice Marshall called it. The “United States*” is one member of the United Nations. When you are traveling overseas, you would go to the U.S.* embassy for help with passports and the like. In this instance, you would come under the jurisdiction of the President, through his agents in the U.S.* State Department, where “U.S.*” refers to the sovereign nation. The Informer summarizes Citizenship in this “United States*” as follows:
1. I am a Citizen of the United States* like you are a Citizen of China. Here you have defined yourself as a National from a Nation with regard to another Nation. It is perfectly OK to call yourself a “Citizen of the United States*.” This is what everybody thinks the tax statutes are inferring. But notice the capital “C” in Citizen and where it is placed. Please go back to basic English.
[Which One Are You?, page 11]
[emphasis added]
Secondly, the term “United States**” can also refer to “the federal zone”, which is a separate nation-state over which the Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. (See Appendix Y for a brief history describing how this second meaning evolved.) In this sense, the term “United States**” is a singular phrase. It would be proper, for example, to say, “The United States** is ...” or “Its jurisdiction is ...” and so on. The Informer describes citizenship in this United States** as follows:
2. I am a United States** citizen. Here you have defined yourself as a person residing in the District of Columbia, one of its Territories, or Federal enclaves (area within a Union State) or living abroad, which could be in one of the States of the Union or a foreign country. Therefore you are possessed by the entity United States** (Congress) because citizen is small case. Again go back to basic english [sic]. This is the “United States**” the tax statutes are referring to. Unless stated otherwise, such as 26 USC 6103(b)(5).
[Which One Are You?, page 11]
[emphasis added]
Thirdly, the term “United States***” can refer to the 50 sovereign States which are united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America. In this third sense, the term “United States***” does not include the federal zone, because the Congress does not have exclusive legislative authority over any of the 50 sovereign States of the Union. In this sense, the term “United States***” is a plural, collective term. It would be proper therefore to say, “These United States***” or “The United States*** are ...” and so on. The Informer completes the trio by describing Citizenship in these “United States***” as follows:
3. I am a Citizen of these United States***. Here you have defined yourself as a Citizen of all the 50 States united by and under the Constitution. You are not possessed by the Congress (United States**). In this way you have a national domicile, not a State or United States** domicile and are not subject to any instrumentality or subdivision of corporate governmental entities.
[Which One Are You?, pages 11-12]
[emphasis added]
Author and scholar Lori Jacques summarizes these three separate governmental jurisdictions in the same sequence, as follows:
It is noticeable that Possessions of the United States** and sovereign states of the United States*** of America are NOT joined under the title of “United States.” The president represents the sovereign United States* in foreign affairs through treaties, Congress represents the sovereign United States** in Territories and Possessions with Rules and Regulations, and the state citizens are the sovereignty of the United States*** united by and under the Constitution .... After becoming familiar with these historical facts, it becomes clear that in the Internal Revenue Code, Section 7701(a)(9), the term “United States**” is defined in the second of these senses as stated by the Supreme Court: it designates the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States** extends.
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ..
We had a snow storm today and weather alert messages started. Coming on the smartphone. Seems we can opt out of those but ‘Presidential Alerts’ we can not.
IMO this is just a bunch of scare talk. BHO does not have the authority to institute gun registration which is what this would be. It would create such a backlash from the public that States would just nullify it and Congress would be forced to act. Most people would not even bother to do it. If they pushed the issue it might even set off CWII.
More likely Barry will just pump up the rhetoric and let Feinstein introduce her gun control legislation for the umpteenth time where it will get buried in committee as usual. Its a win win for Barry.
You might but the rest of us won’t.
There...fixed.
There already are illegal gun registrations. NICS was specifically banned from keeping records, yet, after years of Janet Reno she kept it.
Sorry. Thanks for the correction.
But this is our Lexington and Concord.
Like in 1775, the stand will be taken for the same reason.
The end of the Second Amendment means the compact known as the Constitution is broken, thus there is no longer a reason for the governed to give their consent to those who would rule over us.
Okay...if that's the case, who's gonna take the first shot? Us or them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.