Precedent Teaches Us The Left Really Wants ALL Our Guns

cnsnews.com ^ | 1/11/13 | Charlie Daniels

[Evil Slayer]

When the Supreme Court, or any other court for that matter, makes a ruling in a case they first look for precedent, in other words to see if there has been a court decision rendered on the same subject in the past and usually defer to the old decision in ruling on the case.

The greatest teacher in life is experience; it only takes one time of burning your fingers on a hot stove to know that you never want to touch another one.

The next greatest teacher is observation, paying attention to someone else's experiences and profiting from their wins and losses, trials and errors.

In my generation I have seen the rise and fall of fascism, communism, different experiments in socialism and the kind of downright social and fiscal foolishness that leads to what has recently happened in Greece.

There is an old saying that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

There is at this time a huge debate in our nation about the private ownership of firearms. The president and the anti-gun crowd claim they do not want to do away with private ownership, that they only want to modify the existing laws having to do with assault weapons -which can be construed as anything in your gun cabinet of any heavy caliber - and clips for semiautomatic weapons holding more than 10 bullets.

I submit to you that what is going on here is the first assault on private gun ownership

They will take what ever they can get now and continue to chip away until all you can legally own to protect your family with is a baseball bat.

Did you know that one of the major reasons the Japanese did not attempt to land troops on the American

[Evil Slayer]

I submit to you that what is going on here is the first assault on private gun ownership

They will take what ever they can get now and continue to chip away until all you can legally own to protect your family with is a baseball bat.

[wastedyears]

THE Charlie Daniels!

[exnavy]

Sorry, you are incorrect. The first assualt was the gun control act of 1968.

[Yosemitest]

It's timer to mock the "Gun Control" Zombies!
"Gun Control" is a firm grip, steady breathing, accurate aim (developed by lots of practice), and a slow trigger pull.


The Swiss have got it CORRECT !
We need to learn from the Swiss and implement their "gun control measures" here in the United States right now, today!
These laws are the ones we should shove into the "2nd Amendment Haters" faces.

" Today, military service for Swiss males is universal. At about age 20, every Swiss male goes through 118 consecutive days of recruit training in the Rekrutenschule. ...

Even before required training begins, young men and women may take optional courses with the Swiss army's M57 assault rifle.
They keep that gun at home for three months and receive six half-day training sessions.

From age 21 to 32, a Swiss man serves as a "frontline" troop in the Auszug, and devotes three weeks a year (in eight of the 12 years) to continued training.
From age 33 to 42, he serves in the Landwehr (like America's National Guard); every few years, he reports for two-week training periods.
Finally, from ages 43, to 50, he serves in the Landsturm; in this period, he only spends 13 days total in "home guard courses."

Over a soldier's career he also spends scattered days on mandatory equipment inspections and required target practice.
Thus, in a 30-year mandatory military career, a Swiss man only spends about one year in direct military service.
Following discharge from the regular army, men serve on reserve status until age 50 (55 for officers).

By the Federal Constitution of 1874, military servicemen are given their first equipment, clothing and arms.
After the first training period, conscripts must keep gun, ammunition and equipment an ihrem Wohnort ("in their homes") until the end of their term of service.

Today, enlisted men are issued M57 AUTOMATIC assault rifles and officers are given pistol.
Each reservist is issued 24 rounds of ammunition in sealed packs for emergency use.
(Contrary to Handgun Control's claim that "all ammunition must be accounted for," the emergency ammunition is the only ammo that requires accounting.)

After discharge from service, the man is given a bolt rifle free from registration or obligation.
Starting in the 1994, the government will GIVE ex-reservists assault rifles. Officers carry pistols rather than rifles and are given their pistols the end of their service.

When the government adopts a new infantry rifle, it sells the old ones to the public.

Reservists are encouraged to buy MILITARY ammunition
(7.5 and 5.6mm-5.56 mm in other countries-for rifles and 9 and 7.65 mm Luger for pistols)
which is sold AT COST by the government, for target practice .
Non-military ammunition for long-gun hunting and .22 Long Rifle (LR) ammo are not subsidised, but are subiect to NO sales controls.
Non-military non-hunting ammunition more powerful than .22 LR (such as .38 Spl.) is registered at the time of sale.

Swiss military ammo must be registered IF bought at a private store, BUT NEED NOT BE REGISTERED IF bought at a range.
The nation's 3,000 shooting ranges sell the overwhelming majority of ammunition.
Technically, ammunition bought at the range must be used at the range, but the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed.

The army SELLS a variety of machine guns, submachine guns, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and cannons.
Purchasers of these weapons require an EASILY OBTAINED cantonal license, and the weapons are registered.
In a nation of six million people, there are at least two million guns, including 600,000 FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifles, half a million pistols, and numerous machine guns.
Virtually every home has a gun.

Besides SUBSIDIZED military surplus, the Swiss can buy other firearms easily too.
While long guns require NO special purchase procedures, handguns are sold only to those with a Waffenerwerbsschien (purchase certificate) issued by a cantonal authority.
A certificate is issued to every applicant over 18 who is not a criminal or mentally infirm.

There are NO restrictions on the carrying of long guns.
About half the cantons have strict permit procedures for carrying handguns, and the other half have NO rules at all.
There is NO discernible difference in the crime rate between the cantons as a result of the different policies.

Thanks to a lawsuit brought by the Swiss gun lobby, semi-automatic rifles require NO PURCHASE PERMIT and are NOT registered by the government.
Thus, the ONLY long guns registered by the government are FULL AUTOMATICS."

The Swiss have got it CORRECT !
Let's adopt THEIR LAWS !

Remember:

The beauty of the Second Amendment is
that it will not be needed
until they TRY to take it.

Read Second Amendment: It’s Not About Hunting, IT'S ABOUT TYRANNY .

[Perseverando]

[Real Cynic No More]

Nope, the first assault was much earlier than that. I think it may have been around 1928 but I'm not real sure of the date. Read Unintended Consequences by John Ross to get a real good understanding.

[Makana]

Switzerland defines the difference between Neutral and Pacifist.

I traveled in Europe in the 80’s. Every Swiss village had a target range and it is the only country I have experienced where national guard soldiers traveled on public transportation carrying their personal weapons and ammo.

A very peaceful place.

[exnavy]

I believe you are correct on the year, full auto, and sawed off shotguns were banned at that time.

[Venturer]

Gun laws are like Johnny Cash’s Caddilac.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HfbRdclvkM

[freeangel]

Gay marriage started in a similar fahion with just wanting to get rid of sosomy laws and be left alone to the present in our faces gay marriage and now on to the march that decriminalizes pedophilia. All of them are sick bastards.

[lentulusgracchus]

(Art.) The greatest teacher in life is experience; it only takes one time of burning your fingers on a hot stove to know that you never want to touch another one.

"Experience keeps a dear school, but a fool will learn in no other." -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack

[lentulusgracchus]

I believe you are correct on the year, full auto, and sawed off shotguns were banned at that time.

The National Firearms Act of 1934, I believe it was. The Supreme Court decision that made it part of the U.S. Code was U.S. vs. Miller, 1939. FDR wanted a constitutional test (a winning one, of course) for his unconstitutional statute, so he ordered his solicitor general to scout around for a suitable firearms case.

Miller was the result: Two defendants, one dead and the other imprisoned and penniless, and a resigned lawyer who left only a brief that sat on the defense table unattended and undefended during oral arguments . That was FDR's idea of a fair test, when he came after our rights. It cries out for redecision, and overturning.

[baddog 219]

[Caipirabob]

America is the place where WE REMEMBER and we pledge to NEVER FORGET...

Innocence Betrayed (by gun grabbers)

The left has started this campaign of evil from the top of a mountain of millions of innocent dead.

[KeyLargo]

California testing limits of gun-control rules in wake of Newtown shooting

By Claudia Cowan

Published January 13, 2013

| FoxNews.com

California already has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Buying a handgun requires registration, a safety certificate, a 10-day waiting period and a rigorous background check. All direct person-to-person sales are banned and concealed-carry permits are rare.

But now, in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, lawmakers in the Golden State have launched into a new legislative frenzy to restrict firearms further. And they’re confident the measures will pass, given Democrats have a two-thirds “super majority” in both chambers — which means they have the power to pass legislation and get constitutional amendments on the ballot without a single Republican vote.

Political analysts say the political landscape puts California in the pole position to test gun-control limits.

“Almost any idea that anybody in this country has, as to further regulate and limit access to weapons or ammunition, is probably going to get passed in California,” said Democratic strategist and USC law professor Susan Estrich.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/13/california-testing-limits-gun-control-bills-in-wake-newtown-shooting/print#ixzz2Hrmp7I2J

[palmer]

A fair number of libs at the lib boards admit it. They say they look at how few gun deaths there are in Britain. I point out the other types of death (higher numbers) although the murder rate is lower. Then I point out how Britain has higher rates of rape, robbery and burglary (the majority of burglary is live). I even asked a liberal Brit posting there what he thought of that. He said he was burglarized but that was ok, because he was "sleeping peacefully" upstairs.

The problem with their logic, other than being willing crime victims, is that they cannot point to a single instance of gun confiscation working out ok for the population. The Brits are a generation or two away from Islamic law. Likewise the Scandinavians. There can certainly be a camelot period where the guns are gone but the people have yet to be enslaved. That period always ends.

[William Tell]

lentulusgracchus said: "It [US vs. Miller, 1939] cries out for redecision, and overturning. "

To the extent necessary, it already has been. I'll explain.

The trial court in the case against Miller and Layton DISMISSED the charges on Second Amendment grounds with no detailed explanation.

It was the prosecution which appealed the decision directly to the US Supreme Court.

The prosecution, in their brief, made two major claims to overturn the lower court dismissal. Firstly, they proposed that the Second Amendment only protects members of an organized Militia. Secondly, they proposed that the particular weapon which required a government license under the National Firearms Act of 1934, a short-barreled shotgun, was not useful to a Militia and therefore the Second Amendment did not protect the possession of such a weapon.

On the first point, the Supreme Court didn't even respond. It was evidently so obvious that the Second Amendment protects a "right of the people" that it was not necessary to even comment on the idea that Miller was not the subject of the protection.

As to the assertion that the particular weapon was not useful to a Militia, the Supreme Court agreed with the prosecution (an agreement which would have been irrelevant to the case had Miller not been the subject of the Second Amendment) but pointed out that there had been no evidence submitted which would provide guidance to the Supreme Court as to whether the short-barreled shotgun would be protected.

Because the Supreme Court lacked evidence regarding the shotgun, they REVERSED the dismissal and REMANDED the case back to the lower court.

Since short-barreled shotguns had been used as trench guns in World War I, there is no reason to believe that the lower court would find that such weapons were not protected by the Second Amendment and a second dismissal should have resulted.

Because one of the original defendants, (there were two; Miller and Layton) had died and the other had taken a plea bargain, no such trial was ever held.

In a series of acts of supreme tyranny, the lower courts fabricated a "collective rights" interpretation of US vs Miller which was without legal foundation whatever. And the Supreme Court enabled this tyranny by refusing to review these lower court decisions for almost seventy years until the Heller decision in 2008.

The Heller decision DID overturn the narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment in Miller that only weapons suitable for a Militia were protected. By recognizing the legitimate right of self-defense with arms, we now have TWO categories of arms which are to be protected.

The Heller decision allows for exceptions to the protection of the Second Amendment "in sensitive places" and certain persons and unusual or dangerous weapons may still be regulated.

It would be a stretch to claim that AR type rifles and normal capacity magazines are too unusual or dangerous given that every soldier and most police departments use them.

[Lurker]

Wrong. The first Federal one was the 1934 National Firearms Act.

[lentulusgracchus]

Thank you for the explanation. It seems Miller's send-off was even wormier than I had read.

I still interpret this as the Roosevelt Administration playing rough with an indigent defendant to get the outcome the President wanted for political reasons.

And yes, the NFA would appear to be ripe for revisitation, especially as regards suppressed and short-barreled weapons. Under Heller, SCOTUS might agree -- if we could see a case there before Obama assassinates CJ Roberts and elevates Diesel Kagan to be his Vanguard CJ and Sister in the Righteous Struggle of the Narodny Proletariat -- that fully-automatic weapons are armory weapons and ought to be kept there, but any man of reasonable military age ought to be found to be a member of the Unorganized Militia and able to obtain them without onerous and confiscation-minded federal legal or processual attachments.

[lentulusgracchus]

“Almost any idea that anybody in this country has, as to further regulate and limit access to weapons or ammunition, is probably going to get passed in California,” said Democratic strategist and USC law professor Susan Estrich.

Estrich is the bigtime feminist she-pleader who managed Michael Dukakis's 1988 presidential campaign.

All teeth and attitude, extremely unpleasant woman. I'd like to lock her in a closet with Alan Dershowitz.