Posted on 06/07/2014 3:05:44 PM PDT by servo1969
We all saw this one coming. Two weeks after Elliot Roger stabbed three people and shot three more, a trio of legislators from California (including Dianne Feinstein) have proposed a new federal law called “The Pause for Safety Act” which would allow anyone at any time to seek a “firearms restraining order” against an individual to prevent them from purchasing any new firearms and also confiscate any firearms they may already own. From Barbara Boxer’s website, here are the details we have at the moment:
The new legislation – The Pause for Safety Act – will include the following provisions:• One, it would help ensure that families and others can go to court and seek a gun violence prevention order to temporarily stop someone close to them who poses a danger to themselves or others from purchasing a firearm.
• Two, it would help ensure that families and others can also seek a gun violence prevention warrant that would allow law enforcement to take temporary possession of firearms that have already been purchased if a court determines that the individual poses a threat to themselves or others.
• Three, it would help ensure that law enforcement makes full use of all existing gun registries when assessing a tip, warning or request from a concerned family member or other close associate.
The scariest part of this proposed legislation is the idea that anyone can ask for one of these restraining orders. So, for example, if a gun control activist got ahold of a sign-in sheet from a local gun range, they could start spamming the judicial system with these “gun violence prevention warrants,” claiming that they believe these individuals to be about to commit a crime, and send a squad of police officers to their doorstep to confiscate their firearms. For their own good, of course.
Now, what was that line about no one wanting to take your guns?
This won’t pass during the current federal congress, but you can be sure CA will pass this, followed by other blues states.
And you can be sure it will be abused wherever and whenever it is passed into law.
I am so sick of these idiots. It’s time they saw clearly what an armed populace is all about.
Adolf Hitler: In order to control a nation, one must disarm its citizens
Redundant.
Mark
Those were the days, my friend.
As irritating as Slimestein is with her endless gun control BS it isn’t going to happen.
“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively [emphases added] with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.” –Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Also, note that Congress has for years ignored legislative attempts by patriot lawmakers to require Congress to self-police itself by requiring all bills to reference constitutional clauses which give Congress the power to make a given bill in the first place.
The constitutionality of federal gun-control laws for civilians are extremely questionable for the following reasons.
First, the Supreme Court has historically clarified that one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment is to prevent the federal government from making laws which limit citizens from using guns to exercise the natural right for citizens to protect themselves.
"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes [emphases added], to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States." —United States v. Cruikshank, 1875.
In fact, the Supreme Court has relatively recently clarified that police protection is not a constitutionally protected right.
The Right to Self-Defense
Finally, where the constitutionally of all federal gun laws are concerned, other than having the Article I, Section 8 responsibility to maintain the armed forces, it is disturding that Constitution-ignoring socialist FDR is regarded as the father of modern gun-control laws for civilians.
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control
The bottom line about constitutional gun rights is the following. The Founding States had made the 2nd Amendment in part to clarify that citizens were expected to provide their own police protection imo.
The Detroitization by the DemocRat party continues. Feinswine is a filthy fascist.
The other alternative of course is for you leftist to raise some decent kids who would know killing people is wrong. Apparently that is asking too much.
lessaiz le bon temps roule !!
At least if Dianne Feinstein’s law gets passed, Americans will finally be able to determine if the relatives they think are crazy really are.
All we’ll have to do is turn in a relative to the cops who we think might be a menace to society, have the cops confiscate his guns, and if the relative really is crazy he’ll be so angry he’ll start screaming and come at us with a knife and stab us to death.
Thanks, Nully.
What about knives, scissors, forks, lighters, matches, poison, ropes, shoelaces, shovels, axes.....
She’s wacko enough for people to believe her.
>> the liberals are pushing everything AND you never know what some idiot judge will do
Yes, but it’s the Left that is doing the pushing, and many dutiful liberals going along for the ride.
These anti-Constitutional roaches require guns to take guns. So they’re not really against guns.
This bill aint going nowhere. Liberals are on the run on the issue of guns. It’s one of a couple of issues where our side is actually winning. However, we have to remain vigilant as always.
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.
