Posted on 10/24/2015 8:15:47 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine
In a ruling that directly paves the way for mass confiscation of firearms in America, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a much-anticipated decision, has upheld the constitutionality of the New York SAFE Act of 2013.
Shockingly, the court ruled that nearly all of the most drastic gun control law in the history of the United States did not violate the Second Amendment and is therefore constitutional.
That’s right, a law passed in the wake of Sandy Hook that included and paved the way for confiscation of millions of legally purchased firearms has been ruled “constitutional” with proponents already calling for a similar law to be enacted at the federal level.
As an article published by the American Thinker noted, “If the SAFE Act is upheld by the Supreme Court, nothing prevents Congress from summarily outlawing tens of millions of firearms overnight. Once those firearms become contraband, the government may confiscate and destroy them without compensating the owner (just as the government confiscates and destroys illegal drugs).
“The Second Circuit’s decision leaves the Second Amendment in its gravest peril ever. Second Amendment rights are now hanging by a one-vote margin in the same Supreme Court that upheld Obamacare and declared a national right to gay marriage.
Constitutional conservatives and Second Amendment supporters ought to be terrified over the prospect of Justice Scalia having a heart attack during a Hillary Clinton presidency.” (and as we know Clinton is calling for mass confiscation herself)
AUSTRALIAN STYLE MASS CONFISCATION IS COMING
In the weeks since the most recent mass shooting in the country, literally dozens of mainstream publications have promoted Australia as the country to look towards when considering new gun control laws in America.
“Despite the fact that for years gun control groups and anti-gun liberals have claimed that they only want “common sense” gun control, news outlets such as Salon and Slate are once again openly praising Australia’s controversial 1996 gun control law, a law that included a mandatory gun buy back program under the threat of government force.
After the Oregon school shooting, highly trafficked liberal news outlet Slate republished an article praising Australia’s gun control law that was originally released in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre.
In the weeks since the recent shooting the article has become the top read report on the site as well as linked by dozens of other liberal news outlets. (emphasis mine)
On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.
Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.
At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia.
The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.
Like most other articles praising Australia’s gun laws, the author of the Slate article completely leaves out the fact that the buyback program was mandatory which means that anyone that refused to go along with the program was subject to government raids and or violence.”
“REMEMBER, THESE ARE THE SAME LIBERALS WHO CLAIM THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO TAKE AWAY ALL GUNS WHILE LITERALLY WRITING ARTICLES PROMOTING A GUN LAW THAT NOT ONLY INCLUDED GUN CONFISCATION BUT ALSO BANNED PURCHASING GUNS FOR USE IN SELF-DEFENSE!”
Another recent article published in the mainstream press, this time by CNN, dreamed of disarming all Americans whiling calling for banning all guns “once and for all”.
The article, written by liberal poet and Middlebury College professor Jay Parini, was a perfect example of how on one hand gun control advocates and their media allies tell the public that they only want “common sense” reform while on the other they are pushing for a full-scale ban.
Parini gets to the crux of his and the many who share his views on the lefts agenda which is the confiscation of millions of legally owned firearms under the threat of government attack and subsequent outlawing of all handguns and rifles.
Let me dream for a moment: I would much prefer to live in a country where only hunters who pass appropriately strict tests for mental competence and a knowledge of gun safety can still acquire rifles that are appropriate for hunting.
Handguns and assault rifles would be banned, period.
Banned. Period. There you have it folks, CNN letting a hard left authoritarian use their platform to “dream” about disarming America. It gets worse.
So let’s get rid of guns in this country, once and for all, making it a felony to possess a handgun or assault rifle. Over a period of years, illegal guns will gradually disappear. Guns don’t kill people, as they say.
People who acquire guns — legally or illegally — do. And we should make it extremely difficult for them to get their hands on these weapons.
LIBERAL MEDIA NOW PUSHING FOR GUN OWNERS TO BE SHOT
Not only are the mainstream media and gun control advocates pushing for a mass confiscation plan in the United States, they are also making it clear that they have no problem with gun owners being shot which would be a likely and obvious outcome if the government decided to outlaw millions of firearms overnight.
Just days ago, author and Coppin State University writing teacher D. Watkins published an article on the prominent hard left news outlet Salon.com that called for all gun owners to be shot if they wanted to use their 2nd Amendment right.
“Starting out the article with the writers dreams of charging five thousand dollars per bullet, Watkins then makes his position on gun ownership in America startlingly clear.” (emphasis mine)
Rock was definitely on point, $5000 bullets would be great but I’d take it a step further––I believe that being shot should be requirement for gun ownership in America. It’s very simple. You need to have gun, like taking selfies with pistols, can’t live with out it? Then take a bullet and you will be granted the right to purchase the firearm of your choice.
If we could successfully implement this rule, I guarantee the mass shootings will stop. Watching cable news now in days makes me physically ill.
Week in and week out we are forced to learn about another coward, who can’t stand to deal with the same rejection that most of us face–– so they strap themselves with guns and then cock and spray at innocent people. Heartbroken survivors and family member images go viral, as our elected officials remain clueless.
So there you have it. A court has upheld a New York law that paves the way for mass confiscation in America while at the same time the mainstream media is pushing this plan for confiscation and making it clear that if gun owners have to be shot to achieve this agenda then so be it.
The one question that remains is whether or not the American people will stand by as their 2nd Amendment right is openly destroyed right before their very eyes.
“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior” U.S. Const. art III
Many will join me.
"Let me dream for a moment: I would much prefer to live in a country where only hunters who pass appropriately strict tests for mental competence and a knowledge of gun safety can still acquire rifles that are appropriate for hunting. Handguns and assault rifles would be banned, period." Banned. Period. There you have it folks, CNN letting a hard left authoritarian use their platform to “dream” about disarming America. It gets worse.
"So let’s get rid of guns in this country, once and for all, making it a felony to possess a handgun or assault rifle. Over a period of years, illegal guns will gradually disappear. Guns don’t kill people, as they say. People who acquire guns — legally or illegally — do. And we should make it extremely difficult for them to get their hands on these weapons."
I have chosen a first target.
I’m sort of thinking it paves the way for a lot of new replacement judges
....................................................
My first thought also.
The media? That’s a big target!
“Good behavior” does not include how they rule on cases. Throughout the entire history of the nation every attempt to remove judges from office via impeachment for how they decided cases (other than personally profitting from a judgement) has failed.
Judges have been removed or they have resigned for corruption and for personal behavior failings.
For example, in 2010 a Clinton Judge was impeached and removed:
Gabriel Thomas Porteous, Jr.
Article I - engaging in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a Federal judge - Passed the House by a vote of 412-0.
Article II - engaged in a longstanding pattern of corrupt conduct that demonstrates his unfitness to serve as a United States District Court Judge - Passed the House by a vote of 410-0.
Article III - knowingly and intentionally making false statements, under penalty of perjury, related to his personal bankruptcy filing and violating a bankruptcy court order - Passed the House by a vote of 416-0.
Article IV - knowingly made material false statements about his past to both the United States Senate and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in order to obtain the office of United States District Court Judge - Passed the House by a vote of 423-0.
That is not even a problem for the sort of replacing I was thinking they might trigger.
So you want Barack Obama to be able to appoint even more federal judges than the 315 judges that he has already had confirmed?
I doubt that.
Who is going to do the confiscating? I’ve spoken with the local sheriff, he nor his deputies will do it. I have lots of friends active and retired military, they won’t do it. UN troops will be shot onsite, same as black panthers and black lives matters scum.
So who wants to try? Whomever tries confiscation will not live long. Any attempt at confiscation will start the coming unpleasantness.
I know liberals are idiots. Are they really THIS stupid? They have no idea what’s in store for them if they try. They think they are insulated from this. They are NOT.
Leftists are irrational and will do irrational things. Logic isn’t their best subject.
Sometimes I just don't know what to think about you. You seem not to have the ability to understand what "replacing judges" means in the context of a discussion about Judges taking away our guns.
Perhaps Alexander Solzhenitsyn can explain it to you.
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
Ah, I get it now. We’re in DiogenesLamp’s Fantasyworld.
> “Good behavior” does not include how they rule on cases.
I made no such assertion.
How will that work? This isn’t Australia or England.
There isn’t enough Police or Military to go door to door to get all the guns in this country.
Same argument that Trump gets on his Illegal Immigration deportation idea, yet that is doable compared to this.
Does the Almighty Government think people are just going to surrender their fire arms on the whim of a Court Decision or a Act of Congress, I don’t think so.
This is one reason people should not have a Concealed Carry, that is the first place they will go for guns, they have you on file.
With over 300 Million fire arms in this country it is a lost cause before it begins. I want to see those brave police or military cross 110th Street in New York to take away guns, it will be ugly and bloody.
Good.
You asserted “Federal judges have lifetime appointments”, which is inaccurate.
66 federal judges have been investigated for removal from office over the last 219 years. Less than 10 have actually been removed.
Here’s what the Federal Judicial Center has to say on the topic:
QUESTION: Why are some federal judges protected from losing their jobs and having their pay cut?
Federal judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution are guaranteed what amounts to LIFE TENURE and unreduced salary so that they won’t be afraid to make an unpopular decision. For example, in Gregg v. Georgia, the Supreme Court said it is constitutional for the federal and state governments to impose the death penalty if the statute is carefully drafted to provide adequate safeguards, even though many people are opposed to the death penalty.
The constitutional protection that gives federal judges the freedom and independence to make decisions that are politically and socially unpopular is one of the basic elements of our democracy. According to the Declaration of Independence, one reason the American colonies wanted to separate from England was that King George III “made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.”
QUESTION: For judges who are APPOINTED FOR LIFE, what safeguards ensure that they remain fair and impartial?
Judges must follow the ethical standards set out in the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which contains guidelines to make sure a judge does not preside over a case in which he or she has any reason to favor one side over the other. For example, a judge must withdraw or recuse himself or herself from any case in which a close relative is a party, or in which he or she has any financial interest, however remote. Judges are required to file a financial disclosure form annually, so that all their stock holdings, board memberships, and other financial interests are on public record. They must be careful not to do anything that might cause people to think they would favor one side in a case over another. For this reason, they can’t give speeches urging voters to pick one candidate over another for public office or ask people to contribute money to civic organizations. Judges WITHOUT LIFE TENURE are also subject to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.
When do judges retire?
Most federal judges retire from full-time service at around sixty-five or seventy years of age and become senior judges. Senior judges are still federal judges, eligible to earn their full salary and to continue hearing cases if they and their colleagues want them to do so, but they usually maintain a reduced caseload. Full-time judges are known as active judges.
http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/autoframe!openform&nav=menu1&page=/federal/courts.nsf/page/183.
None of which changes the inaccuracy of your statement.
Not at all. We are heading towards the usual and normal dystopia resulting from Liberal ideas failing... Again.
We have witnessed their collapse in all other places where they have been tried, but we have never witnessed their collapse in a place with the character and independence of the United States. Our culture is different from those Monarchist/Socialist nations that have suffered socialism before.
I predict the more cowboy-like mentality of the US citizenry will result in a very different sort of response to socialist despots if and when a widespread crises occurs.
You can pick that nit.
I’m happy to revise my statement to 99.9% of federal judges since 1796 have served lifetime appointments or until they chose to retire.
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.