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.
Time will tell.
And That in plain English means " I can't address, or make any further points, so i'll bow out with a meaningless cliche."
you in 100: Federal judges have lifetime appointments.
Your statement dismisses as surplusage the conditions of Article III, hardly a “nit to pick”.
While there are certainly some who will surrender their weapons, and there are certainly those who will inform on other citizens (I know some of these types), let me remind you of the record firearm and ammunition sales that have occurred in this country since the current administration took control. Many of these weapons were purchased by people who did not previously own firearms, and every time the Demander in Chief opens his mouth, the numbers continue to rise.
Further, the real economic situation being what it has been (and not the massaged numbers reported by the administration and spread by the compliant media), I would hazard a guess that there is and was no small percentage of those weapons that were purchased at the sacrifice of a more pressing need because of perceived immediate or future requirement. I submit that these people did NOT purchase these weapons, which in many cases represent a significant financial investment, only to meekly turn them over without resistance.
Thousands of federal judges have served a lifetime tenure. Less than 10 judges have been removed from office for bad behavior over the last 219 years.
There is no term limit on Article III judgeships.
Your post was speculative, one what might possibly happen in the future, was it not. What else needs to be said about a personal speculation?
The operative words in your post were “I predict...”
Time will tell if your prediction is well founded or not. I cannot see into the future.
I predict a massive increase in boating accidents.
“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior” U.S. Const. art III
Your statements dismiss as surplusage the conditions which qualify tenure.
> Less than 10 judges have been removed
So what? It does not change the rule, the rule which you dismiss.
I have rethought and reviewed American Battle History and through that came to the realization that Americans traditionally do not begin to fight until they have been bloodied. To wit: lost a few battles. After that they fight with a savagery that has no equal. After initially have been bloodied by them, Americans have defeated the greatest professional Armies and Navies, at their time in the World. Americans, as a whole are reluctant to fight. However, once they are shown that they must fight or die, they fight with a savagery that the World, up until that time, has not seen. Whomever, the Black Power bunch, the Commies, or the muslims that force a fight upon us are not going to like how it will end.
Americans traditionally do not begin to fight until they have been bloodied.
Regardless of the disparaging, slanderous things that "progressives" say about us, we tend do be a very law-abiding group, almost to our own peril. I've often stated that the very fact that so many vile knuckleheads are still free to stand up and call us every name in the book, and even suggest out extermination, is due to the demonstrable fact that we are not the people they claim we are. If their claims were true, many of them would no longer be able to make any further claims. Thus, we'll wait until we have unquestionable reason to defend ourselves, which means that the other side will indeed have a few early victories should they press the issue.
After that they fight with a savagery that has no equal.
The opposition apparently believes that they can control the results of their efforts to stir up this particular hornet's nest, and that there will be no significant response, and that they will be largely immune at the upper echelons from any response that does occur. I believe that they are delusional.
Whomever, the Black Power bunch, the Commies, or the muslims that force a fight upon us are not going to like how it will end.
I agree with you. I further submit that the press and other enablers have not paid attention to the tenants of 4th generation warfare. They are going to act OH so surprised when they are held personally accountable, should events turn the way they appear to be championing. There will be much rending of garments and gnashing of teeth.
Where did I dismiss the “rule?” The fact that any federal official can be removed from office by impeachment is understood.
But if it makes you happy, I’ll reiterate: Article III federal judges have lifetime tenure as long as they exhibit good behavior. Federal judges can also resign or retire.
For example, Joseph William Woodrow was appointed a federal judge of the Nebraska District Court by Woodrow Wilson and served from 1916 to 1933. He was then appointed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by Franklin Roosevelt and served from 1933 to 1961. He then became a Senior Judge and finally retired in 1977. That’s a total of 61.5 years as a federal judge. Seems like a lifetime.
Which is precisely why we need a devout and learned constitutional conservative as our next president, one who is willing to push for the impeachment of federal judges who fail to uphold their oath “...to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic” and apply that standard to all “interpretations” of the law, whether that law applies to the First, Second or any other amendment to the Constitution. That president must have a demonstrated record of opposing judicial activism and routine surrender to the will of the left, whether by Democrats or Republicans. Most importantly, that president must understand, acknowledge and convey to the American people that there are three co-equal branches of government and that the Supreme Court isn’t the final word on ANYTHING.
Senator Cruz, are you listening? I’m thinking Mike Lee would make a wonderful attorney general and/or Supreme Court justice...
I agree 100 percent.
I believe that being shot should be requirement for gun ownership in America.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Liberal Fascism, as predicted by Jonah Goldberg.
You read it here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html
This law would be enforced much the way prohibition was, and would meet the same end result.
Wearing a blue lelmet here in Texas is analogous to being the No. 3 man in Al-Quaida
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.