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.
Damned difficult trying to drink a cup ‘o coffee with the onset of Essential Tremor requiring a steadying effect by the off hand. Imagine the tremors if I was to get all wee wee’d up about this announcement and get my knees a knockin’, my heart a pumpin’ and my hands a shakin’. Might throw off my aim. Yep. Cool, calm and collected like a pickle in a jar. Thunder don’t bother me either and if the lightnin’ hits me I’ll never know anyway. No sense to get rankled by a conversation over the cracker barrel. Anythin’ more threatenin’ than a spoken word and I’ll have to put this coffee down, get up outta the chair and take care o’ business. I guarantee that cup o’ coffee will still be hot when I sit back down. Provided of course I’m able to sit. Hear tell Lee Marvin couldn’t sit for a while. I’ll be in good company.
Incorrect, under the incorporation doctrine of the 14th amendment.
States are also not allowed to abridge the 2nd.
BUMP!!!!
“Congress shall make no law...”
You nailed it.
“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956
The evildoers of which he speaks should have been dispatched to unmarked graves decades ago. We didn't do it then. Now, we'll all sit down to that "banquet of consequences" of which Robert Louis Stevenson spoke. As I see it now, it's simply become a matter of how many of them I'll take with me. That has a way of clarifying the mind.
.
BFL
Taking out a bunch of you will be a fine way to go, rather than slowly from disease.
If they try this, it is time.
This Nazi firearms confiscation law would NOT be Constitutional at the “national level”. The “proponents” of this Nazi tactic need to step back, take a deep breath and STFU.
They think like the felon slattern Lois Lerner - "It's all about ME, and my six-figure .gov pension..."
This mass hysteria is money driven.
You sound like my Dad ... making it to 70 then 80 same stuff.
Now he is 84 and still talking $hit about if he makes it to 90 there will be Hell to pay! (He is very young for his age)
He will most likely outlive me because he is just too mean to die. (nope.. he is a Sweetheart, just rough on the outside)
Most people that I know in law enforcement would defend the second amendment. Who would the “rulers” send out to confiscate the weapons?
*** “Who would the “rulers” send out to confiscate the weapons?” ***
Hope they are wearing Blue Helmets, the #1 Target used for sighting in Rifles and just plain ol shooting at the Range.
Intangible factors: Many people who still retain their firearms have lost most else. Some have lost all they own and resent the people who have caused an environment in which that happened. A man who has nothing to lose will fight.
It is the fat and happy who have something who are disinclined to risk it.
Kids nowadays may catch a lot of flack for being college grads with a head full of mush. Some are, but from those who graduated well in a decent field who have been edged out by diversity or other policies, this is a situation to rebel against.
For those stuck in grandma's basement trying to pay off student loans in a crappy job who just can't connect to one in the field they chose, they got a raw deal, and it doesn't take long to figure out who dealt them a crappy hand. It doesn't take long to see through the hypocrisy of those who told them a line of crap about how wonderful that new world order was going to be.
You see, the problem is that the Socialists can only sell rebellion and appeal to the 'rebellious youth' when they are not the ones making the policies the youth rebel against.
The Socialists have become the de facto "Establishment".
They are the status quo kids rebel against.
Tell those youngsters they can't have something and watch and see what they try hardest to get first...and then they will do their darndest to keep it.
I know for a fact, at least 99% certain, that the feds have been pressuring the state of Kentucky to supply them with their list of CCDW holders.
This according to the instructor of my concealed carry class some years ago.
I don’t know how successful they’ve been, but I know that I don’t trust the puke Democrat we have in Frankfurt. And thanks to this piss poor campaign that Bevin has been running it looks like we’re going to get another 4 years of the same.
Gun Rights Advocates Have A Devastating New Argument Against Gun Control. Here It Is.
That being said .... step #2:
Low SAFE Act numbers hint at non-compliance in NY
Information ordered by the courts show that just one out of every 800 New Yorkers have registered their firearms under the requirements of the state’s 2013 gun control legislation.
Records released show that 23,847 people have applied to register 44,485 guns classified as an assault weapon under the egis of the Secure Ammunition Firearms Enforcement Act implemented two years ago. At the time of implementation, it was estimated that as many as 1.2 million guns in the Empire State would have been subject to registration.
If the govt starts in the hood I’ll watch with popcorn as they go door to door demanding guns...yeah the drug dealers will peacefully hand over their weapons/s
People who are already close, who are frustrated, angry with the supposed 'public servants' who have helped--helped themselves to the substance and subsistence of those who slave to support them--or simply wish they were employed.
Know these pikers for what they are and that they are seeking justification for their actions.
We'll eat their fricking cake later.
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.