.
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 BATFE was caught assembling a database using NICS during the Clinton Administration and was ordered to delete it.
They have had a couple of decades to know who is who and make their little lists.
Gee whiz, Wally, that sounds almost as successful as the Canadian long gun registry!
Would like to watch some effeminate squirrely bureaucrat try to start confiscating. even if he has US Marshalls trying to back him up.
-—==+==-—
Only way you will ever see them is if you hunt them down.......Had ENOUGH Yet ?
I'm sort of thinking it paves the way for a lot of new replacement judges.
.
#SAND
Compliance is about 1 in 800. The VA is not complying either:
Nonviolent civil disobedience (massive failure to comply) is the best first start.
Taking out a bunch of you will be a fine way to go, rather than slowly from disease.
This is something I have been thinking about for a long time. I suppose we could call it "Taking out the trash on our way out." When you have nothing left to lose, why not do something good for the decent people who are left?
Bookmark
“It is here: Court ruling paves way for mass confiscation of firearms in America”
Ha. Ok. And how many will that be?
So, a state could ban firearms, cancel elections, outlaw Christianity, shutdown all but state news sources, and the Feds have no say?
A baker wont bake a cake for a pervert event and the Feds assist yhe state in hammerinv them, but cancelling 2A at the state level should be OK with the Fed.
Riiiight.
bfl
Didn’t the Canadians pretty much ignore the law that they register rifles and shotguns?
Yep. Very low compliance brought an end to a registry which was not only ineffective but cost multiples of what it was projected to cost.
Having lived in both urban and rural areas (from the Fulton chain in the Adirondack Park in upstate New York (think Lake Placid), to the Colorado Rockies (think anyplace West of Denver/Boulder), there is so much open space that anyone coming to confiscate anything (think Bundy Ranch), would likely never be seen again. Since the Fedzilla has pretty much confirmed that they think an independently thinking American is their sworn enemy, there is no longer any question of their motives.
Should they try anything outside of the major urban areas (and good luck with The Hood), they may make a few examples, but unless they cut ALL communications (think handheld short wave), the news will be countrywide before these self-righteous idiots take their first piss. The reason nothing has started yet is that although the intentions are clear, no action against citizens has yet been taken.
Once the first hostility toward an American citizen is taken, all bets will be off. The government has shown their intentions, and it is NOT to protect our freedom. The latest estimate is over 360 million guns in private hands, and ammunition to match. There is NO agency /agencies that can take on those numbers. The citizens will soon control the armories that the bureaucrats thought were theirs, and the retaliations will not be painless or swift. This will not be another Germany of 1939. If there are 100 (unwilling) soldiers at my neighbor’s down the street, they will know that the mobilization is on, and they are vulnerable, because this is MY territory, where I live, and I know it well.
CWII will start when the Government gets aggressive toward the Citizens, and not until. We value peace and will not start this. It is, however, quite clear that the government has no qualms about starting a suicidal action. It will be ugly, brutal and bloody, but that is far better than the slavery that is planned.
Everybody, calm down for a moment. This was the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan. There was no way it was going to go pro-second amendment. The plaintiffs likely knew this, but have to go through the lower courts in order to get to the Supreme Court to get the lower court decision overturned since the lower courts refused to listen to SCOTUS to begin with as far as the Heller decision was concerned. This is what the plaintiffs are betting on.
There’s a lot of us elders.
“Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property
of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they
put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon
absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge
which God hath provided for all men against force and violence.” -John
Locke
“They wouldn’t have to go door to door. What if they froze bank accounts or seized property?”
That’s a good thought. If a person’s bank account was frozen, the family would have no money. Most people would give up their guns if there was no food for the family and not going to be any until the guns were gone.
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.