Posted on 12/22/2012 4:32:01 PM PST by barmag25
Amid talk of reinstating the assault weapons ban that expired eight years ago, police departments nationwide are thinking of ways to confiscate such weapons.
As WCBS 880s Marla Diamond reported, among the departments considering taking action is the NYPD. Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said if Congress were to reinstate the ban, police are wondering whether it will be their responsibility to confiscate them.
(Excerpt) Read more at newyork.cbslocal.com ...
massive crisis == opportunity for drastic change quickly
#bump |
Customers Who Bought "AR-15" Also Bought |
Any attempt to confiscate legally-purchased private property would be a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights, and therefore quite illegal; it would also be, in any case, exceedingly ill-advised.
Let us hope our “Government Masters” won’t initiate any such poorly though-out plan.
The average rifle hunter shots rifle caliber combo’s that are more than capable of shooting softball size targets at 300 yards. Softballs are smaller than blue helmets.
Thats minimal ballistic’s for your basic deer rifle, I push 30 cal 150’s over 3500 fps. Ya gotta love Roy Weatherby!
You said;
This would be in direct violation of the US Constitution. Section 9, paragraph 3 of Article I says, No Bill of Attainder or ex-post facto Law shall be passed.
WRONG ITS;
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
I fear that’s what’s coming: a ban on everything. Which’ll do nothing to stop, and actually allow for more, massacres. If so, this is going to get real, real ugly, and isn’t going to end well for any of us.
I refer you to Article II, Section 5, Clause 1.
You don't actually believe that either major party gives a sh#* about the Constitution, do you?
Supreme Court cases that cite natural born Citizen as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term natural born citizen to any other category than those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof.
I plan on getting either a Springfield XD40 or a Sig P229 in .40 in the next couple of weeks.
80 million legal gun owners in the U.S.
If even 90% of us give up our guns willingly (and I certainly doubt the number would be that high) that leaves 8 million.
Where will the personnel come from to raid 8 million people’s homes?
“80 million legal gun owners in the U.S.”
Agreed. These Libtards are living in Fairey Land - they just wave their magical ObamaWand and it be so..............
I’m sure the families of those killed by armed maniacs in Scotland, France, Belgium, Germany and Norway in recent years are greatly comforted by Mayor Bloomberg’s words.
Kind of hard to ban or confiscate that...
Cheers!
John Basilone.
The amazing thing about Basilone is not only that he did that, but that the action he died in would have probably won him a posthumous MOH if he hadn’t already had one.
But I guess that wouldn't work in real life due to the disorientation of "flash-bangs" and the difficulty of aiming like a cyborg when you're only a human.
Ain't Hollywood grand?
Cheers!
He died later at Iwo
He later died at Iwo
“what will it take to penetrate one of those vehicles?”
About a pound each of Finely ground rust and aluminum, put
in a clay pot and a piece of magnesium from a flash bulb as
a fuse.
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.