TexasCHLforum.com

TxLobo wrote:I got an old H&R 9 shot .22 revolver.. I'd take 500.00 for it.

I have one of those too! A model 929, I paid $29 for about 30 years ago. I'd take $500 for it in a heartbeat! But not from Senator Frankenstein, as a matter of principle....

I don't care how little I paid for a gun, DF ain't getting it!

Saw a bumper sticker once:

"If someone wants to take my gun they'll have to take my ammo too, one bullet at a time."

Saw a flag once:

"Come and take it."

Heartland Patriot wrote:Now, I'm not any sort of combat veteran. I don't know any tactics or have any training of that nature. But I know a few folks that DO have those sorts of skills. And I put them into the same category with AndyC. I think any gun-grabber types would have more than just a little bit of "fun" confiscating their weapons. And I think the people like D.F. know this, too. How does this strike you, though? "We wanted to do a gun buy-back to get these evil, murderous assault weapons and clips off of our streets, but the evil meanie Teapublicans blocked us by refusing to vote for it and give us the funding. If you want our nation to be safer, think of the children and vote Democrat during the Congressional elections". ALL politicians use rhetoric and subterfuge to win in some ways, but none as dirty as these liberal-progressive Democrats such as Feinstein. And since I do believe they don't have the votes to push through another AWB, I think they will use it as a leverage tool during the next election cycle

I posted differently in the past, but it now looks like they're going for broke. Registration=confiscation. There has never been a registration that wasn't followed by confiscation. I now believe there is a very real chance that confiscation will occur before The One leaves office.....IF he does leave office. However, I still don't believe that it will result in door to door searches or physical confiscation. The people who register their guns will simply turn them in. Those who don't register and turn in their guns will just be put in jail if they actually use a prohibited gun to defend themselves. Prohibition and confiscation will simply make the guns that aren't turned in useless: you won't be able to use them at a range, you won't be able to carry them in your car or on your person with a CHL, and you won't be able to use them in self-defense without going to prison.

The Annoyed Man wrote:If it hasn't been posted yet, here is the summary of Feinstein's bill for 2013. I post it in its entirety because it comes from her senate webpage and is thus in the public domain:

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

• Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
  • 120 specifically-named firearms
  • Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic (what the heck is a military characteristic in a handgun with removable magazine? -TAM)
  • Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
• Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
  • Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test (if it has one characteristic, it is banned-TAM)
  • Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
  • Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
• Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
• Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
  • Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
  • Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
  • Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
• Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
  • Background check of owner and any transferee;
  • Type and serial number of the firearm;
  • Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
  • Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
  • Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

A pdf of the bill summary is available here.

I most sincerely and deeply and unapologetically hate that poor excuse for American womanhood. This actually does scare the crap outta me.

Am I missing something, or doesn't "under the NFA" mean taxes that will make gun ownership an economic impossibility for most Americans?

make gun ownership an economic impossibility for most Americans?

That's the goal

sjfcontrol wrote:Seems to me if various states can claim that marijuana is legal,...

That is just it. The federal government has never agreed that the various states can claim marijuana is legal. Similarly, the Wyoming law that provided for intrastate firearms exempt from federal law, BATFE basically told FFL's they ignore the federal law at their peril.

Supremacy Clause, US Constitution.

Just read that summary plus the NRA-ILA email that I got tonight on the topic.

Holy Cow!!!!

Please, somebody tell me that this is crazy enough that there is no bloody way in the deepest pits of hades that Frankenfinestein can get this out of committee and passed. This is atrocious beyond my wildest imaginings!

Once this thing has a number, I am emailing/writing/calling my Congressman, both Senators, and anyone else where it could help and seriously urge them to kill this thing. Perhaps the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority Leader will be smart enough to never ever ever let this monster on the floors for a vote.

The U.N. has been "gunning" for global disarmament of citizens for 50 years. They may may have enough useful idiots in charge here to give it a "shot". Bah-dum-bump.

If this passes, there WILL be blood.

Unrelated: newTexan and Bitter_Clinger, y'all might want to edit your last posts for language. The mods will flip when they see the choice words.

The Annoyed Man wrote:If this passes, there WILL be blood.

Unrelated: newTexan and Bitter_Clinger, y'all might want to edit your last posts for language. The mods will flip when they see the choice words.

I was just thinking the same thing. About the "Blood" and the "choice words".

I can't begin to imagine the consequences of a forced buy back or forced registration of grandfathered guns. Either way, you will criminalize more than half the otherwise law abiding population over night.

The Annoyed Man wrote:If it hasn't been posted yet, here is the summary of Feinstein's bill for 2013. I post it in its entirety because it comes from her senate webpage and is thus in the public domain:

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

• Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
  • 120 specifically-named firearms
  • Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic (what the heck is a military characteristic in a handgun with removable magazine? -TAM)
  • Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
• Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
  • Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test (if it has one characteristic, it is banned-TAM)
  • Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
  • Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
• Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
• Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
  • Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
  • Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
  • Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
• Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
  • Background check of owner and any transferee;
  • Type and serial number of the firearm;
  • Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
  • Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
  • Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

A pdf of the bill summary is available here.

I most sincerely and deeply and unapologetically hate that poor excuse for American womanhood. This actually does scare the crap outta me.

This is just like the "sticker shock" you get when buying a new car! They hope to negotiate something less. WE need to tell them we aren't buying it! Our 2A rights are not negotiable.

Jumping Frog wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Seems to me if various states can claim that marijuana is legal,...

That is just it. The federal government has never agreed that the various states can claim marijuana is legal. Similarly, the Wyoming law that provided for intrastate firearms exempt from federal law, BATFE basically told FFL's they ignore the federal law at their peril.

Supremacy Clause, US Constitution.

I think my point was that the involved states simply told the Feds, "We're not going to play...", and said they would no longer prosecute people for small quantities of MJ. Just seems to me that for a Constitutional Right (which MJ isn't), Texas could tell the Feds the same thing. It's one thing for a few "clingers" on a website to boldly claim "I aint't gonna do it!", and a State Government telling them to "pound sand".

As for the Supremacy Clause...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

What is to be interpreted by that when the "Laws of the United States" are in direct conflict of the Constitution? Note the phrase, "...which shall be made in pursuance thereof...".

sjfcontrol wrote:What is to be interpreted by that when the "Laws of the United States" are in direct conflict of the Constitution? Note the phrase, "...which shall be made in pursuance thereof...".

That is settled law.

The United States Supreme Court has found that under Article III of the Constitution, the final power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that the states therefore do not have the power to nullify federal law

See Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958).

Jumping Frog wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:What is to be interpreted by that when the "Laws of the United States" are in direct conflict of the Constitution? Note the phrase, "...which shall be made in pursuance thereof...".

That is settled law.

The United States Supreme Court has found that under Article III of the Constitution, the final power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that the states therefore do not have the power to nullify federal law

See Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958).

Then perhaps it needs to be "unsettled".

I'm telling you that woman Feinstein KNOWS she ain't going to get that monstrous piece of garbage pushed through. She overdid it. Which means she wants something else and I think its to stop private, person-to-person sales of firearms...or as the left-wing gun-banners call to make it sound dirty: the "gun show loophole". They want you to have to go through an FFL for every firearms transaction (as people are forced to do in The Peoples' Democrat Socialist Workers Paradise Kah-lee-foh-nee-ah)...well, at least us law-abiding citizens will be forced to do so...the crooks and criminals will still do what they do every day to buy guns with no paperwork involved...but Feinstein doesn't care, because I'm going to guess she's got a nice fat tax, oh wait, filing fee, cooked up to go with the REAL legislation that will be her "compromise" when her obviously over-the-top AWB gets shoved back into her face. Then, she trots the other one out and says "WELL, if you meanies won't think of the children and stop these awful assault machinegun laser death rays with megaclips and shoulderthings that go up, then at least be REASONABLE and stop people from selling them through the GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE!" I'm telling you, that woman has an evil streak a mile wide and she ain't stupid as she may seem to be.