Bite Me says he can dictate the type of weapon you own
Personally, I wouldn’t let Joe Biden pick out my underwear, but he told House Democrats at their retreat that the government can tell you what weapons you can own says Politico;
“It is clearly within the right of the government to determine what type of weapons can be owned by the public.”
Now, I’m no constitutional scholar, but I’m pretty sure that the federal government doesn’t have any rights. I skimmed the Bill of Rights a few times, and couldn’t find any rights, per se, in there for the feds. I see the tenth amendment with States’ rights. So, I’m concluding that Bite Me doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
“Don’t tell me because we can’t solve it all, we can’t act at all. … when people tell me you can’t prevent these kinds of occurrences that doesn’t mean we can’t do something so god forbids if it happens again, diminish the carnage,” he said.
Yup, we just have to do something, anything. Of course, unfortunately for the country, he’ll still have his job in January 2015. Because if they go through with their gun ban, many of the Democrats in that room won’t be in Congress.
February 7th, 2013 at 6:14 pm
Well Joe couldn’t possibly be wrong! Remember, he’s a lot smarter than the rest of us, just ask him.
February 7th, 2013 at 6:21 pm
Didn’t you see the press conference today in which Chris Rock laid it out for all of us dumb people? Obama is our daddy, we should do what he says because he’s the president. Biden being the creepy uncle still rates total authority over the American people because these people are our “boss”.
Libtards gonna Libtard.
February 7th, 2013 at 6:22 pm
I have no words left for this lying, manipulating administration. Now this bonehead wants to tell me to conform to a standard weapon? Only time in my life I did that was when I carried an M16A2 every day. Seriously, how can “…shall not be infringed” be interrupted any other way?
February 7th, 2013 at 6:23 pm
Bazookas? Stinger missles? There’s gotta be a line somewhere, just a matter of where that line is. Draw the line at muskets? (just kidding)
February 7th, 2013 at 6:26 pm
So what he’s saying is I need to top off my stock of surplus 7.62x54r Ammo out of pure and simple spite right?
February 7th, 2013 at 6:26 pm
I do think that Heller V. DC is ANOTHER in a long list of stupid-ass decisions by this SC. It was a decision going against over 100 years of Constitutional law and history. That being said, even THAT shitty decision backs up Biden’s interpretation of the law:
“The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons supports the holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time.”
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html
So, once again, Jonn, keep your legal interpretations to grown-ups.
February 7th, 2013 at 6:28 pm
So where are the government’s “rights”, smartass?
February 7th, 2013 at 6:30 pm
And all the while they are also busily decimating our already tattered mental health care system. See the article on MSN today? One psych got paid for five hours of work for the month of January; he and his staff saw @ 300 patients. The doc ended up paying his bills out of his personal bank account. And the beat goes on…
February 7th, 2013 at 6:37 pm
I agree that grown-ups should be discussing these things, which begs the question: Why is Sippy here?
February 7th, 2013 at 6:40 pm
When the government passes the law prohibiting the sale of certain types of weapons it will have the right to enforce that law. He wasn’t talking about Constitutional rights, but legal rights.
Also, it will be the Republicans that will be hurt if they stop gun legislation, not the Democrats for pushing it. Newtown has changed things. That change is here to stay.
February 7th, 2013 at 6:43 pm
@8- Republicans want to do NOTHING to solve the problem. They don’t want to pay for armed guards in school, they don’t want to pay the CURRENT cost of education. They don’t want to enforce the gun laws we have in place right now, which is why they keep trying to push laws limiting the ATF and keeping the ATF without a leader. They don’t want to invest in parity for mental health, in fact they want to decimate Obamacare which calls for mental health parity. In short they like the status quo.
February 7th, 2013 at 6:49 pm
@10: You’re right, things have changed. Americans have become more educated on how the media and politicians lie about crime. They actually start looking at those free public FBI Uniform Crime Reports and seeing who is lying about firearm crime. Americans are finally are waking up that asinine restrictions on freedom don’t create a perfect society and that maybe if protecting group of unarmed adults with armed individuals is worth it so are enacting the same protection for their children.
February 7th, 2013 at 6:58 pm
Insipid, you’re being ignorant; Republicans have been trying to get the government to enforce the laws they already have in place since forever. Contrary to popular belief, we don’t want people with felony convictions to be able to buy guns either. We don’t want armed 9-year-olds or any of that other bullshit you’ve been fed. Grow up and think for yourself for a change. And, oh, by the way, the government has no rights. The whole point of the Constitution is to limit government and to protect our rights, you know, those things “endowed by our Creator”, and the government is endowed by it’s Creator, the people, with our rights. I’m no legal scholar, but you’re a blithering idiot.
I didn’t mean that as an insult, merely an observation.
February 7th, 2013 at 6:59 pm
You mean Republicans like Barack Obama, whose administration eliminated federal Readiness and Emergency Management (REMS) funding grants for schools in FY 2012?
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/dvpemergencyresponse/performance.html
Did those same Republicans stick a hand up Eric Holder’s ass and make his mouth move to give the orders when federal firearms prosecutions were reduced by 40% to focus more on drug cases?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/gun-prosecutions-under-obama-down-more-than-45-percent/article/2516175
And as for Obamacare, it sounds like you prefer an equal decimation of the mental and physical health systems once it drives more and more doctors out of business.
February 7th, 2013 at 6:59 pm
Jonn, just out of curiosity, and in re: skippy’s remark at #10, I just have one question:
Isn’t the US Constitution the law of the land?
February 7th, 2013 at 7:03 pm
@12- That’s if you buy into John Lott’s bullshit debunked work. The fact is that there is overwhelming evidence that if you reduce the number of gums, you reduce the number of gun deaths and gun suicides. That there is no corresponding evidence that people will find other ways to kill and committ suicide. States with more restrictive gun laws have less gun related deaths:
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/states-with-most-restrictive-gun-control-laws-have-lower-gun-related-deaths-study-finds
February 7th, 2013 at 7:07 pm
@10 Thanks man, I had a crappy day and needed a laugh. Not like the last big federal foray into gun control didn’t come back and bite the democrats in the ass. Being a history major (BA, MA, someday PhD) I seem to recall the original gov’t attempt at regulating weapons held by the people. Maybe you read about it, it was in all the history books (well except for the ones written by Howard Zihn)
February 7th, 2013 at 7:10 pm
John Lott debunked by who? The underpants gnomes or the voices in your head?
February 7th, 2013 at 7:14 pm
@16 That report doesn’t mention Illinois or New York.
February 7th, 2013 at 7:24 pm
#16
You have got to be freaking kidding me. You do understand what is happening in Chicago right? Explain Chicago for me. That’s all I ask of you. Explain. Chicago.
February 7th, 2013 at 7:26 pm
@13- Oh for goodness sakes for a group that hangs its tenuous defense of the second Amendment on the idea that there are dual meanings in the Constitution of the word “Militia” you’re being awfully obtuse when it comes to recognizing that the word “right” has multiple meanings. It can mean a direction, as in right turn while driving, it can mean a statement of basic human principles as in Right to Life and it can mean giving permission for an action such as a right of the government to arrest you if they suspect you of drunk driving or murder.
Government DOES have the right to enforce the law. That’s what Biden was saying. In fact that’s one of the essential functions of government.
Also, the NRA does NOT want laws enforced which is why much of their actions have been directed against funding the ATF, providing leadership for the ATF, defunding research on the best way to combat gun violence, passing laws holding gun manufacturers immune from lawsuits and criminal prosecution etc. You don’t go by what they SAY, they lie. You go by what they do.
February 7th, 2013 at 7:32 pm
@ Inspid: Please list some of that “100 years of Constitutional law and history” that Heller went against.
We’ll… wait.
And we don’t need to hire additional people to guard schools. We can simply restore the right of the adults there to be armed, effective deterrents to murdeous scum-F#@%*@$. Iknow that vexes you…
February 7th, 2013 at 7:32 pm
They’re not buying the guns in Chicago. They’re buying them outside the City and outside the state. That’s why gun laws are effective in New York, but not Chicago. There’s no easy way to get gun laws elsewhere in New York because all the surrounding areas and states ALSO have strong gun laws. This is why we need a NATIONAL plan.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/14715658-418/chicago-gangs-dont-have-to-go-far-to-buy-guns.html
http://www.suntimes.com/news/17620046-418/analysis-straw-purchasing-background-check-law-most-important-here.html
February 7th, 2013 at 7:34 pm
It’s really quite simple – the government has no rights at all. It has certain obligations, all of which are to the people which it serves.
It is obvious that our society is out of whack. There are entirely too many who now see it in reverse – we the people now seem to have obligations to the government while the government is said to have rights.
Welcome to la-la land.
February 7th, 2013 at 7:36 pm
You do know what Operation Fast and Furious is right? You want the ATF to have more power to track and regulate guns in the US after they gave 2,000 guns to Mexican drug cartels and only recovered 700 of them. And you think that’s wise? You do know that Biden has admitted that federal and most state governments are not equipped or capable of enforcing existing gun laws don’t you? Nothing you’re saying makes any sense.
February 7th, 2013 at 7:37 pm
OK, I don’t know or care what skippy is smoking or drinking, but this ongoing project by Redeye, a local Chicago group has links to valid studies being done in regard to the homicide rates in Chicago:
http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/
The city of Chicago has extremely strict gun control laws. There is a tax on bullets sold in Cook County, which is where Chicago is located. In the beginning of February, 700 guns held by criminals were seized by the Chicago Police Department:
http://wgntv.com/2013/02/04/chicago-police-seize-nearly-700-guns/
Meantime, kids are still being killed by gangbangers and other criminals, including Hadiyah Pendleton, who was the only one shot by someone who jumped the fence around the park where she and her friends had been playing volleyball. Hadiyah was the young lady from Chicago who performed at the most recent inauguration. 44 other kids were killed by guns in the hands of criminals in the month of January alone.
They were NOT killed by people who legally owned weapons.
February 7th, 2013 at 7:39 pm
@22- Why don’t you look up U.S. V. Miller, or Vietnamese Fisherman vs. the KKK and get back to me. In fact let me know of any other time a gun ban has been struck down prior to Miller based on 2nd amendment grounds.
I’ll wait.
February 7th, 2013 at 7:39 pm
In case I wasn’t clear, the law is no obstacle to any criminal when he wants to get his hands on a gun, even in New York.
Dreamworld, dreamworld, dreamworld.
February 7th, 2013 at 7:40 pm
There is no “dual meaning” of the term militia, Sippy the Pinhead. The term is defined clearly in 10 USC 311. It’s defined as the combination of (1) every male ages 17 to 45 who is either a citizen or has intent to become one, (b) all male members of the organized Reserve Components (state or Federal), and (c) all female members of the organized Reserve Components (state or Federal). The latter two form the organized militia. The former forms the unorganized militia.
The definition in Federal law today is not significantly different from that in the Militia Acts of 1792, which are contemporary with the 2nd Amendment. And the definition of militia as “all able bodied free males of military age” was commonly accepted in the Colonies that later became the United States more than 100 years before the Declaration of Independence.
The term militia does not today and never has meant solely “members of an organized reserve unit”. That bogus claim is an untruth spread by those who are either abjectly ignorant of US history or who are lying to further a political agenda – specifically, to ignore the 2nd Amendment.
February 7th, 2013 at 7:45 pm
Suppose we have a national plan. Of course we all know that inner city street gangs have arsenals of guns that they will not willingly give up should a national gun ban plan be enacted. But what about rural and suburban America? We all know there are plenty of restaurant workers, office dwellers, law enforcement officers (active and retired or former), members of the military (again, active and retired or former), doctors, lawyers, truck drivers, ranchers, farmers, (you get the idea), who all own those scary black rifles privately and store them in their homes. People who are good people, just trying to make their way in this world and have no desire to harm anyone. What is the appropriate plan of action to relieve those people of the guns that they legally own and store in their house? Again, I ask, what is the plan of action for those folks?
This is always where it gets good, fellas, lol
February 7th, 2013 at 7:48 pm
So, you have nothing, and attempt to deflect? Well played… oh, no, it wasn’t…
February 7th, 2013 at 7:51 pm
@30- There is no “plan of action” other than the fevered brains of gun-nuts. There is no plan on the books, no plan proposed that calls for taking away guns already purchase. To be honest, i would like a national gun buyback program- similar to the one instituted in Australia that brought THEIR mass killings to a stop. However, i recognize that in the United States such a common-sense action is impossible due to the fact that there are too many folks who rub themeselves raw thinking about their “weapons”. But just because you have a fantasy of confiscation, doesn’t mean i have to engage in your fantasy.
February 7th, 2013 at 7:51 pm
Sippy: sorry to break this to you, but Miller v. US has largely now been invalidated. Between Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago, the SCOTUS has now formally affirmed the individual right of firearms ownership that the Constitution has contained in clear and unambiguous language since the adoption of the Bill of Rights. That right has been held to be binding on state governments as well as Federal enclaves.
Reasonable regulation is permitted, but the SCOTUS has yet to define the limits of permissible regulation. I suspect they will do much in that area within the next few years.
And I also suspect you aren’t going to like what they have to say.
February 7th, 2013 at 7:52 pm
@31- If you consider two court cases decided by the SC as “nothing” then you’re right. In the real world, it is something.
February 7th, 2013 at 7:53 pm
#11 You say that Republicans don’t want to do anything and yet I live in a state that has a Republican super majority. All school in my school district now have armed cops in them. You really shouldn’t repeat koolaid talking points.
February 7th, 2013 at 7:53 pm
Miller has been completely invalidated. That’s my point. My argument is that the SC overturned Precedent. I know it’s hard for you, Hondo, but try and keep up.
February 7th, 2013 at 7:54 pm
#34 SCOTUS has historically made many unconstitutional decisions.. see Plessy et. al. Just because some judge hands it down does not mean it is remotely Constitutional. And the wonderful thing about precedent is that there is always a new precedent to take its place.
February 7th, 2013 at 7:55 pm
Sippy: more recent precedent generally governs, particularly when the more recent decision contradicts an older one. Otherwise, we could ignore Lawrence v. Texas and begin prosecuting sodomy as a crime again under the precedent set by Bowers v. Hardwick.
Heller v. DC was decided in 2008; McDonald v. Chicago, in 2010. Both are more recent precedents.
February 7th, 2013 at 7:55 pm
@34- That’s true Melle, and Heller is amongst those awful decisions.
February 7th, 2013 at 7:57 pm
Well, since you admitted that there is no plan of action (that you know of) I am obligated to see your words as nothing more than a meaningless temper tantrum.
Get back to me when you have realistic ideas.
February 7th, 2013 at 7:57 pm
Miller made no real precedent… as Miller was dead, and his lawyer did not show up to testify.
Other than that, what “precedent” supports your claims?
February 7th, 2013 at 7:58 pm
Insipid, it is against federal law to own automatic or “select fire” weapons and has been since the 30′s. You are muddying the waters, pal.
February 7th, 2013 at 7:58 pm
Inspid, how do you define “the right of the people… shall not be infringed.”? What does it mean?
February 7th, 2013 at 7:58 pm
Oh for gods sakes I’M NOT SAYING HELLER DOES NOT GOVERN! I’M SAYING IT OVERTURNED PRECEDENT. AND YOU’RE AGREEING WITH ME!
Do i need to use sign language? My argument is NOT that Heller is not law. It is. All I’m saying is that it overturned many years of precedent. And you’re saying the same thing. Unless if you just have a rule that you MUST argue with all thigs i say?
February 7th, 2013 at 8:03 pm
@40- There is a plan of action. It just doesn’t include confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens. There was a plan of action to stop drunk driving without getting rid of alcohol or stopping it from being sold. There’s a plan of action to preven gun violence as well.
February 7th, 2013 at 8:04 pm
Drunkle Joe really needs to get control of that bumper car bouncing around in his head.
February 7th, 2013 at 8:05 pm
@41 Even if your circumstances behind the case our true, so what? If the SC decides something it is precedent. Whether you like the fact pattern or not.
February 7th, 2013 at 8:05 pm
@42- it’s not illegal, just restricted.
February 7th, 2013 at 8:07 pm
@42- Actually the ban on automatic weapons was put in place by Ronald Reagan, that commie fascist socialist pinko, in 1986 with the Firearm Owners Protection act.
February 7th, 2013 at 8:12 pm
No, it was the National Firearms Act of 1934. Really, you can look this stuff up.
February 7th, 2013 at 8:12 pm
Well, Sippy, if you’re not arguing against Heller – why do you keep bringing up arguments regarding a requirement for “militia connection”? Heller v. DC clearly held there is no such requirement, and that firearms ownership is an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution to all citizens unless taken away via due process. Membership in any organized militia is thus irrelevant.
Yet you keep bringing up that nonexistent requirement for militia connection as justification for gun control laws. Above, you cited Miller v. US – which was solely decided on the issue of militia connection and the utility of the weapon in question to a militia. (It was even incorrectly decided on that basis; a short-barreled shotgun has a role in riot control, and one of the missions of a state or local militia is riot control under martial law. That’s one of the things the CA ARNG did during the LA riots.) And you continue to claim a nonexistent requirement for militia connection to justify firearms control.
Frankly, militia membership always has been irrelevant under the Constitution regarding firearms ownership. That’s true for two reasons. First, because the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment is explanatory vice operative; it explains why but does not prescribe what. Second, by common practice and understanding far predating the Constitution itself, at the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted the militia was understood to be every able bodied free male of military age. It didn’t matter if you were in an organized unit or not – you were still a part of the militia. Law contemporary to the 2nd Amendment formalized that definition. That definition is still true, in expanded form, today.
You still don’t seem to want to grasp that fact because it is politically inconvenient for you to recognize that reality. Sorry, but facts is facts.
February 7th, 2013 at 8:13 pm
@49- Actually, the “ban” you’re speaking of was put into the Firearm Owner Protection Act at the last second by a Democrat from New Jersey, but I’m sure you knew that
February 7th, 2013 at 8:14 pm
Ronnie signed the rascist as fuck Mulford Act in California in…. 1968, IIRC.
February 7th, 2013 at 8:14 pm
Sippy,
First, long time no see … you friggin’ poster boy for mandatory casteration.
Second, show some respect for Ronnie. His 102nd was yesterday.
Third, how is the job hunting going?
February 7th, 2013 at 8:15 pm
Sippy: au contraire, fool. Try 1934 and the National Firearms Act, signed by FDR. That was the first Federal law that made ownership of fully automatic weapons unlawful without special permit.
February 7th, 2013 at 8:15 pm
The 1986 law merely cut off any additional registration of full-auto weapons for legal civilian ownership.
February 7th, 2013 at 8:17 pm
No, the 1934 act was not a ban, it just required machine gun owners to pay a hefty tax, be fingerprinted and be listed on a national registry. The 1986 act was a ban, it passed because very few people actually owned machine guns thanks to the 1934 act:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/01/18/169526687/the-decades-old-gun-ban-thats-still-on-the-books
February 7th, 2013 at 8:21 pm
@55- Yes, but that’s not a “ban”. Making something difficult or expensive is not the same thing as a ban. By your own language your admitting that the 34 act did not ban machine guns. The 86 act did.
February 7th, 2013 at 8:22 pm
@54- the job hunt went well, which is why i don’t post here much (sorry to disillusion all you folks who imagined me cowering in fear). Thanks for asking.
February 7th, 2013 at 8:23 pm
Reagan was president in 1934? Is that what you’re saying sippy? Because that’s when the ban on “machine guns” was enacted.
The he types this bullshit, “They(Republicans) don’t want to enforce the gun laws we have in place right now”. Completely overlooking the fact that Bite-Me said they(Baracka & Co.) don’t prosecute those who lie on the 4473.
February 7th, 2013 at 8:26 pm
Uh, Sippy . . . the 1986 ban applies only to firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986. Automatic weapons manufactured before that date may still be lawfully owned.
If, of course, the government deigns to allow you to do so by approving your request for a permit.
You are aware that the amendment introducing that ban actually failed on voice vote, but that Rangel unlawfully ruled otherwise and refused to allow a voice vote, right?
The National Firearms Act of 1934 effectively gave the US Government veto power over private ownership of of automatic weapons on a case-by-case basis, and made unlicensed ownership thereof a crime. Sounds like a de facto ban to me. Call it a “restrictive administration control” if you like – it’s still a legal ban in practice.
A “right” that requires a permit from the government before one can exercise it at all is not really a right. Rather, under such circumstances it’s a privilege granted by the government – which may be withdrawn at any time.
February 7th, 2013 at 8:26 pm
Never mind, fingers way too slow. But he point about the Regime not prosecuting violations of existing law stands.
February 7th, 2013 at 8:26 pm
Herewith lieth a complete copy of the National Firearms Act of 1934:
1236 – 1240
73d CONGRESS. SESS. II. CHS. 756, 757. JUNE 26, 1934
[CHAPTER 757.]
THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT OF 1934
AN ACT
To provide for the taxation of manufacturers, importers, and dealers in certain firearms and machine guns, to tax the sale or other disposal of such weapons, and to restrict importation and regulate interstate transportation thereof.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That for the purposes of this Act-
(a) The term “firearm” means a shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition.
(b) The term “machine gun” means any weapon which shoots, or is designed to shoot, automatically or semi automatically, more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
(c) The term “person” includes a partnership, company, association, or corporation, as well as a natural person.
(d) The term “continental United States” means the States of the United States and the District of Columbia.
(e) The term “importer” means any person who imports or brings firearms into the continental United States for sale.
(f) The term “manufacturer” means any person who is engaged within the continental United States in the manufacture of firearms, or who otherwise produces therein any firearm for sale or disposition.
(g) The term “dealer” means any person not a manufacturer or importer engaged within the continental United States in the business of selling firearms. The term “dealer” shall include wholesalers, pawnbrokers, and dealers in used firearms.
(h) The term “interstate commerce” means transportation from any State or Territory or District, or any insular possession of the United States (including the Philippine Islands), to any other State or to the District of Columbia.
(i) The term “Commissioner” means the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
(j) The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Treasury.
(k) The term “to transfer” or “transferred” shall include to sell, assign pledge, lease, loan, give away, or otherwise dispose of.
SEC 2. (a) Within fifteen days after the effective date of this Act, or upon first engaging in business, and thereafter on or before the 1st day of July of each year, every importer, manufacturer, and dealer in firearms shall register with the collector of internal revenue for each district in which such business is to be carried on his name or style, principal place of business, and places of business in such district, and pay a special tax at the following rates: Importers or manufacturers, $500 a year; dealers, other than pawnbrokers, $200 a year; pawnbrokers, $300 a year. Where the tax is payable on the lst day of July in any year it shall be computed for one year; where the tax is payable on any other day it shall be computed proportionately from the 1st day of the month in which the liability to the tax accrued to the 1st day of July following.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person required to register under the provisions of this section to import, manufacture, or deal in firearms without having registered and paid the tax imposed by this section.
SEC. 3. (a) There shall be levied, collected, and paid upon firearms transferred in the continental United States a tax at the rate of $200 for each firearm, such tax; to be paid by the transferor, and to be represented by appropriate stamps to be provided by the Commissioner, with the approval of the secretary; and the stamps herein provided shall be affixed to the order for such firearm, hereinafter provided for. The tax imposed by this section shall be in addition to any import duty imposed on such firearm.
(b) All provisions of law (including those relating to special taxes, to the assessment, collection, remission, and refund of internal revenue taxes, to the engraving, issuance, sale, accountability, cancellation, and distribution of tax-paid stamps provided for in the internal-revenue laws, and to penalties) applicable with respect to the taxes imposed by section 1 of the Act of December 17, 1914, as amended (U.S.C., Supp. VII, title 26, secs. 1040 and 1383), and all other provisions of the internal-revenue laws shall, insofar as not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be applicable with respect to the taxes imposed by this Act.
(c) Under such rules and regulations as the Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary, may prescribe, and upon proof of the exportation of and firearm to any foreign country (whether exported as part of another article or not) with respect to which the transfer tax under this section has been paid by the manufacturer, the Commissioner shall refund to the manufacturer the amount of the tax so paid, or, if the manufacturer waives all claim for the amount to be refunded, the refund shall be made to the exporter.
SEC. 4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a firearm except in pursuance of a written order from the person seeking to obtain such article, on an application form issued in blank in duplicate for that purpose by the Commissioner. Such order shall identify the applicant by such means of identification as may be prescribed by regulations under this Act: Provided, That, if the applicant is an individual, such identification shall include fingerprints and a photograph thereof.
(b) The Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary, shall cause suitable forms to be prepared for the purposes above mentioned, and shall cause the same to be distributed to collectors of internal revenue.
(c) Every person so transferring a firearm shall set forth in each copy of such order the manufacturer’s number or other mark identifying such firearm, and shall forward a copy of such order to the Commissioner. The original thereof with stamps affixed, shall be returned to the applicant.
(d) No person shall transfer a firearm which has previously been transferred on or after the effective date of this Act, unless such person, in addition to complying with subsection (c), transfers therewith the stamp-affixed order provided for in this section for each such prior transfer, in compliance with such regulations as may be prescribed under this act for proof of payment of all taxes on such firearms.
(e) If the transfer of a firearm is exempted from the provisions of this Act as provided in section 13 hereof, the person transferring such firearm shall notify the Commissioner of the name and address of the applicant, the number or other mark identifying such firearm, and the date of its transfer, and shall file with the Commissioner such documents in proof thereof as the Commissioner may by regulations prescribe.
(f) Importers, manufacturers, and dealers who have registered and paid the tax as provided for in section 2(a) of this Act shall not be required to conform to the provisions of this section with respect to transactions in firearms with dealers or manufacturers if such dealers or manufacturers have registered and have paid such tax, but shall keep such records and make such reports regarding such transactions as may be prescribed by regulations under this Act.
SEC. 5. (a) within sixty days after the effective date of this act every person possessing a firearm shall register, with the collector of the district in which he resides, the number or other mark identifying such firearm, together with his name address, place where such firearm is usually kept, and place of business or employment, and, if such person is other than a- natural person, the name and home address of an executive officer thereof: Provided, That no person shall be required to register under this section with respect to any firearm acquired after the effective date of, and in conformity with the provisions of, this Act.
(b) Whenever on trial for a violation of section 6 hereof the defendant is shown to have or to have had possession of such firearm at any time after such period of sixty days without having registered as required by this section such possession shall create a presumption that such firearm came into the possession of the defendant subsequent to the effective date of this act, but this presumption shall not be conclusive.
SEC. 6. It shall be unlawful for any person to receive or possess any firearm which has at any time been transferred in violation of section 3 or 4 of this Act.
SEC. 7. (a) Any firearm which has at any time been transferred in violation of the provisions of this act shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture, and (except as provided in subsection (b) ) all the provisions of internal-revenue laws relating to searches, seizures, and forfeiture of unstamped articles are extended to and made to apply to the articles taxed under this Act, and the persons to whom this Act applies.
(b) In the case of the forfeiture of any firearm by reason of a violation of this Act: No notice of public sale shall be required; no such firearm shall be sold at public sale; if such firearm is in the possession of any officer of the United states except the Secretary, such officer shall deliver the firearm to the Secretary; and the Secretary may order such firearm destroyed or may sell such firearm to any State, Territory, or possession (including the Philippine Islands), or political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or retain it for the use of the Treasury department or transfer it without charge to any Executive department or independent establishment of the Government for use by it.
SEC. 8. (a) Each manufacturer and importer of a firearm shall identify it with a number or other identification mark approved by the Commissioner, such number or mark to be stamped or other placed thereon in a manner approved by the Commissioner.
(b) It shall be unlawful for anyone to obliterate, remove, change, or alter such number or other identification mark. Whenever on trial for a violation of this subsection the defendant is shown to have or to have had possession of any firearm upon which such number or mark shall have been obliterated, removed, changed, or altered, such possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant explains such possession to the satisfaction of the jury.
SEC. 9. Importers, manufacturers, and dealers shall keep such books and records and render such returns in relation to the transactions in firearms specified in this Act as the Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary, may by regulations require.
SEC. 1O. (a) No firearm shall be imported or brought into the United States or any territory under its control or jurisdiction (including the Philippine Islands) except that, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, any firearm may be so imported or brought in when (1) the purpose thereof is shown to be lawful and (2) such firearm is unique or of a type which cannot be obtained within the United States or such territory.
(b) It shall be unlawful (1) fraudulently or knowingly to import or bring any firearm into the United States or any territory under its control or jurisdiction (including the Philippine Islands), in violation of the provisions of this Act; or (2) knowingly to assist in so doing; or (3) to receive, conceal, buy, sell, or in any manner facilitate the transportation, concealment or sale of any such firearm after being imported or brought in, knowing the same to have been imported or brought in contrary to law. Whenever on trial for a violation of this section the defendant is shown to have or to have had possession of such firearm, such possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant explains such possession to the satisfaction of the jury.
SEC. 11. It shall be unlawful for any person who is required to register as provided in section 5 hereof and who shall not have so registered, or any other person who has not in his possession a stamp-affixed order as provided in section 4 hereof, to ship, carry, or deliver any firearm in interstate commerce.
SEC. 12. The Commissioner with the approval of the Secretary, shall prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary for carrying the provisions of this Act into effect.
SEC. 13. This Act shall not apply to the transfer of firearms (1) to the United States Government, any State, Territory, or possession of the United States, or to any political subdivision thereof, or to the District of Columbia; (2) to any peace officer or any Federal officer designated by regulations of the Commissioner; (3) to the transfer of any firearm which is unserviceable and which is transferred as a curiosity or ornament.
SEC. 14. Any person who violates or fails to comply with any of the requirement of this Act shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $2,000 or be imprisoned for not more than five years, or both, in the discretion of the court.
SEC. 15. The taxes imposed by paragraph (a) of section 600 of the Revenue Act of 1926 (U.S.C., Supp. VII, title 26, sec. 1120) and by section 610 of the Revenue Act of 1932 (47 Stat. 169, 264), shall not apply to any firearm on which the tax provided by section 3 of this Act has been paid.
SEC. 16. If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the Act, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. 17. This Act shall take effect on the thirtieth day after the date of its enactment.
SEC. 18. This Act may be cited as the “National Firearms Act.”
Approved, June 26, 1934.
I’m going to go fix supper.
February 7th, 2013 at 8:33 pm
What’s wrong, Sippy? No answers for the actions taken by awful Republicans Barack Obama and Eric Holder, as I linked in #14?
February 7th, 2013 at 8:35 pm
Sippy. Thank God you got a job. Last thing we need is another Obama phone carrying, welfare using, medicaid needing, benefit leeching, partisan voting, liberal leaning, and Godless, non-patriot protesting lacky sucking and wasting oxygen American without proper employment.
February 7th, 2013 at 8:36 pm
The ownership of fully automatic firearms by private citizens is legal with the acquisition of a Class III firearms license, which is difficult to get to put it lightly. One of my instructors at school has a Class III license. But the great thing about being in a Chicago born street gang is that you don’t need any license at all to have a firearm. Only regular people do. Isn’t it wonderful?
February 7th, 2013 at 8:36 pm
MCPO, you think that changing the toner in the office copier is “proper employment”?
February 7th, 2013 at 8:43 pm
@51- There’s a difference between saying that Heller is shitty law and saying that it does not govern. I believe Heller is shitty law that governs. But you seemed to be arguing with a perfectly true statement- it overturned precedent.
You’re misunderstanding Miller. The reason why the shotgun was not necessary to the functioning of the militia had nothing to do with a gun, but to do with the fact that Miller was not a part of the Militia. Later decisons, particularly Vietnamese Fisherman v. KKK upheld that the Militia IS the National Guard.
Furthermore, the Militia clause of the 2nd Amendment is not there for as a descriptor but is a restrictive clause. Meaning if you aint part of the militia you have no right to shit. Idiots who are saying that the militia is there to give citizens the “right” to overthrow the government have it backwards. The 2nd amendment isn’t there to protect you from the government, but to protect the government from you. Neither the Federalist papers nor the Constitution itself says ANYTHING about giving people the right ot rebel, but it says a LOT about stopping rebellion. In fact one of the very first acts put forth by the founders was the Militia act of 1792 in which they left no doubt that they were talking about a military body:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
In this act they give DETAILED information of how the militia is to be aranged what ammo they’re allowed to have, how they shall be paid etc. They did NOT think of the militia as some yahoos in pick up trucks.
February 7th, 2013 at 8:46 pm
Sippy is now the manager of taco hut! Congratulations! He took a job from a teenage girl!
February 7th, 2013 at 8:48 pm
@61- I’ve been exercising my right to drive a car with a permit for over 32 years now.
February 7th, 2013 at 8:50 pm
@70- that’s nice, but driving is a privilege, not a Constitutionally-protected right
February 7th, 2013 at 8:52 pm
@69- Do you crack yourself up every time you hit me with the insipid is a minimum wage worker joke? Forget the fact that your engaging in what you claim to hate- class warfare- forget the fact that it’s an admission that you lack the ability to debate me- forget all of that. It’s just stopped being funny when…. well, it was never funny. But the fact that you keep telling this “joke” over and over is an indication of mental defect.
February 7th, 2013 at 8:54 pm
@70- even Scalia doesn’t agree with you there. He says that restrictions are allowed. I think Scalia got it wrong, and i can’t wait till President Hillary Clinton finally brings a sane court, but the i can’t imagine Scalia not allowing licensing.
February 7th, 2013 at 8:55 pm
Sippy: one has no Constitutional “right” to drive a car. That is a privilege administratively granted by your state of residence, based on application, through issuance of a license to operate a motor vehicle. One must demonstrate proper physical and medical qualifications, and must also apply for the license and pay required fees. Further, it may be revoked at the state’s discretion. It’s a right reserved to the states and people under Amendment 10, US Constitution, which each state has chosen to regulate as a privilege vice an inalienable right.
States very often do terminate driving privliges. It’s called suspending or revoking a driver’s license. And it’s an administrative action, not a criminal one.
February 7th, 2013 at 8:58 pm
Uh, Sippy – @70 was you. Scalia doesn’t agree with you on much at all. (smile)
February 7th, 2013 at 9:01 pm
I’ll bet you the farm that Scalia will not overturn gun licenses. While Heller was a victory for your side, it won’t be as sweeping as you think.
February 7th, 2013 at 9:04 pm
@75- Since the Republicans have lost the ability to win National Elections (can’t wait till Texas goes Blue in 2016!) Heller will be just an aberation, along with all the other decisions of this crazy court (smile).
February 7th, 2013 at 9:05 pm
Sippy: you’re likely right in that some forms of licensing will probably be held to fall under the heading of “reasonable regulation”. I’m guessing shall issue concealed carry permits with a reasonable and affordable (e.g., not excessive) fee will probably be held to be acceptable. But mandatory registration of all firearms? Don’t hold your breath. And I do think there’s a very good chance that concealed carry will be ruled to fall under the “and bear” clause of the 2nd Amendment. Concealable pistols were rather common when the 2nd Amendment was adopted, and the practice was fairly widespread.
February 7th, 2013 at 9:05 pm
I can drive my vehicle on my own property without a license, tag or proof of insurance, for that matter there are vehicles I can operate on the public roads without those things as well. If I want to carry my concealed firearm out in public my state makes me get a permit (other states do not), but I am free to go armed as I please on my own property-seems pretty consistent to me.
The right for private citizens to go armed has been advancing for the past 30 years because those of us who believe in the rights of free men to arm themselves have been winning the public debate, while sippy’s side has been losing. Rage on here all you want sippy, we’ve got the courts and public opinion on our side and we’re not giving up our hard won rights.
February 7th, 2013 at 9:06 pm
Things didn’t change after sandy hook like the media and politicians want us to think. Most people were upset and then just continued on living their lives. Those who hated guns already just hate them even more. And those who own guns have have to listen to gun haters villiainize them. A year from now, when that AWB gets skullfucked in a vote, gun haters will stil be hatin’ and gun owners will be buying rifles, ammo and mags at regular prices again.
February 7th, 2013 at 9:09 pm
“President Hillary Clinton?” Are you shittin’ me?
Here we go again, arguing Constitutional law with another card-carrying douche nozzle member of the Moonbats club.
The “I’ve been exercising my right to drive a car for 32 years” quip tells me all I need to know about what this guy thinks are “rights” vs. “privileges.”
Fuck you, Sippy. You and your government stay off my lawn and out of my gun cabinet, and there won’t be any trouble.
February 7th, 2013 at 9:21 pm
@ 72. Sippy. Thanks for not including me in your “joke warfare sh#t” statement. Because after all deep down inside I am a sensitive, caring, and emotion creature of earth, who cares for all beings.
I am out. Blizzard inbound. Family is relocating to Fire Base Warwick, north west. By the time I get there hopefully Sippy will be schooled and the cop killer will be dead.
February 7th, 2013 at 9:21 pm
#80
If you look it the right places you can still find stuff at not outrageous prices. I bought a bunch of 30 rd. PMAGs for $30 a piece at a gun show a few weeks ago. Glock mags are still outrageous though. Can’t touch 13 rd. mags for Glocks for under $45-50 a piece everywhere I’ve looked. Good thing I bought a high cap 22 rd. mag for mine several months ago before this craziness. That mag has more than doubled in value since I got it though. But good deals are out there still.
February 7th, 2013 at 9:28 pm
Oh, and Sippy? Methinks you need to go re-read Miller v. US (it’s short). Here’s the basis for decision:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Further, the opinion goes on to state, after discussing militia and the history of same at some length:
These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Bottom line: Miller v. US was decided – erroneously, in fact – on the basis that the weapon in question (a short-barreled shotgun) was not suitable for militia use, not on the basis that the weapon’s owner was not a member of any militia. And it was wrongly decided because such a weapon has significant use in riot control – a known mission of any militia under conditions of martial law or insurrection.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html
February 7th, 2013 at 9:38 pm
What I love about the “militia means the military or national guard” argument is that it still means that I get to retain my personal arms, being that I’m currently an Army Reservist. I still win.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a working class to repress and a ruling class to serve and protect. You know, that whole “Military Industrial Complex” thing.
February 7th, 2013 at 9:43 pm
#83, I bet there are still good deals to be had out there. Regular stores in town are bone dry but I am going to a gun show next week and hopefully I have some good fortune. I wasn’t planning on buying anymore “assault” type weapons or accessories any time soon, but after listening to the mainstream media, politicians, and regular clowns try and decide what I am allowed to own I feel I need to show them that I am perfectly capable of browsing the available options already.
February 7th, 2013 at 9:59 pm
Nice to see that once the actual National Firearms Act of 1934 is dropped in where everyone can see it and read it in its entirety, spiffy changes gears and goes off on another track to avoid, or in an attempt to avoid, defeat.
And driving with a permit for 32 years? So spiffy is not actually a licensed driver? Quick! Somebody tell the local gendarmes they have an unlicensed driver in their midst!!!
And before THAT argument starts, there is a distinct and specific difference between the two. ‘Driver’s license’ means you can drive alone and you have taken the actual driving portion of the test. ‘Permit’ is also called your ‘temp’, which means you have to have someone 21 or older in the car with you at all times to help you along with the process of learning how to drive. You have to hold these for 6 months before you can get your driver’s license. Some state laws may be different about how long you have to hold them or how old you have to be to get them but a driver’s license, meaning driving by yourself, signifies that you are a good driver and took the driving test, whereas permit means you are still learning and not allowed to drive alone.
February 7th, 2013 at 10:08 pm
@68 Sippy – did you even read your reference? I will extract the pertinent info for you.
That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia (Who is in the Militia – as stated by many others here)
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. (All equipment including weapons are PERSONALY owned by the member/citizen (i.e. not provided for by the government).
all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid (Caliber 40-50 if I remember my conversions correctly)(and reiterates that weapons, ammunition and equipement is personal property provided by the militia member/citizen)
How does that float your boat?
February 7th, 2013 at 10:21 pm
@ 66:
You’re kidding, right? There is no such thing as a Title III “license.” Look up the law!
If by “license,” you mean a FFL SOT 02 03 or 07, please say so. If you don’t know what that means, please go read federal law.
If you mean Form 4 Tax Stamps, please state so clearly.
February 7th, 2013 at 10:38 pm
#86 My sister in law owns a gun store in Florida. Business is booming, but they are having trouble getting stock.
February 7th, 2013 at 10:48 pm
I never once claimed I hated class warfare…when it comes to making fun of Sippy.
February 7th, 2013 at 10:55 pm
It is natural for human beings to game any and every system that other human beings put into place.
So far the only factors limiting carnage are: 1) person with gun shoots the perp; or, 2) the perp runs out of ammo (see #1); or 3) perp suicides.
The Veep Job is only Biden’s second job ever. Please forgive him the stark lack of reality and his utter divorce from the real world.
February 7th, 2013 at 10:57 pm
Okay Sippy lets just strip things down to basics here what do you believe in as far as rights? If you were to say where do right come from, tell us where they do? Are they a collection of agreements, tacit or explicit, between people or innate? When are those rights justifiably limited? Give me something basic…101 stuff, don’t try to dazzle me with bullshit.
February 7th, 2013 at 11:06 pm
#90 I believe it. The anti-gun lobby is the greatest gun promoting organization going right now. Of course they blame the NRA for fear mongering and making sales skyrocket, but it is only because they don’t respect gun owners enough to believe we can see through their thinly veiled long term goals.
February 7th, 2013 at 11:28 pm
Since I retired and I can legally carry in all 50 states, I often can’t decide which pistol I should wear each day (I have to wear a suit and tie now)…and my gun/ holster must match my belt, shoes and tie…or what kind of manager would I be?
Somedays I want to pack a small 9mm, or a .45, or a 40 cal…so Biteme is going to pick my weapon for the day? whatafucknutjob
February 8th, 2013 at 12:08 am
@23 (know I’m late, but whatever)–NYC is a stone’s throw from my home state of Pennsylvania, which is among the most gun-friendly states in the country (Philadelphia County excepted). Try again.
February 8th, 2013 at 12:27 am
P&BCE, sippy actually believes that article he cited that gang-bangers really do buy their guns. I wonder if they drive out to the suburbs after their day trader jobs, or if they car-pool to the nearest gun shop.
February 8th, 2013 at 8:34 am
Yes,they do someties buy them from corrupt Chicago cops who take them out of the evidence locker and sell them in the hope of making some extra cash.
What? You don’t think Chicago cops are corrupt? (laughing so hard ribs hurt.)
February 8th, 2013 at 9:00 am
Since it’s been brought up time and time again here’s a link to the The Heller decision: http://www.azcdl.org/USSC_DCvHeller.pdf
Lets take a quick look at what the USCC said:
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretationof the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
-Ish
February 8th, 2013 at 9:00 am
UpNorth: of course they buy at least some their guns. The guy on the street corner is the middle man for the guy who stole them and the gang member who buys them.
Unless they’re the guy who stole the gun in question, that is. Then they cut out the middle man.
Philly: I got a chuckle out of that, too. NYC is only around 120 miles or so from southern VT as well.
February 8th, 2013 at 9:08 am
Philly: hate to tell you this, amigo – but PA is in the top 20% of states regarding having the most legal restrictions on firearms. It has the #10 Brady Score in the country – 26.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/stateleg/scorecard/2011/2011_Brady_Campaign_State_Scorecard_Rankings.pdf
It’s nowhere near as bad as the 9 states with higher Brady score – but it’s still in the top 20%.
February 8th, 2013 at 9:14 am
Now, Ish – don’t go trying to confuse Sippy with those nasty things called facts. He gets his info from DU and Chrissy-Poo Matthews. Giving him non-sugar-coated facts like that will cause enough cognitive dissonance in his poor little head to give him a whopper of a headache!
February 8th, 2013 at 9:18 am
Is it far to say that in spiffy’s little world, there is no such thing as corrupt cops, corrupt lawyers and/or corrupt politicians?
Everything is fine…it’s jus fine…nothing is wrong…it’s all just fine.
)
February 8th, 2013 at 9:29 am
Nah, Ex-PH2. Those exist in his imaginary world. But in his world, they’re all “conservatives” whose goal is to “oppress the masses”.
February 8th, 2013 at 9:47 am
Hondo, the middleman is all part of Baracka’s Jobs Recovery Plan. Can’t cut him out, unemployment will go up, again.
February 8th, 2013 at 9:50 am
I noted that ‘weapons’ did not include anything other than guns, things that fire bullets.
Oh, man! These people are so STOOPID! And so afraid of everything that rattles their cages.
I checked the IL DNR rules on crossbow hunting: don’t need a special permit (it’s just a small tax), coyote season is extensive, and turkey season will be coming up soon. I think I will join the Richmond hunting club.
February 8th, 2013 at 12:59 pm
Hondo, that surprises me–PA is shall-issue and has one of the highest ownership rates in the country. The city of Philadelphia is basically Chicago or DC, but the rest of the state is free. Not sure what metric they’re using there (could take Philly into account or could have something to do with permit reciprocity, not sure how PA stands in that regard)
February 10th, 2013 at 3:26 pm
@81- I remember the majority of people on this board asking scoffing when i told them that the Affordable care act would be affirmed as a tax. I remember the majority of folks on this board scoffing when i said that President Obama would win, and win by a comfortable margin (i actually did predict 332 on the Daily Kos, but not here- i wish i had). To be honest I don’t know if Hillary will be the President in 2017. I said that to poke folks here with a sharp stick. Immature? Yes. But fun.
I can’t say for sure she’ll run or for sure that she’ll win the nomination. But i CAN say for sure that a Democrat will be elected in 2017, and with that the Republican grip on the SC will be over. Thank goodness for that.
February 10th, 2013 at 3:32 pm
@88- There is absolutely nothing in that document that does not support my contention that the Militia is a military body as envisioned by the founders.
The document clearly organizes the militia into groups, enforces how they’ll be organized, it makes it abundantly clear that it is a MILITARY organization. Any evaluation of a statute or decision revolves around reading the ENTIRE document for its meaning, not just select passages from the statute to arive at partisan conclusions. This is basic legal analysis 101. There is no fair reading of the statute in its entirety that would lead anyone to conclude that they were talking about anything other than a military organization.
I will say the same thing to Hondo that I said to Jonn: leave legal analysis to the adults. You’re not very good at it.
February 10th, 2013 at 3:48 pm
Yes, Insipid, you are a legal genius. NO ONE argued that the SC would find obamacare constitutional on tax grounds but, somehoe, you saw that it was. The admin even said flat out that it was not but, somehow, you knew them to be wrong. You are indeed a legal genius, an idiot savant, perhaps–but nevertheless a gift to American jurisprudence
February 10th, 2013 at 3:59 pm
No, i’m not a “legal genius” simply capable of reading the statute and determining what constitutes a tax and what doesn’t. It is enforced by the Internal Revenue service and reported on our tax return and the tax is less than the cost of health care. The only penalty allowed by law is that they take the cost from your tax return- no jail time. There is little real difference between this and the housing credit or the child tax credit. It’s a tax, no matter what the administration calls it for political reasons.
February 10th, 2013 at 4:06 pm
Then, Insipid, that makes you a legal genius because no one –and I mean no one–anticipated that Roberts would find it to be a tax. And by no one, I mean to include constitutional lawyers and law scholars.
February 10th, 2013 at 4:14 pm
Actually a lot of folks predicted it, i can give you a long list of articles. But if you want to say i’m a “genius” who am i to blow against the wind? I guess i’ll just say “thank you.”
February 10th, 2013 at 5:15 pm
Sippy, I was having a lovely sun filled and snow covered day. Now it is dark and lonely!
Thanks!
February 10th, 2013 at 6:21 pm
I can see why it’s “dark and lonely” direct quote from MCPO two weeks before the election:
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=32499
————————————————————-
@ Sippy …. You wrote ….
@47- Sparky, as much as you may want to deny reality, Obama is winning. Barring some major happening in the next two weeks, President Obama will still be POTUS on January 21st, 2013.
I laughed so hard my right eyeball popped out, I blew an ear drum, and pissed myself … Thanks Sippy!
———————————————————
I said then I’d have the last laugh. How’s that ear drum?
February 11th, 2013 at 12:56 am
I guess when your arguments don’t work and people just don’t accept that you’re right because you say so, it’s back to gloating over the continuation of your teleprompter dependent messiah’s reign of errors.
February 11th, 2013 at 6:37 am
Sippy: you castigating anyone here about their analytical skills? Oh, that’s rich. First you misidentify the rationale for Miller. Then you make an absurd claim above that every male in the US of military age is already in the military – because you said so, law be damned!
Let’s just say your logical and analytical skills leave something to be desired when compared to those expected of a 5th grader.
In fact, your inane comment 109 above concerning the militia is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone make the absurd claim that the entire male population of the US between the ages of 17 and 45 not in the military reserve components “clearly” constitutes some form of military organization. And yet, that’s precisely what Federal law defines the “unorganized militia” to be – all able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45.
Do you really not understand the definition of “unorganized”? An untrained, unorganized group of people – armed or not – is NOT a military organization. It’s a manpower pool that, given organization and training, may one day become a military unit.
And in any case, the point is moot. Firearms ownership is now explicitly recognized as and declared by the SCOTUS to be an individual Constitutional right, independent of any connection to the military. (It always has been, but now the SCOTUS has formally declared that to be law.) Deal with it.
Of course, your inability to think for yourself is to be expected. You obviously gave up logical thought and analysis in lieu of preprocessed pablum given to you by others years ago. You’ve been parroting the liberal “party line” so long without thinking that I’d be surprised if you even can think critically any more.
And I wouldn’t get all that conceited about calling on part of the ACHA case correctly if I were you. You also contended that the Commerce Clause gave Congress the power to force people to buy particular items they did not want. The same ACHA decision emphatically denied Congress that authority. However, you don’t seem to ever talk about that part of the decision. I wonder why?
Finally, I’ll remind you that the SCOTUS on occasion blows one out of their ass entirely (like you do here consistently in your comments). Perhaps you’ve heard of a case called Buck v. Bell (1927)?
February 19th, 2013 at 8:02 pm
All you need is s hotgun, or maybe a few drones.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-buy-shotgun-buy-shotgun_702989.html
February 19th, 2013 at 9:08 pm
They put sights on a shotgun for a reason. The public cannot buy those shotguns you just point in the general direction and blow your target backwards.The pattren of shot does not open as soon as it leaves the barrel. At 10 feet the spread is only about 4 inches in diameter.Step out and fire 2 shots and the double barrel is empty like Joe’ head