United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Feds Go Door-To-Door To Inform Gun Owners Rights Not Absolute
Source:
Information Liberation
URL Source: http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=52042
Published: Aug 26, 2015
Author: Asa Jay
Post Date: 2015-08-26 22:34:43 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 778
Comments: 18
Thank God criminals follow laws – otherwise we might be in trouble. This has always been the traditional attitude of government in regards to gun restrictions.
It is important to note that everybody believes in gun rights. – It is just a question of who has those rights. So-called “gun-control supporters” don’t support the absence of guns in society, they support gun ownership being monopolized and centralized in the hands of the state and their enforcers(police).
By criminalizing individuals 2nd Amendment right to defend themselves, governemnt exempts itself from its own rules and faces no repercussions.
This is certainly the case in victim disarmament areas like school zones where only magical costumes and shinny badges grant one the legal right to carry a firearm – consequently making schools a prime target for mass shootings.
Government revels in the idea of asserting itself over the population – so it is no surprise that a joint initiative launched in New Orleans is doing just that as the ATF, New Orleans Police Department and the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office go door-to-door across the metro area informing gun owners that they have no rights in school zones.
“Federal law makes it an offense to possess a firearm within a 1,000 feet of a school,” U.S. Attorney Kenneth Polite, who joined in the ridiculous display of hubris, said. “So we wanted to get the word out to the community about this work.”
The resource sucking initiative is being sold as “just a friendly reminder” by local media outlets but startled homeowners answered their doors over the weekend to costumed storm-troopers and plain clothes agents informing them that federal gun laws penalize self-defense in school zones with minimum fines of $5,000 and up to five years in prison.
“This is the second time we have focused on a school here in New Orleans East,” Polite said of the 7th District. “[The area has certainly] suffered from a lot of crime over a long period of time.”
Brilliant! What better way is there to ensure the safety of schools than by going to homes and telling everybody no one can legally defend themselves there?
Whereas a genuine market-based security service would reward individuals with lower insurance premiums who took the necessary steps to ensure their own safety, government thugs are happy to revoke your rights and tell you its for the safety of your children.
As Austrian economist Dr. Hans Hermann Hoppe points out in his essay State or Private Law Society:While states are always and everywhere eager to disarm their populations and thus rob them of an essential means of self-defense, private-law societies are characterized by an unrestricted right to self-defense and hence by widespread private gun and weapon ownership. Just imagine a security producer who demanded of its prospective clients that they would first have to completely disarm themselves before it would be willing to defend the clients’ life and property. Correctly, everyone would think of this as a bad joke and refuse such on offer.
ATF spokesperson Constance Hester said the initiative is “a good time to meet the community on a lighter note.” – And what lighter note is there than informing the tax-slaves that they will be extorted and imprisoned for attempting to protect their loved ones?
Freely financed insurance companies that demanded potential clients first hand over all of their means of self-defense as a prerequisite of protection would immediately arouse the utmost suspicion as to their true motives, and they would quickly go bankrupt. In their own best interest, insurance companies would reward armed clients, in particular those able to certify some level of training in the handling of arms, charging them lower premiums reflecting the lower risk that they represent. Just as insurers charge less if homeowners have an alarm system or a safe installed, so would a trained gun owner represent a lower insurance risk.
“One of the things that is very important for the community is to know we want to not only be reactive, but proactive,” Hester propagandized. “We also want to build a better relationship with the community.”
Despicable! This is beneath the dignity of a free people… (1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
“This is the second time we have focused on a school here in New Orleans East,” Polite said of the 7th District. “[The area has certainly] suffered from a lot of crime over a long period of time.” Oh yes, wherein the US government saved us from Katrina and took away our guns.
“Federal law makes it an offense to possess a firearm within a 1,000 feet of a school,” U.S. Attorney Kenneth Polite, who joined in the ridiculous display of hubris, said. “So we wanted to get the word out to the community about this work. If memory serves, wasn't there a recent court decision saying that this 'law' is a direct infringement on the 2nd?
You may be thinking of the 2010 SCOTUS opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). That struck down the overly restrictive city handgun law, but did not involve the Federal gun free school zone statute. In 1995, in Lopez, SCOTUS struck down the old Federal gun free school zone criminal statute, finding it did not satisfy the requirements to fall within Congress' authority under the interstate commerce clause. Then came the new statute, essentially the same as the old, but adding a bit that stipulated that "It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." Now the statute cannot rationally be held unconstitutional as not falling with the commerce clause. The rephrasing is only making the statute constitutional as the criminal act involves interstate or foreign commerce by definition. It would not seem to make walking down the street with a gun in a school zone an act affecting interstate commerce. But then again, a farmer growing crops for his own consumption was held to affect interstate commerce. The government could probably stretch the commerce clause to include walking down the street breathing, thereby creating carbon dioxide, affecting global warming, thereby affecting interstate comerce. Whatever, shazzam, the law was reconsidered as constitutional. I would agree with that generally as the criminal act, to be a criminal act, must involve interstate commerce. As guns (probably) moved in interstate commerce after manufacture, ouila!, you've been pencil whipped. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/549/case.html Syllabus UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 93-1260. Argued November 8, 1994-Decided April 26, 1995 After respondent, then a 12th-grade student, carried a concealed handgun into his high school, he was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows ... is a school zone," 18 U. S. C. § 922(q)(I)(A). The District Court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding that § 922(q) is a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that, in light of what it characterized as insufficient congressional findings and legislative history, § 922(q) is invalid as beyond Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. Held: The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined. Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under the Court's cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which, viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce. Second, § 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element that would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite nexus with interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce. To uphold the Government's contention that § 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause 550 Syllabus authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States. Pp. 552-568. 2 F.3d 1342, affirmed. REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which O'CONNOR, J., joined, post, p. 568. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 584. STEVENS, J., post, p. 602, and SOUTER, J., post, p. 603, filed dissenting opinions. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined, post, p. 615. 18 USC 921(A)(25) (A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or (B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school. http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-18/part-i/chapter-44/section-922/ From 18 USC 922 (A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, is a pervasive, nationwide problem; (B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the interstate movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs; (C) firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate commerce and have been found in increasing numbers in and around schools, as documented in numerous hearings in both the Committee on the Judiciary 3 the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; (D) in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce; (E) while criminals freely move from State to State, ordinary citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel to or through certain parts of the country due to concern about violent crime and gun violence, and parents may decline to send their children to school for the same reason; (F) the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our country; (G) this decline in the quality of education has an adverse impact on interstate commerce and the foreign commerce of the United States; (H) States, localities, and school systems find it almost impossible to handle gun-related crime by themselves—even States, localities, and school systems that have made strong efforts to prevent, detect, and punish gun-related crime find their efforts unavailing due in part to the failure or inability of other States or localities to take strong measures; and (I) the Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation's schools by enactment of this subsection. (2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone. (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm— (i) on private property not part of school grounds; [...] (4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preempting or preventing a State or local government from enacting a statute establishing gun free school zones as provided in this subsection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990 The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was originally passed as section 1702 of the Crime Control Act of 1990. It added 18 U.S.C. § 922(q); 18 U.S.C. § 922 itself was added by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). This was the first time in over half a century that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause. Following the Lopez decision, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno proposed changes to 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) that were adopted in section 657 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub.L. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009, enacted September 30, 1996.[4] These changes required that the firearm in question "has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce."[5] As nearly all firearms have moved in interstate commerce at some point in their existence, critics assert this was merely a legislative tactic to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling.[4] Challenges The Supreme Court of the United States held that the original Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). This was the first time in over half a century that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause.[citation needed] Although the amended GFSZA has yet to be challenged in the United States Supreme Court, it has been reviewed and upheld by several United States Circuit Courts. In a 2005 Appellate case, United States v. Dorsey,[6] the minor changes of the revised law were specifically challenged. In the Dorsey case, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the minor changes were indeed sufficient to correct the issues that had caused the original 1990 law to be struck down in United States v Lopez, and they upheld Dorsey's conviction under the revised version of the law. A 2000 ruling made by the Eleventh Circuit in United States v Tait overturned a conviction for firearm possession in a school zone because the defendant was licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located. Convictions upheld post-Lopez under the revised Gun Free School Zones Act include: Convictions overturned post-Lopez under the revised Gun Free School Zones Act include:
Lower what insurance premiums? My guns ARE my security service.
Wait a minute. The presence of armed, uniformed police makes schools a prime target for mass shootings?
The presence of State sponsored armed thugs only reinforces the fact student who attend schools with armed cops present are getting a taste of tyranny. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Tyranny? You obviously don't know the meaning of the word. In response to school shootings and at the request of the citizens, armed, uniformed police are present, risking their lives, to protect the children. Tyranny. What an idiot.
But how does their presence make schools a prime target for mass shootings?
Thanks for the laugh. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Someone needs to "inform" these fascist trespassers that their very next unauthorized, 4th Amendment violation and step onto private property may well be their last.
I guess the rights "guaranteed" by the entire USCON are now subject to court interpretation. Paine, we're losing an uphill battle. Once the USCON became a "living breathing" document, all bets were off. At every level, the judiciary has been scoffing at the Constitution for decades. As of late, dangerously so.
Interesting citation. If Janet Reno is smoking it and forcing it down the throat of Congress, naturally it's toxic to the USCON. That woman was a fascist thug who should have been indicted for conspiracy to murder, domestic terrorism, mass murder....AS should her bosses (one of whom is currently running for President.) Call me a cynic, but the entire Constitution is soon to be declared null and void and "re-calibrated," With GOPe support. It is the main reason the GOPe MUST be destroyed at all cost.
I enjoy reading your posts concerning constitutional precedents of this sort. Great info here.
If memory serves, wasn't there a recent court decision saying that this 'law' is a direct infringement on the 2nd? They've always been subject to SCOTUS 'opinions'. -- And as long as everyone else treats them as opinions, not law, we're ok.. As I've been trying to convince nolu chan; -- I don't see it as that dangerous, -- yet, -- because unless the other two branches agree with SCOTUS interpretations, and the people and officials in the States comply, -- we have gridlock... Our political system is still working, - barely. Liberal economics, the welfare state, -- are much more likely to bring down the system, imo...
Perilous times, indeed. IF we allow the 50 million or so illegal invaders to have Amnesty, we no longer have a nation, a Republic. We will be "USA" in name only. It is albsolutely CRUCIAL to build the wall, oust and deport illegals by whatever technicality possible, AND change the 14A or else it will be further abused so that the financial burden breaks our back. Frankly, the captains and elites of the New World Order have set up the time-bomb demolition of the US since...1965, but made obvious since a treasonous Dubya, Congress, and judiciary REFUSED to enforce the border, deport illegals, and provide Sanctuary Cities.
Thank you.
There is no need for any technicality. The existing law provides for deporting illegal aliens. The DREAM Act never passed Congress. DACA is an Obama administration executive action (or policy of inaction) by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson. All they have to do is enforce current law. What is needed is a President willing to do it.
Enough said here! Instead of Washington concocting up more immigration laws, they need to enforce the ones that already exists. Like this one codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325
#2. To: Y'ALL, nolu chan (#0)
#3. To: tpaine (#2)
If memory serves, wasn't there a recent court decision saying that this 'law' is a direct infringement on the 2nd?
OCTOBER TERM, 1994
(25) The term “school zone” means—
(q)(1) The Congress finds and declares that—
History
#4. To: Deckard (#0)
"Whereas a genuine market-based security service would reward individuals with lower insurance premiums who took the necessary steps to ensure their own safety"
#5. To: Deckard (#0)
"This is certainly the case in victim disarmament areas like school zones where only magical costumes and shinny badges grant one the legal right to carry a firearm – consequently making schools a prime target for mass shootings."
#6. To: misterwhite (#5)
The presence of armed, uniformed police makes schools a prime target for mass shootings?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#7. To: Deckard (#6)
"The presence of State sponsored armed thugs only reinforces the fact student who attend schools with armed cops present are getting a taste of tyranny."
#8. To: Deckard (#6)
"The presence of State sponsored armed thugs only reinforces the fact student who attend schools with armed cops present are getting a taste of tyranny."
#9. To: misterwhite (#7)
uniformed police are present, risking their lives,
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#10. To: Deckard (#0)
It is no surprise that a joint initiative launched in New Orleans is doing just that as the ATF, New Orleans Police Department and the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office go door-to-door across the metro area informing gun owners that they have no rights in school zones.
#11. To: tpaine, nolu chan (#2)
If memory serves, wasn't there a recent court decision saying that this 'law' is a direct infringement on the 2nd?
#12. To: nolu chan, tpaine (#3)
Following the Lopez decision, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno proposed changes to 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) that were adopted in section 657 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub.L. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009, enacted September 30, 1996.
#13. To: nolu chan (#3)
#14. To: liberator, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#11)
I guess the rights "guaranteed" by the entire USCON are now subject to court interpretation.
Paine, we're losing an uphill battle. Once the USCON became a "living breathing" document, all bets were off. At every level, the judiciary has been scoffing at the Constitution for decades. As of late, dangerously so.
#15. To: tpaine, nolu chan (#14)
Our political system is still working, - barely. Liberal economics, the welfare state, -- are much more likely to bring down the system, imo...
#16. To: goldilucky (#13)
I enjoy reading your posts concerning constitutional precedents of this sort. Great info here.
#17. To: Liberator, tpaine (#15)
IF we allow the 50 million or so illegal invaders to have Amnesty, we no longer have a nation, a Republic. We will be "USA" in name only. It is albsolutely CRUCIAL to build the wall, oust and deport illegals by whatever technicality possible, AND change the 14A or else it will be further abused so that the financial burden breaks our back.
#18. To: nolu chan (#17)
(Edited)
There is no need for any technicality. The existing law provides for deporting illegal aliens.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]