U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: You have NO IDEA what’s coming: Virginia Dems to unleash martial law attack on 2A counties using roadblocks to confiscate firearms and spark a shooting war
Source:
Government Slaves/Natural News
URL Source: https://governmentslaves.news/2019/ ... arms-and-spark-a-shooting-war/
Published: Dec 19, 2019
Author: Mike Adams
Post Date: 2019-12-21 11:10:14 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 33209
Comments: 171
After passing extremely restrictive anti-gun legislation in early 2020, Virginia has a plan to deploy roadblocks at both the county and state levels to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens (at gunpoint, of course) as part of a deliberate effort to spark a shooting war with citizens, sources are now telling Natural News. Some might choose to dismiss such claims as speculation, but these sources now say that Virginia has been chosen as the deliberate flashpoint to ignite the civil war that’s being engineered by globalists. Their end game is to unleash a sufficient amount of violence to call for UN occupation of America and the overthrow of President Trump and the republic. Such action will, of course, also result in the attempted nationwide confiscation of all firearms from private citizens, since all gun owners will be labeled “domestic terrorists” if they resist. Such language is already being used by Democrat legislators in the state of Virginia. The Democrat-run impeachment of President Trump is a necessary component for this plan, since the scheme requires Trump supporters to be painted as “enraged domestic terrorists” who are seeking revenge for the impeachment. This is how the media will spin the stories when armed Virginians stand their ground and refuse to have their legal firearms confiscated by police state goons running Fourth Amendment violating roadblocks on Virginia roads. Roadblocks will be set up in two types of locations, sources tell Natural News: 1) On roads entering the state of Virginia from neighboring states that have very high gun ownership, such as Kentucky, Tennessee and North Carolina, and 2) Main roads (highways and interstates) that enter the pro-2A counties which have declared themselves to be Second Amendment sanctuaries. With over 90 counties now recognizing some sort of pro-2A sanctuary status, virtually the entire State of Virginia will be considered “enemy territory” by the tyrants in Richmond who are trying to pull off this insidious scheme. As the map shows below, every green county has passed a pro-2A resolution of one kind or another. As you can see, nearly the entire state is pro-2A, completely surrounding the Democrat tyrants who run the capitol of Richmond. The purpose of the roadblocks, to repeat, has nothing to do with public safety or enforcing any law. It’s all being set up to spark a violent uprising against the Virginia Democrats and whatever law enforcement goons are willing to go along with their unconstitutional demands to violate the fundamental civil rights of Virginian citizens. Over 90 Virginian counties, cities and municipalities have so far declared themselves to be pro-2A regions, meaning they will not comply with the gun confiscation tyranny of Gov. Northam and his Democrat lackeys. Democrats in Virginia have threatened to activate the National Guard to attack pro-2A “terrorists,” and a recent statement from the Guard unit in Virginia confirms that the Guard has no intention to resist Gov. Northam’s outrageous orders, even if they are illegal or unconstitutional. One county in Virginia — Tazewell — has already activated its own militia in response. As reported by FirearmsNews.com: In addition to passing their Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolution, the county also passed a Militia Resolution. This resolution formalizes the creation, and maintenance of a defacto civilian militia in the county of Tazewell. And to get a better understanding why the council members passed this resolution, Firearms News reached out to one of its members, Thomas Lester. Mr. Lester is a member of the council, as well as a professor of American History and Political Science. Firearms News: Councilman Lester, what are the reasons behind passing this new resolution, and what does it mean for the people of Tazewell County? Tom Lester: … the purpose of the militia is not just to protect the county from domestic danger, but also protect the county from any sort of tyrannical actions from the Federal government. Our constitution is designed to allow them to use an armed militia as needed. If the (Federal) government takes those arms away, it prevents the county from fulfilling their constitutional duties. The situation is escalating rapidly in Virginia, which is precisely what Democrats and globalists are seeking. As All News Pipeline reports: With many Virginia citizens angry with the threat of tyranny exploding there, ANP was recently forwarded an email written by a very concerned Virginia citizen who warned that Democratic leadership is pushing Virginia there towards another ‘shot heard around the world’ with Virginia absolutely the satanic globalists new testing ground for disarming all of America in a similar fashion should they be successful there. And while we’ll continue to pray for peace in America, it’s long been argued that it’s better to go down fighting than to be a slave to tyranny for the rest of one’s life. And with gun registration seemingly always preceding disarmament and disarmament historically leading to genocide, everybody’s eyes should be on what’s happening now in Virginia. With the mainstream media clearly the enemy of the American people and now President Trump confirming they are ‘partners in crime’ with the ‘deep state’ that has been attempting an illegal coup upon President Trump ever since he got into office, how can outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, the NY Times, Washington Post and all of the others continuously pushing the globalists satanic propaganda be held accountable and responsible for the outright madness they are unleashing upon America? Where is all this really headed? The bottom line goal of the enemies of America is to transform the country into a UN-occupied war zone, where UN troops go door to door, confiscating weapons from the American people. President Trump will be declared an “illegitimate dictator” and accused of war crimes, since Democrats and the media have already proven they can dream up any crime imaginable and accuse the President of that crime, without any basis in fact. And as we know with the Dems, if they can’t rule America, they will seek to destroy it. Causing total chaos is their next best option to resisting Trump’s efforts to drain the swamp, since the Dems know they can’t defeat Trump in an honest election. Expect Virginia to be the ignition point for all this. Even the undercover cops who work there are now warning about what’s coming. Via WesternJournal.com: Virginia’s Democratic politicians appear to be ready to drive the state into a period of massive civil unrest with no regard for citizens’ wishes, but conservatives in the commonwealth will not be stripped of their rights without a fight. In the face of expected wide-reaching bans on so-called assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and other arms protected under the 2nd Amendment, Virginians are standing up to Democratic tyranny. A major in the Marine Corps reserves took an opportunity during a Dec. 3 meeting to warn the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County about trouble on the horizon. Ben Joseph Woods spoke about his time in the military, his federal law enforcement career and his fears about where politicians are taking Virginia. “I work plainclothes law enforcement,” Woods said. “I walk around without a uniform, people don’t see my badge, people don’t see my gun, and I can tell you: People are angry.” Woods said that the situation in Virginia is becoming so dangerous that he is close to moving his own wife and unborn child out of the state. The reason is because my fellow law enforcement officers I’ve heard on more than one occasion tell me they would not enforce these bills regardless of whether they believe in them ideologically,” Woods said, “because they believe that there are so many people angry — in gun shops, gun shows, at bars we’ve heard it now — people talking about tarring and feathering politicians in a less-than-joking manner.” As Woods mentioned politicians themselves could very well be in danger because of their decisions, several rebel yells broke out as the crowd cheered him on. Stay informed. Things are about to happen over the next 10 months that you would have never imagined just five years ago. And to all those who mocked our warnings about the coming civil war, you are about to find yourself in one. Sure hope you know how to run an AR platform and build a water filter. Things won’t go well for the unprepared, especially in the cities. And, by the way, Richmond is surrounded by patriots. At what point will the citizens of Virginia decide to arrest and incarcerate all the lawless, treasonous tyrants in Richmond who tried to pull this stunt? I have a feeling there’s about to be a real shortage of rope across Virginia…
The gun confiscation roadblocks are almost sure to start a shooting war
The enemies of America want to turn the entire country into a UN-occupied war zone and declare President Trump to be an “illegitimate dictator”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-41) not displayed.
.
.
.
#42. To: misterwhite (#40)
See #41 and stop being a jerk.
Me being a jerk? You lecture me on stare decisis while ignoring Cruikshank, Presser and Miller? Then you have the balls to say that, well, if there is a conflict with Heller, too bad. Heller is now the new precedent and I must ignore all prior rulings ... because stare decisis. You want to give this power to the Supreme Court? The power, for example, to define the type of arms protected and have that definition apply nationwide? Already they've limited the definition to "in common use" for self-defense in the home. Yeah, that's what the second amendment means. You're so eager to look to the U.S. Supreme Court to protect this right from state laws that you ignore the potential for abuse by some future, liberal-dominated court which now has the power to destroy the real meaning.
Then you have the balls to say that, well, if there is a conflict with Heller, too bad. Heller is now the new precedent and I must ignore all prior rulings ... because stare decisis. Yes, that's how it works. When Brown v. Topeka Board of Education struck down Plessey v. Ferguson, neither Plessey nor anything else could be cited as making separate but equal lawful. Repeating your bullshit endlessly does not polish those turds of thought into pearls of wisdom. Heller and McDonald superseded all prior interpretations which conflicted with them. Heller states it did not conflict earlier precedents. Heller disagrees with your personal and very fanciful, but wrong, reading of those precedents. Your personal, but wrong, reading of those precedents does not strike down Heller. Deal with it. Heller does not conflict with earlier precedent. If there were an earlier precedent in conflict, Heller would supersede it. As for the actual law, can you go out and lawfully purchase a newly manufactured machine gun, or can't you?
No. Only an existing one at an exorbitant price.
No. Only an existing one at an exorbitant price. Has it been that way since before you were born?
1986 federal legislation called the Firearm Owners Protection Act (specifically the Hughes Amendment) prohibited the possession of “new” machine guns by citizens.
Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Signed into law 19 March 1986. Which commie was president then? Passed in the Senate 79-15. The yeas were 49 GOP, 30 Dem. The Nays were 2 GOP, 13 Dem. Not voting 2 GOP, 4 Dem. Passed in the House (amended) by voice vote. Agreed to in the Senate by voice vote.
Yep. Usually how controversial and unconstitutional laws are passed. No individual accountability.
Accurate. You accurately portray the legal system as it is, and particularly the system of precedent as it applies under the Common Law. I've practiced both American law (common law) and French Civil Law. The systems get to about the same conclusions, but the pathways are different. That they arrive at the same place is testimony to the bedrock of COMMON SENSE that underlies law. Law is not an exercise in abstract philosophy. It is, in the final analysis, a TOOL of governance, where the rubber meets the road between actual citizens in real disputes with each other and/or with the state. Nutty notions that some subject matter is, somehow, "above the law" just don't work in a world in which there are REAL disputes, with REAL economic and physical consequences. The reason we developed courts at all - whether Common Law or Civil Law - is precisely because if such places of official adjudication DON'T exist and DON'T have orderly rules and procedures that can be predicted and relied upon, people will resort to "self-help", which is a nice way of saying dueling, blood feud, vendetta, and private war. Civil Law, originally Roman Law, fell into disrepair after the fall of Rome, and with it, the Roman Peace evaporated. Feudal Europe was a pretty bloody and terrible place to live. Common Law grew up in places as a bulwark against the craziness of blood feud. Granted, Christianity (specifically Catholic Canon Law, which was the only game in town in the 1000s (crazies' assertions to the contrary notwithstanding), very heavily inflected the civil and common law courts, by providing an overarching set of lofty (and often unachieved) standards. Still, courts evolved through experience and common sense. People having the "God-given right" to carry around unregistered machine guns, set up AA missile batteries in their yards on short final to JFK airport, and keeping a stock of mustard gas and a nuke in their basement, "just in case" cannot be what the Second Amendment means. The Constitution is not a suicide pact!
People have a "God-given right" to self-defense. Beyond that, it's up to the law.
Oh? The system that says if you don't like precedent you can change it? Then once you have the new "precedent" you're happy with, that precedent cannot be changed because shut up.
Hold 'em accountable. Them and President Ronald Reagan. Senate Vote #142 1985-07-09 TO PASS S 49
REPUBLICAN - YEA
SD Yea Sen. James Abdnor [R, 1981-1986]
ND Yea Sen. Mark Andrews [R, 1981-1986]
MN Yea Sen. Rudolph "Rudy" Boschwitz [R, 1978-1990]
MS Yea Sen. Thad Cochran [R, 1979-2018]
ME Yea Sen. William Cohen [R, 1979-1996]
NY Yea Sen. Alfonse D'Amato [R, 1981-1998]
MO Yea Sen. John Danforth [R, 1976-1994]
AL Yea Sen. Jeremiah Denton Jr. [R, 1981-1986]
KS Yea Sen. Robert Dole [R, 1969-1996]
NM Yea Sen. Pete Domenici [R, 1973-2008]
MN Yea Sen. David Durenberger [R, 1978-1994]
NC Yea Sen. John East [R, 1981-1986]
WA Yea Sen. Daniel Evans [R, 1983-1988]
UT Yea Sen. Edwin "Jake" Garn [R, 1974-1992]
AZ Yea Sen. Barry Goldwater [R, 1969-1986]
WA Yea Sen. Slade Gorton [R, 1981-1986]
TX Yea Sen. Phil Gramm [R, 1985-2002]
IA Yea Sen. Charles "Chuck"Grassley [R, 1981-2022]
UT Yea Sen. Orrin Hatch [R, 1977-2018]
FL Yea Sen. Paula Hawkins [R, 1981-1986]
NV Yea Sen. Jacob Hecht [R, 1983-1988]
PA Yea Sen. Henry Heinz III [R, 1977-1991]
NC Yea Sen. Jesse Helms [R, 1973-2002]
NH Yea Sen. Gordon Humphrey [R, 1979-1990]
KS Yea Sen. Nancy Kassebaum [R, 1978-1996]
WI Yea Sen. Robert Kasten Jr. [R, 1981-1992]
NV Yea Sen. Paul Laxalt [R, 1974-1986]
IN Yea Sen. Richard Lugar [R, 1977-2012]
GA Yea Sen. Mack Mattingly [R, 1981-1986]
ID Yea Sen. James McClure [R, 1973-1990]
KY Yea Sen. Mitch McConnell [R, 1985-2020]
AK Yea Sen. Frank Murkowski [R, 1981-2002]
OK Yea Sen. Don Nickles [R, 1981-2004]
OR Yea Sen. Robert Packwood [R, 1969-1995]
SD Yea Sen. Larry Pressler [R, 1979-1996]
IN Yea Sen. James "Dan" Quayle [R, 1981-1989]
DE Yea Sen. William Roth Jr. [R, 1971-2000]
NH Yea Sen. Warren Rudman [R, 1980-1992]
WY Yea Sen. Alan Simpson [R, 1979-1996]
PA Yea Sen. Arlen Specter [R, 1981-2010]
VT Yea Sen. Robert Stafford [R, 1971-1988]
AK Yea Sen. Ted Stevens [R, 1968-2008]
ID Yea Sen. Steven Symms [R, 1981-1992]
SC Yea Sen. Strom Thurmond [R, 1956-2002]
VA Yea Sen. Paul Trible Jr. [R, 1983-1988]
VA Yea Sen. Paul Trible Jr. [R, 1983-1988]
WY Yea Sen. Malcolm Wallop [R, 1977-1994]
WY Yea Sen. Malcolm Wallop [R, 1977-1994]
VA Yea Sen. John Warner [R, 1979-2008]
CT Yea Sen. Lowell Weicker Jr. [R, 1971-1988]
CA Yea Sen. Pete Wilson [R, 1983-1991]
DEMOCRAT - YEA
MT Yea Sen. Max Baucus [D, 1978-2014]
DE Yea Sen. Joseph Biden Jr. [D, 1973-2009]
NM Yea Sen. Jeff Bingaman [D, 1983-2012]
WV Yea Sen. Robert Byrd [D, 1959-2010]
TX Yea Sen. Lloyd Bentsen Jr. [D, 1971-1993]
OK Yea Sen. David Boren [D, 1979-1994]
AR Yea Sen. Dale Bumpers [D, 1975-1998]
ND Yea Sen. Quentin Burdick [D, 1960-1992]
FL Yea Sen. Lawton Chiles Jr. [D, 1971-1988]
AZ Yea Sen. Dennis DeConcini [D, 1977-1994]
IL Yea Sen. Alan Dixon [D, 1981-1992]
MO Yea Sen. Thomas Eagleton [D, 1968-1986]
NE Yea Sen. James Exon [D, 1979-1996]
KY Yea Sen. Wendell Ford [D, 1974-1998]
OH Yea Sen. John Glenn Jr. [D, 1974-1998]
TN Yea Sen. Albert Gore Jr. [D, 1985-1992]
IA Yea Sen. Thomas "Tom" Harkin [D, 1985-2014]
AL Yea Sen. Howell Heflin [D, 1979-1996]
SC Yea Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings [D, 1966-2004]
LA Yea Sen. John Johnston Jr. [D, 1972-1996]
VT Yea Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, 1975-2022]
MT Yea Sen. John Melcher [D, 1977-1988]
ME Yea Sen. George Mitchell [D, 1980-1994]
GA Yea Sen. Samuel Nunn [D, 1972-1996]
WI Yea Sen. William Proxmire [D, 1957-1988]
AR Yea Sen. David Pryor [D, 1979-1996]
MI Yea Sen. Donald Riegle Jr. [D, 1977-1994]
WV Yea Sen. John "Jay" Rockefeller IV [D.1985-2014]
TN Yea Sen. James Sasser [D, 1977-1994]
NE Yea Sen. Edward Zorinsky [D, 1976-1987]
REPUBLICAN - NAY
RI Nay Sen. John Chafee [R, 1976-1999]
MD Nay Sen. Charles Mathias Jr. [R, 1969-1986]
DEMOCRAT - NAY
CT Nay Sen. Christopher Dodd [D, 1981-2010]
HI Nay Sen. Daniel Inouye [D, 1963-2012]
MA Nay Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy [D, 1962-2009]
MA Nay Sen. John Kerry [D, 1985-2013]
NJ Nay Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D, 1982-2000]
MI Nay Sen. Carl Levin [D, 1979-2014]
MD Nay Sen. Paul Sarbanes [D, 1977-2006]
NY Nay Sen. Daniel Moynihan [D, 1977-2000]
CA Nay Sen. Alan Cranston [D, 1969-1992]
CO Nay Sen. Gary Hart [D, 1975-1986]
HI Nay Sen. Spark Matsunaga [D, 1977-1990]
OH Nay Sen. Howard Metzenbaum [D, 1976-1994]
RI Nay Sen. Claiborne Pell [D, 1961-1996]
REPUBLICAN - NOT VOTING
CO NV Sen. William Armstrong [R, 1979-1990]
CO NV Sen. Mark Hatfield [R, 1967-1996]
DEMOCRAT - NOT VOTING
NJ NV Sen. William "Bill" Bradley [D, 1979-1996]
LA NV Sen. Russell Long [D, 1948-1986]
IL NV Sen. Paul Simon [D, 1985-1996]
MS NV Sen. John Stennis [D, 1947-1988]
Do Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus have the same God-given rights recognized by the U.S. justice system? Do athiests have God-given rights recognized by the U.S. justice system? What does the U.S. justice system consult to determine which rights are given by God Hisself? Whose God is considered the Giver? Does it matter whether the judge is a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, or athiest? Or does the U.S. justice system recognize the common law right of self-defense?
While the right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed, the right as brought forth from the English common law into the colonies and into the States, has inherent limitations. These limitations are part of the right, they define the right, they do not infringe upon the right. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals (1765) It has never meant a right to carry any and all weapons for any purpose. It does not mean that today.
The Hughes Amendment was a voice vote. It sounded like the Nays had it, but Rangel said the Ayes had it and refused a recorded vote.
Then once you have the new "precedent" you're happy with, that precedent cannot be changed because shut up. Yes, precedent can be changed. Were SCOTUS to issue an opinion that abortion was infanticide, and not a constitutionally protected right, Roe could no longer be cited to the effect that abortion is a constitutional right. The more recent precedent would prevail. A prevailing precedent can be changed by amending the constitution. Opinions in Scott v. Sandford were not judicially overturned, but were overturned by post-war amendments which changed the law. As an historical note, SCOTUS found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, that the lower court also lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, and SCOTUS remanded the case to the lower court with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Minor v. Happersett in 1875 held unanimously that women did not have a constitutional right to vote for President. Moreover, neither did anyone else, and they still don't. But the 19th Amendment came along and said, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." Women may not be denied the right to vote because of their sex. Where men are allowed to vote, women must be allowed to vote on an equal basis. Minor was correctly decided according to the law then in existence, so the law was changed. A new abortion precedent could be changed by having the issue revisited by the Court yet again, and changing its interpretation of the Constitution. Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 held that seperate but equal was constitutional. Brown v. Topeka Board of Education in 1954 revisited the issue and held that seperate but equal was inherently unequal and was unconstitutional. One cannot go to court and argue Plessy as precedent to overturn Brown. What cannot be done is to cite a perceived conflict between Miller (1939)and Heller/McDonald (2008/2010) and claim Miller supersedes the more recent interpretation of the Constitution in Heller/McDonald. The precedent set by Heller/McDonald can be overturned by a subsequent, more recent interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court. Should the Court issue a holding in misterwhite v United States, (2020) saying that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own a newly manufactured machine gun, you would have a new precedent and could buy all the new machine guns you want. Until the Constitution is amended, or the Supreme Court revisits the issue, you are out of luck.
The Declaration of Independence declared that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights , that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The right to self- defense is part of the right to life. Now, if the right to self-defense includes the right to own an AK-47, then we would all have the right to own an AK-47. Correct? Even 12-year-olds? Certainly you wouldn't deny the right to self-defense to a 12-year-old!
I'm not saying Miller supercedes anything. I'm citing the doctrine of precedent -- stare decisis -- which Heller totally ignored. Miller concluded the only arms protected by the second amendment were militia-type arms. That was ignored by Heller because it didn't fit their in-common-use-for-self-defense-in-the-home made-up interpretation.
The House vote to approve the Hughes Amendment to the Bill was a Record Vote 286-136. The House vote to approve the bill as amended, including the Hughes Amendment, was a Record Vote 292-130. - - - - - - - - - - https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/4332/titles Short Titles Short Titles as Passed House Short Titles as Reported to House Short Titles as Introduced Official Titles Official Title as Introduced https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/4332/actions 03/14/1986 Reported to House (Amended) by House Committee on The Judiciary. Report No: 99-495. 03/06/1986 Introduced in House - - - - - - - - - - https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/4332 (Reported to House from the Committee on the Judiciary with amendment, H. Rept. 99-495) Federal Firearms Law Reform Act of 1986 - Amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 to prohibit the transfer or possession of silencers. Permits the interstate sale of rifles and shotguns, provided: (1) the transferee and the transferor meet in person to accomplish the transfer; and (2) the sale, delivery, and receipt comply with the legal conditions of sale in both States. Makes it unlawful for any person to sell or ship any firearm or ammunition to someone who: (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted of, a felony; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance; (4) has been adjudicated as a mental incompetent or committed to a mental institution; (5) has received a dishonorable discharge from the armed forces; (6) has renounced his U.S. citizenship; or (7) is an illegal alien. Makes it unlawful for such persons to receive, possess, or transfer any firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce. Permits gun sales at certain gun shows. Prohibits the importation of the barrel of any firearm if the importation of that firearm is prohibited. Revises the criteria reviewed by the Secretary of the Treasury in approving applications for licenses. Grants the Secretary authority to suspend (rather than just revoke) a license. Allows the Secretary to inspect the inventory and records of a licensee to ensure compliance with the recordkeeping requirements of such Act. Modifies the penalty provisions for certain licensee violations. Eliminates the recordkeeping requirements for ammunition sales involving less than 1,000 rounds. Codifies existing regulations requiring reports of multiple firearm sales. Establishes additional mandatory penalties for the use or carrying of firearms or armor-piercing ammunition during certain drug trafficking activities. Imposes additional mandatory penalties for machine gun use in crimes. Limits to felony violations the Government's authority to seize firearms and ammunition. Allows individuals who have violated the Gun Control Act of 1968 or the National Firearms Act to apply for relief from the legal disabilities imposed by such statutes. Authorizes the Secretary to grant such relief. Allows the interstate transport of rifles and shotguns by individuals under certain circumstances. Prohibits the sale, delivery, or transfer of a handgun from a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer to an unlicensed individual unless the documentation of the transaction is sent to local law enforcement officers and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. - - - - - - - - - - 04/10/1986 H.Amdt.776 Amendment Passed in Committee of the Whole by Recorded Vote: 233 - 184 (Record Vote No: 72). 04/10/1986 H.Amdt.770 Amendment Passed (Amended) in Committee of the Whole by Recorded Vote: 286 - 136 (Record Vote No: 74). 04/09/1986 H.Amdt.775 Amendment Failed of Passage in Committee of Whole by Recorded Vote: 177 - 242 (Record Vote No: 71). 04/09/1986 H.Amdt.773 Amendment Failed of Passage in Committee of Whole by Recorded Vote: 176 - 248 (Record Vote No: 70). - - - - - - - - - - House Record Vote 74 was to amend the Senate bill. https://www.congress.gov/amendment/99th-congress/house-amendment/770 A substitute amendment to ease the interstate sale of both rifles and handguns. It eliminates the requirement that gun dealers notify police of handgun purchases and preempts state and local laws to ease interstate travel with handguns as well as rifles for any legal purpose. It also eliminates the need for many gun sellers to obtain a license and keep records of their gun sales. https://www.congress.gov/amendment/99th-congress/house-amendment/770/actions - - - - - - - - - - House Record vote 75 was to adopt the bill, as amended, including the Hughes Amendment. Record vote 75 (S.B. 49), adopted H.R. 4332, an amendment to the final bill. Action By: House of Representatives - - - - - - - - - -
Spot on. That's how it works. An additional wrinkle is that when the Supreme Court rules as a basis of existing law, including constitutional law, Congress might go ahead and pass new law that purports to change the law, or provides a guideline definition of terms that changes the constitutional meaning. The Supreme Court can, of course, find that the Congressional attempt is unavailing, because of the Constitution, or the Supreme Court can find that the Congressional effort, the new law, is constitutional, as written, and accept the legislature's redefinition of the bounds of the law. The same things is theoretically true with regulations as well, though I can't think of any examples.
Correct. The Supreme Court makes precedent by deciding cases. And the Supreme Court can overrule itself and previous precedent and establish NEW precedent, which stands until it overrules itself again, or until a constitutional amendment is ratified that overrules a Supreme Court position, or a statute is past that has the effect of overruling a Supreme Court precedent, and the Supreme Court acquiesces to the new statute. Precedent is always changeable by the authority that issued it. There is not one single aspect of US law or the Constitution that cannot be changed, amended, altered, with time, following the proper procedures. Supreme Court precedent is changed by later Supreme Court rulings. That's how the system works. NOTHING in the world of law is absolute, fixed and permanent. Law is made by man, and man can always change every single aspect of it, without any exceptions whatsoever, if enough men want to change it, and are able to sufficiently organize themselves to do so. That change might not be legal within the existing system. A SYSTEM may have sacrosanct laws that cannot be changed, in which case men determined to change it have to overthrow the system itself, in a revolution. And they do, from time to time. But the American Constitution contains within itself the means by which it can be amended, and there is nothing in it off limits to amendment. Some things are harder to amend than others, but NOTHING is off limits.
Exactly. Well put.
Does it matter whether the judge is a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, or athiest? Or does the U.S. justice system recognize the common law right of self-defense? I would say, in truth, that the US justice system does not fully incorporate the Common Law of England as far as the right to keep and bear arms and self-defense goes. Rather, I'd say that a common law of America, which has come to differ substantially from old England, has developed over time, and that beyond that, American judges are all politicians, and live within a political and cultural climate that inflects their own beliefs, and sense of limitation, when it comes to the matter of guns and gun rights. In England, the restriction of guns came easily, because an iron-clad top- down legalism rules the road there. In America, it's not so easy because the people are neither as obedient nor as malleable as the English. And the judges come from the people and share those animal spirits. So while I would not dispute that American judges do indeed cite to the chains of laws going back, and conduct chains of reason that purport to simply be logical and inevitable extensions of the common law of jolly old England, in truth, their programming and prejudices make the result a sui generis common law of America, which is very distinctive on certain things, particularly matters of black-white race relations and guns.
The Hughes Amendment to H.R.4332 passed on a controversial voice vote. The entire H.R.4332, including the Hughes Amendment, passed by a recorded vote.
Thereby making the concept of legal precedent a joke.
Sure. I can agree with that. But what does that have to do with the second amendment? For over 200 years, those rights were secured by state constitutions.
Your Congressional Record must read differently than the one that I just linked and quoted. Link and quote yours.
The DoI is not, and never has been, part of U.S. law. It was a political statement made before there was a United States. It doesn't. We don't. If there were no laws, you would be correct. There are laws, and they do not support your dreams.
Miller concluded the only arms protected by the second amendment were militia-type arms. That was ignored by Heller because it didn't fit their in-common-use-for-self-defense-in-the-home made-up interpretation. You are full of crap, so there's that. Heller did a thorough review of existing precedents. It found none inconsistent with its own ruling. It did not ignore precedent as you claim. Heller demolishes your wrongheaded misreading of those precedents. Notably, Heller finds that, It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment. Your wrongheaded reading of Miller affects nothing.
Published on Jul 19, 2011 This is recently discovered footage from the early morning of April 10th, 1986. The committee chair, Charlie Rangel, allows the language known as The Hughes Amendment, into an amendment for the Firearm Owners Protection Act. This amendment banned the possession of automatic firearms by civilians except those already registered with BATFE. An unrecorded voice vote is used by Rangel to insert the amendment into the bill. Explanation: Around 3:16 the clerk attempts to read the amendment which bans the manufacture of new machine guns while Hughes asks that the reading of the amendment suspended. A Republican objects to the fact that the amendment will not be read and forces the reading to go forward. This goes back and forth for a while. The time for consideration runs out, and Hughes asks for additional time for consideration around 5:46. At 6:03 Rangel holds a voice vote (after the Republicans demand a recorded vote) in which he declares that enough ayes were heard, even though the nays are clearly more numerous. Rangel attempts to move forward, but enough Republican's speak up to demand a recorded vote on the previous voice vote and Rangel is unable to ignore them. When the recorded vote is held, it shows that the nays were indeed the majority and time is forced to expire on discussion of the Hughes amendment. At 8:17 a voice vote is held in which Rangel declares it passed. At 8:41 Rangel ignores a call for recorded vote (while smirking) and moves forward without taking a recorded vote which would have shown that the amendment failed.
OK. And what weapons would those be? According to Miller.
No. That IS the concept of legal precedent. All lower courts must obey the precedent set by the high court. The high court cannot permanently bind itself with an opinion any more than a Congress can permanently bind the country with a law. Later courts and later Congresses can always revisit and change the opinion, or the law. There is no permanent unalterable law. Absolutely everything can always be amended.
At 6:03 Rangel holds a voice vote (after the Republicans demand a recorded vote) in which he declares that enough ayes were heard, even though the nays are clearly more numerous. Rangel attempts to move forward, but enough Republican's speak up to demand a recorded vote on the previous voice vote and Rangel is unable to ignore them. When the recorded vote is held, it shows that the nays were indeed the majority and time is forced to expire on discussion of the Hughes amendment. At 8:17 a voice vote is held in which Rangel declares it passed. At 8:41 Rangel ignores a call for recorded vote (while smirking) and moves forward without taking a recorded vote which would have shown that the amendment failed. As I said, look at the Congressional Record. Approval of the Hughes Amendment and the main bill, as amended, was by Record Vote. Listen to the very start. "The COMMITTEE is not in order." "The question is on the motion for the COMMITTEE to rise. All in favor indicate by saying "Aye". The Chairman ordered that a recorded vote be taken on the motion for the COMMITTEE to rise, by electronic device. Recorded vote: Aye 124, Nay 297, NV 14 (vid) The committee did not rise. There was then a vote on adoption of the Hughes amendment to the Volkmer substitute. The Chairman announced that the Ayes had it. Then there was a voice vote on adopting the Volker substitute, as amended. The Chairman announced that the Noes had it. A recorded vote was ordered by electronic device. Yea 286, Nay 136, NV 18. Congressional Record: At this point, the Volkmer substitute, as amended by the Hughes amendment to the Volkmer substitute, was agreed to. There followed consideration of the Judiciary Committee amendment, as amended, to the main bill, and a voice vote followed. The Chair announced the Ayes had it. "According to the rule, the committee rises." That was COMMITTEE proceedings. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Speaker Tip O'Neill took over for House proceedings House consideration of House Bill 4332. Mr. Greaves (ph) "moves to recommit the bill 4332 to the committee on the judiciary." Speaker O'Neill announced the Noes had it. "The question comes on the passage of the bill." The Speaker announced that the Ayes had it. On motion, a recorded vote was ordered. Yea 292, Nay 130 NV 13. (on vid) Congresional Record:
Those typically lawfully possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Those weapons in common use at the time. Heller at 624-25: We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses our adoption of the original understanding of the Second Amendment. Heller at 627-28: It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
You cited Heller. In your post #70, you said, "Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons." I asked what "certain types of weapons" Miller stood for. Not Heller.
Not true. Weapons used for hunting and self-defense were rifles. Expensive, but accurate. Weapons used by the militia were smooth-bore muskets fired in volley. Inaccurate, but cheap. The Militia Act of 1792 required militiamen to bring a musket with them, not their home rifle.
But Miller actually said, "the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by members of a militia". Heller made things up out of thin air.
Yep. And if that has changed it's up to the people to change the second amendment. Not Congress and certainly not the courts. Since about half the states still have a State Militia (in addition to the National Guard), I doubt that will happen.
That was COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE proceedings. I'll get back with text of the video. That may help.
The Militia Act of 1792 was repealed, in its entirety, in 1795, and then it did not refer to muskets any more.
Comments (82 - 171) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestStare decisis be damned!
#43. To: nolu chan (#42)
#44. To: misterwhite (#43)
Me being a jerk? You lecture me on stare decisis while ignoring Cruikshank, Presser and Miller?
#45. To: nolu chan (#44)
As for the actual law, can you go out and lawfully purchase a newly manufactured machine gun, or can't you?
#46. To: misterwhite (#45)
As for the actual law, can you go out and lawfully purchase a newly manufactured machine gun, or can't you?
#47. To: nolu chan (#46)
Has it been that way since before you were born?
#48. To: misterwhite (#47)
#49. To: nolu chan (#48)
Passed in the House (amended) by voice vote.
Agreed to in the Senate by voice vote.
#50. To: nolu chan (#44)
#51. To: Vicomte13 (#50)
People having the "God-given right" to carry around unregistered machine guns, set up AA missile batteries ....
#52. To: Vicomte13 (#50)
You accurately portray the legal system as it is, and particularly the system of precedent as it applies under the Common Law.
#53. To: misterwhite (#49)
Yep. Usually how controversial and unconstitutional laws are passed. No individual accountability.
#54. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13 (#51)
People have a "God-given right" to self-defense. Beyond that, it's up to the law.
#55. To: Vicomte13 (#50)
People having the "God-given right" to carry around unregistered machine guns, set up AA missile batteries in their yards on short final to JFK airport, and keeping a stock of mustard gas and a nuke in their basement, "just in case" cannot be what the Second Amendment means. The Constitution is not a suicide pact!
5. THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
#56. To: nolu chan (#53)
#57. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13 (#52)
Oh? The system that says if you don't like precedent you can change it?
#58. To: nolu chan (#54)
Or does the U.S. justice system recognize the common law right of self-defense?
#59. To: nolu chan (#57)
What cannot be done is to cite a perceived conflict between Miller (1939)and Heller/McDonald (2008/2010) and claim Miller supersedes the more recent interpretation of the Constitution in Heller/McDonald.
#60. To: misterwhite (#56)
The Hughes Amendment was a voice vote. It sounded like the Nays had it, but Rangel said the Ayes had it and refused a recorded vote.
Titles: H.R.4332 — 99th Congress (1985-1986)
All Information (Except Text)
Short Titles - House of Representatives
Firearms Owners' Protection Act
Federal Firearms Law Reform Act of 1986
Federal Firearms Law Reform Act of 1986
Official Titles - House of Representatives
A bill to amend chapter 44 (relating to firearms) of title 18, United States Code, and for other purposes. 04/10/1986 Passed/agreed to in House: Passed House (Amended) by Yea-Nay Vote: 292 - 130 (Record Vote No: 75).
Shown Here:
Reported to House with amendment(s) (03/14/1986) 04/10/1986 Passed House (Amended) by Yea-Nay Vote: 292 - 130 (Record Vote No: 75).
Action By: House of Representatives
Action By: House of Representatives
Action By: House of Representatives
Action By: House of Representatives
Action By: House of Representatives Description: H.Amdt. 770 — 99th Congress (1985-1986)
All Information (Except Text) 04/10/1986 Amendment Passed (Amended) in Committee of the Whole by Recorded Vote: 286 - 136 (Record Vote No: 74).
04/10/1986 Passed House (Amended) by Yea-Nay Vote: 292 - 130 (Record Vote No: 75).
#61. To: nolu chan (#57)
#62. To: misterwhite (#52)
Oh? The system that says if you don't like precedent you can change it?
#63. To: nolu chan (#55)
While the right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed, the right as brought forth from the English common law into the colonies and into the States, has inherent limitations. These limitations are part of the right, they define the right, they do not infringe upon the right.
#64. To: nolu chan (#54)
What does the U.S. justice system consult to determine which rights are given by God Hisself? Whose God is considered the Giver?
#65. To: nolu chan (#60)
#66. To: Vicomte13 (#62)
And the Supreme Court can overrule itself and previous precedent and establish NEW precedent
#67. To: Vicomte13 (#64)
#68. To: misterwhite (#65)
(Edited)
The Hughes Amendment to H.R.4332 passed on a controversial voice vote. The entire H.R.4332, including the Hughes Amendment, passed by a recorded vote.
#69. To: misterwhite (#58)
The Declaration of Independence declared that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights , that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The right to self- defense is part of the right to life.
Now, if the right to self-defense includes the right to own an AK-47, then we would all have the right to own an AK-47. Correct?
#70. To: misterwhite (#59)
I'm not saying Miller supercedes anything. I'm citing the doctrine of precedent -- stare decisis -- which Heller totally ignored.
Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.
#71. To: nolu chan (#68)
(Edited)
#72. To: nolu chan (#70)
Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.
#73. To: misterwhite (#66)
Thereby making the concept of legal precedent a joke.
#74. To: misterwhite (#71)
Explanation: Around 3:16 the clerk attempts to read the amendment which bans the manufacture of new machine guns while Hughes asks that the reading of the amendment suspended. A Republican objects to the fact that the amendment will not be read and forces the reading to go forward. This goes back and forth for a while. The time for consideration runs out, and Hughes asks for additional time for consideration around 5:46.
04/10/1986 H.Amdt.770 Amendment Passed (Amended) in Committee of the Whole by Recorded Vote: 286 - 136 (Record Vote No: 74).
Action By: House of Representatives 04/10/1986 Passed House (Amended) by Yea-Nay Vote: 292 - 130 (Record Vote No: 75).
Action By: House of Representatives
#75. To: misterwhite (#72)
OK. And what weapons would those be? According to Miller.
“In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
#76. To: nolu chan (#75)
Those typically lawfully possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Those weapons in common use at the time.
#77. To: nolu chan (#75)
In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”
#78. To: nolu chan (#75)
We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
#79. To: nolu chan (#75)
But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.
#80. To: nolu chan (#74)
That was COMMITTEE proceedings.
#81. To: misterwhite (#77)
The Militia Act of 1792 required militiamen to bring a musket with them, not their home rifle.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]