About Me

Name: Gray Ghost
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

The Proposed Democrat Gun Ban of 2009

Posted by Gray Ghost on Thursday, January 08, 2009 4:58:27 PM

Groups from all over the USA are starting to talk about the up coming gun ban that WILL BE introduced in the 111th Congress. These sources include the "Buckeyes Firearms Association", the NRA, "The Shooting Wire", and three "deep cover" people with whom I have close connections. These three people are located in Washington DC and work in the US Congress.

 
The guns to be included in the upcoming proposed Democrat federal gun ban will include the following: 

     1. Any semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
               (i) a folding or telescoping stock,
               (ii) a threaded barrel,
               (iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below),
               (iv) a forward grip;
               (v) a barrel shroud. 

      2. Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rimfire rifles). 

      3. Any semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has:
                (i) a second pistol grip,
                (ii) a threaded barrel,
                (iii) a barrel shroud or
                (iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip,
                (v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds. 

       4. Any semiautomatic shotgun with:
                (i) a folding or telescoping stock,
                (ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
                (iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds,
                (iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Frames or receivers for the above guns are also included in the ban, along with conversion kits. The Attorney General will receive carte blanche to ban guns at will. Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."
 
Note that Obama's pick for the office of Attorney General (Eric Holder, confirmation hearing set for January 15, 2009) wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that individual citizens have no right to have any working firearm in their own home.
 
Leaked portions of the proposed ban says the following: "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event." In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military or any firearm based on a military design is not suitable for the public.
 
That presumption can be challenged only by suing the federal government over each firearm it decides to ban, in a court it runs with a judge it pays. This virtually dismisses the principles of the Second Amendment. The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for a sporting purpose. And of course, the "sporting purpose" test is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.
 
If these near-total bans aren't enough, the most dangerous part may be the phrase "pistol grip" because: "The term 'pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." In other words, any semi-auto long gun with a grip (that's ALL semi-auto long guns) would be banned under the proposal.

Take a look at the following sites for additional information:

 http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6376

I will post additional information as I obtain it. I am also working on an article concerning a course of action should this proposed gun ban become law.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (37) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mississippi Vs. North Carolina: Car Jacking

Posted by Gray Ghost on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 10:06:35 AM
The following two articles illustrate the difference in "carjacking" in North Carolina and Mississippi. The Mississippi "model" MUST become the preferred method of dealing with this crime in the United States.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (27) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

After Shocks: D.C. vs. Heller

Posted by Gray Ghost on Sunday, June 29, 2008 11:32:12 PM

One aspect of the majority opinion written by Judge Scalia that has not yet attracted the attention of Liberals, but may be of great importance in the long run, is the presence of natural law in the Second Amendment. D.C. vs. Heller reaffirms a point made in the 1876 Cruikshank case. The right to arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. It is a pre-existing natural right. As such it is recognized and protected by the Constitution.

It has always been widely understood by Gun Owners (but not by the Gun Confiscation Crowd) that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed."

In United States v. Cruikshank (92 U. S. 542, 553, 1876), the majority opinion says, "This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed…"

This is consistent with Blackstone’s language (See 1 Black-stone 136, 139–140, 1765) that the "right to arms" protects the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation."

Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s "arms bearing right", for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense "of one’s person or house". He called this the law of "self preservation." But some federal and state courts have been hostile to "self-defense" or "self preservation" as a right (considering it as a mere privilege, which can be withdrawn by government or even forbidden).

THIS RULING BY THE SUPREME COURT SAYS THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE IS A NATURAL RIGHT, WHICH WAS IN EXSISTENCE BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION.
D.C. vs. Heller moves self-defense from the shadows of the Ninth Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.") into the bright light of the Second Amendment ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed").
 
It is now beyond dispute, in an American court, that self-defense is an inherent right, and that it is protected by the United States Constitution.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (69) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

D.C. vs. Heller Decision to Be Annouced Tomorrow

Posted by Gray Ghost on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 3:02:43 PM
Chief Justice John Roberts announced today that the Supreme Court would release its three remaining decisions tomorrow, Thursday, 6/26/08, beginning at 10 a.m., Eastern time.

This includes D.C. v. Heller, the Washington, D.C. gun-ban case that is examining the meaning of the Second Amendment, and whether a complete ban on any operable gun in a private home violates the constitutional rights of individual citizens.

Every news outlet on the planet is expected to cover the case in some fashion. Typically, the "Main Stream Media" reports on gun issues often have errors, spin, editorial mixed in with fact, and just plain lies. They should be taken with at least a grain of skepticism until a detailed analysis is available. The decision could be lengthy (perhaps 100 pages according to one knowledgeable party), and will take a certain amount of time to digest in its entirety.

The law firm of Akin Gump is predicting with a high degree of confidence that Justice Scalia will be the author of the principle opinion in the Heller decision. This alone says Heller won.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (36) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »