13 replies to this topic

[LIONHART]

Feinstein Gun Ban Could Come up in the Senate Next Week

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Thursday, July 1, 2004


On Tuesday, the Senate is scheduled to begin consideration of
legislation to limit class action lawsuits -- a prime candidate for
so-called liberal "killer amendments," including the Feinstein
amendment to extend the ban on semiautomatic firearms and magazines.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has threatened to offer her semi-auto
ban to any "appropriate" legislative vehicle, and the class action
bill is about as "appropriate" as any on the Senate's legislative
schedule.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has, at his disposal, a
variety of parliamentary techniques to prevent Feinstein from
offering the semiautomatic ban. Back in March, he chose NOT to use
these parliamentary maneuvers during the debacle over the ill-fated
gun makers' protection act.

The debate over this pro-gun bill resulted in a free-for-all which
led to killer amendments being added to the bill -- amendments like
the Feinstein gun ban.

GOA is urging Frist to learn from his mistakes and to use his
leadership office to insure that the Feinstein amendment is not
offered to S. 2062.

America is at a crossroads on the Second Amendment. If the pro-gun
community can succeed in killing the extension of the semi-auto ban
(due to expire on September 13) we will have inflicted a serious blow
on the anti-gun zealots -- a blow from which they will not soon
recover.

If, on the other hand, Feinstein is successful in forcing her
amendment to the president's desk, Bush has indicated that he will
sign the ban -- and the pro-gun community will be on the defensive
and facing the anti-gunners' next priority: a comprehensive gun
registration scheme.

ACTION: Please contact Senate Majority Leader Frist. Tell him to
use whatever parliamentary tools are necessary to block consideration
of the Feinstein semi-auto ban -- particularly as an amendment to the
class action bill.

You can call Senator Frist at (202) 224-3344, or go to
http://www.frist.senate.gov and select "Contact Senator Frist" under
the "About Senator Frist" heading to send a message similar to the
one below.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator Frist:

America is at a crossroads. If we are successful in blocking the
Feinstein semiautomatic ban, we will have inflicted a major blow to
the anti-gun community -- a blow from which it will not soon recover.


Therefore, we would urge you to use any parliamentary tools at your
disposal to prevent this amendment from being offered -- particularly
to the class action bill. Thank you.

[TN.Frank]

NEWS FLASH: the Federal Government CAN NOT ban any firearm legally. They couldn't do it in '34 with the NFA and they can't do it now with the AWB of '94. All they can do is force tax and registration on us, the 2nd. Amend. protects us from any small arm being BANNED by the Federal Government. Learn it, live by it, love it.

[Norm]

Didn't the federal government ban new machineguns (for civilians) as of May 19, 1986?

[TN.Frank]

QUOTE (Norm @ Jul 2 2004, 11:38 AM)

Didn't the federal government ban new machineguns (for civilians) as of May 19, 1986?

This is just one more UnConstitutional law that's been forced down the peoples throats by an out of control government. The '86 Ban should be "null and void" because it "infringes" on the Rights of the People to keep and bear arms. Plain and simple. Too many people fear their government to challenge them on this issue so it stands as "law" for the time being. Someday, someone, somewhere in this country will have the nuts to take this to Federal Court at which point, after a long battle, I see this law being thrown out as "UnConstitutional".

[TN.Frank]

Let me see if I can try to explain it.
Let us say that the government passed a law that states that everyone should jump rope 20 miniutes a day because their are so many over weight people and they want us to get into shape.
Then a few years later, because so many people are being hung and strangled by rope, they pass a law outlawing/banning rope.
How will you comply with law #1 so long as law #2 is in place? You can't. By their own law they've forced you to break the law and that just can't be. No law can force you to break another.
Now, let's apply that to machineguns.
Since 1934 and the NFA all machineguns have to be registered and a tax must be paid on them. The '86 law says that they will no longer accept registration or tax on machineguns made after '86. The '86 law makes you break the '34 law by not allowing you to pay your tax and register your newly made machinegun. One law makes you break another, older law and that just can't be. That, in and of it's self makes the newer law "null and void" because it forces you to break an older law. Unless they get rid of the older law all together then pass the new law the new law can't be passed.
This is kind of it, in a nut shell. The only reason laws like this become laws in the first place is because younger people in this country Don't know or Understand the Constitution and they are forced, by fear of the government, into accepting the new laws even though they're UnConstitutional and null and void because of that fact.

[TN.Frank]

We're having a similar debate over on AR.15.com. here's the link.
http://www.ar15.com/...=1&f=5&t=253834
Feel free to check it out. AR.15.com has some good people on it, just like here on Machinegunbooks.com

[Norm]

TN.Frank,

I understand what you are saying. I think everyone on this board thinks that every gun law passed in the last 70 years is unconstitutional.

Unfortunantly, that does not stop the government from ruining your life if you decide to ignore these laws.

Maybe one day someone in DC will realize that the guns are not this countries problem.

[TN.Frank]

Wow, PhilOhio, what a truly excellent post. If I can, I'd like to reprint it over on the AR15.com forum, with your permision, of course. What you said hit the ol' nail on the head. We have allowed ourselves to become "out gunned" by our government to the point where armed revolt would be suicide on are part. Still, the only other alternative is to comply with the laws and that leaves a very bad taste in this freedom loving Americans mouth. Can't think of anything else to say that you've not already touched on. God bless ya' pard. Take care. TN.Frank, out.

[Randyone]

I agree you make some very good points and I wish more people had the guts to stand up and make their voices heard. I emailed the Senator about the AW Ban I hope he does the right thing.

[TD.]

PhilOhio - Happy Fourth of July - and please keep posting.

[Sgt]

This is probably a naive question, but in regards to unconstitutional firearms legislation, couldn't an army of energetic and hotshot lawyers unite and sue the Federal Government?

[Lancer]

QUOTE (Sgt @ Jul 4 2004, 11:14 AM)

couldn't an army of energetic and hotshot lawyers unite and sue the Federal Government?

Sgt,
My guess is yes, they could but in reality your not going to find many lawyers to sign on unless they see a big payday at end of the day.

[TN.Frank]

QUOTE (PhilOhio @ Jul 3 2004, 11:15 PM)

No objection, Frank. I just wish I had something more upbeat to say, or think.

What you said was the truth and you can never argue with truth. I just wish we had more people in this country like you, that understood what is going on and had the guts to speak out on the subject. Most of the people here and on other forums that I visit know what's going on, it's the general public that I'm talking about. They don't have a foggy clue about AW's and the truth. Keep posting and have a happy 4th PhilOhio and to all the MGB family, have a happy 4th and God bless.

[Sgt. Fox]

QUOTE (Sgt @ Jul 4 2004, 10:14 AM)

This is probably a naive question, but in regards to unconstitutional firearms legislation, couldn't an army of energetic and hotshot lawyers unite and sue the Federal Government?

Yes, and they have. And they lost.
The Supreme Court has "interpreted" the Second Amendment as not being an absoloute right, therefore allowing the banning of weapons.