Gun Confiscation Crusade Begins

[Wesley Briggman]

EXCLUSIVE – Kobach: The Gun Confiscation Crusade Begins

For all the militia-men, women, trannies, out there, it might be time to reveal yourselves. Your well-organized group's 2nd amendment rights are being abused. Start buying tanks, missiles and other military-grade hardware to defend the constitutional rights you were granted by the founding-fathers. Oh wait - owning that level of hardware is against the constitution. What a dilemma!

 

[777]

Typical Breitbart hyperbole, the headline- not that worried about any gun confiscation attempt, denial of due process will be fast-tracked to SCOTUS, where at least five of the jurists go on original intent on the 2A. Those weapons Wesley mentioned are all called "dangerous and unusual weapons", goes back to Blackstone - they are NOT protected by the 2A, generally speaking, they are military weapons that are souped-up. Concealed carry will NEVER be found to be a constitutional right under the 2A, only criminals concealed carry back then and it's been illegal in some states forever. But open carry will be found to be a 2A right, at least if this court ever gets the right case.

 

[Revmitchell]

Nope no hyperbole there

 

[JonC]

If guns were made illegal it would be interesting to see how many Christians would choose what they see as a right over Christianity and violate confiscation laws.

 

[Rob_BW]

If guns were made illegal it would be interesting to see how many Christians would choose what they see as a right over Christianity and violate confiscation laws.

Made illegal how? Executive order, judicial activism, or constitutional amendment?

 

[JonC]

Made illegal how? Executive order, judicial activism, or constitutional amendment?

An amendment is unnecessary (all is needed is an interpretation the Constitution refers to states rights). I was thinking of state laws. But it doesn't matter.

I was just wondering how many Americans cherish their rights (whether to bear arms, free speech, etc.) over their God.

 

[Rob_BW]

So do I obey a gun ban or obey 5 USC section 3331?

 

[JonC]

So do I obey a gun ban or obey 5 USC section 3331?

In the context of service you would follow the lawful orders of those appointed over you and fall under UCMJ (unless title 32, and then you would fall under your states annotated code). . When not on duty you you fall under civil authority.

I was thinking specifically of personally owned firearms.

 

[777]

No, McDonald said this:

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.

applied to state and local governments as well. Odd anybody considers a gun confiscation edict at any level to be "Christian" and to pit gun ownership against a secular government. If you consider the 2A an "unalienable right", it's from God.

 

[JonC]

No, McDonald said this:

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.

applied to state and local governments as well. Odd anybody considers a gun confiscation edict at any level to be "Christian" and to pit gun ownership against a secular government. If you consider the 2A an "unalienable right", it's from God.

I doubt many (any?) view the 2nd ammendment as a God given right.

 

[Reynolds]

If guns were made illegal it would be interesting to see how many Christians would choose what they see as a right over Christianity and violate confiscation laws.

My granddaddy used to say "I'll give them all my bullets but none of my guns."

 

[church mouse guy]

I doubt many (any?) view the 2nd ammendment as a God given right.

Of course, it is. A Christian has the right of self-defense.

 

[Revmitchell]

If guns were made illegal it would be interesting to see how many Christians would choose what they see as a right over Christianity and violate confiscation laws.

The 2 amendment would have to be changed. Not going to happen.

 

[Rob_BW]

In the context of service you would follow the lawful orders of those appointed over you and fall under UCMJ (unless title 32, and then you would fall under your states annotated code). . When not on duty you you fall under civil authority.

I was thinking specifically of personally owned firearms.

That oath itself makes no mention of following orders, and puts the defense of the Constitution first. So without an amendmemt, a wholesale gun ban is obviously incompatible with the Constitution.

 

[JonC]

The 2 amendment would have to be changed. Not going to happen.

Nothing needs to be changed in order to prohibit gun ownership by individual citizens.

Here is 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.

All that needs to happen is that it be determined the second amendment applies to the state’s right to maintain an armed militia. This is already one interpretation – the one that allows states to have a militia. States have a militia in the form of a State Guard (not the National Guard, which is federal under state jurisdiction [Title 32] but able to function under federal jurisdiction [Title 10] as well).

The reason that the Amendment does not need to be changed is that the topic is not the rights of citizens to bear arms but the right of states to maintain a well regulated militia (the right to bear arms is in order for the states to maintain a well regulated militia).

 

[JonC]

That oath itself makes no mention of following orders, and puts the defense of the Constitution first. So without an amendmemt, a wholesale gun ban is obviously incompatible with the Constitution.

The oath is to the office of appointment. The amendment itself does not need to be changed (the topic is the right of individual states to maintain a militia).

 

[Revmitchell]

Nothing needs to be changed in order to prohibit gun ownership by individual citizens.

Here is 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.

All that needs to happen is that it be determined the second amendment applies to the state’s right to maintain an armed militia. This is already one interpretation – the one that allows states to have a militia. States have a militia in the form of a State Guard (not the National Guard, which is federal under state jurisdiction [Title 32] but able to function under federal jurisdiction [Title 10] as well).

The reason that the Amendment does not need to be changed is that the topic is not the rights of citizens to bear arms but the right of states to maintain a well regulated militia (the right to bear arms is in order for the states to maintain a well regulated militia).

The SC decide in the Heller case you are wrong.

 

[JonC]

The SC decide in the Heller case you are wrong.

No, brother, it is you who are mistaking. The Supreme Court can change its decision (it can overrule itself based on a number of factors, including the impact of a previous decision, cultural and political changes, etc).

The Second Amendment does not have to be changed in order to relate the amendment to the state's rights to a standing militia (which was, BTW, probably the original intent as it is doubtful it's authors would have considered prohibiting citizens from owning firearms). It could be changed in order to ban firearms, but it is not necessary that it be changed.

Given the history of Supreme Court decisions (and instances where they have overturned past decisions) you should know better.

 

[Revmitchell]

No, brother, it is you who are mistaking. The Supreme Court can change its decision (it can overrule itself based on a number of factors, including the impact of a previous decision, cultural and political changes, etc).

The Second Amendment does not have to be changed in order to relate the amendment to the state's rights to a standing militia (which was, BTW, probably the original intent as it is doubtful it's authors would have considered prohibiting citizens from owning firearms). It could be changed in order to ban firearms, but it is not necessary that it be changed.

Given the history of Supreme Court decisions (and instances where they have overturned past decisions) you should know better.

Should the court get packed with activists who overturn that understanding of the constitution since it was written there would be a second civil war.

 

[JonC]

Should the court get packed with activists who overturn that understanding of the constitution since it was written there would be a second civil war.

That's kinda my point. I am not against guns (I own and enjoy guns). But what if the laws change. Will Christians obey laws that do not conflict with Scripture but that they strongly oppose?

It is easy to be a Christian when the inconveniences are minor.