Assault Weapons Ban

bearcat6 · 11-11-2017, 07:49 AM

Here is Fiensteins law.

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pub...-bill-text.pdf

WaltGraham · 11-11-2017, 08:20 AM

I didn't see blunderbuss in there anywhere...

csmkersh · 11-11-2017, 01:45 PM

If it comes to a Senate vote we need to start pushing for a recall of Finestein and McConnell.

TommyGunn · 11-11-2017, 02:36 PM

Hopefully this goes nowhere at warp speed.

Snake45 · 11-12-2017, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyGunn

Hopefully this goes nowhere at warp speed.

And why wouldn't it? Things people actually WANT like Nobamacare Repeal and Tax Reform aren't going anywhere either.

Diamondback · 11-12-2017, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by csmkersh

If it comes to a Senate vote we need to start pushing for a recall of Finestein and McConnell.

The main problem is right now we have a 52-48 Dem Senate... 48 Brand D's plus McS---stain, Snowflake, Collins and Daddy's Little Sore-Loser Lisa Murkowski. And then there are rumors about a backstab coming from Cornhole Cornyn making it more like 53-47...

CaptainGyro · 11-13-2017, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diamondback

The main problem is right now we have a 52-48 Dem Senate... 48 Brand D's plus McS---stain, Snowflake, Collins and Daddy's Little Sore-Loser Lisa Murkowski. And then there are rumors about a backstab coming from Cornhole Cornyn making it more like 53-47...

The good news is that, of the 34 Senate seats up for grabs next year, 25 are held by Democrats. Those are formidable odds for the Democrats to overcome in their push to flip the Senate. I'm not saying it couldn't be done but it would take a tsunami of Democrat voter turnout that they haven't been able to achieve in recent memory.

Diamondback · 11-13-2017, 06:08 AM

Cap, the Dems don't NEED an outright majority as long as they have enough Kapo Kollaborators like the four named above...

AZ is no-win this go-around. McSally will be a McConnell butt-remora just like Joni Ernst, Kelli Ward is in some ways a bit too Hillary Clinton-ish like her ghoulish lobbying for appointment to the McCain seat "as soon as it opens" when his brain cancer came out. Alabama is trouble with the Establishment joining the Dems to go full Jihad on Moore, who the jury hasn't even been empaneled yet on... bad news is that most Team Blue senators are from "safe" Blue States, you could catch Patty Murray or Maria Cantwell with an, er, "prosthetic appendage" hilt deep into a preteen child on worldwide television and Seattle would still stand by her--ditto CA, OR, NJ and NY.

Javlin · 11-13-2017, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearcat6

Here is Fiensteins law.

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pub...-bill-text.pdf

Well I see I get to keep my first gun the Colt 45 by Hasbro. That really looks like it will kill all the gun manufactures in the US!

primesteven72 · 01-11-2019, 07:22 PM

Irrelevant..

"Gun Control" is illegal as it is in direct conflict with the Bill of Rights, Second Amendment, which states "Shall not be infringed".

The United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Unconstitutional Official Acts

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

csmkersh · 01-12-2019, 06:19 AM

Where have you been the last 50 years? Being unconstitutional didn't halt the AW ban of 1994.

Doughboy · 01-12-2019, 06:42 AM

csmkersh,

Pardon me for pointing out that in 1994 that the USA didn't have a 5 to 4 fairly conservative majority (and likely SOON, a solid 6-3 conservative majority) on the SCOTUS nor an ever-growing number of Constitution-loving/conservative judges at the US District & Appeals Courts levels.
(I suspect in the event that another so-called AWB is passed by the HoR, that the US Senate won't even hear it. IF the Senate did approve, that DJT would veto the bill.)

I strongly suspect that by 01JAN20 that the conservative to LIB ratio of the SCOTUS will be 6 to 3. - IF/WHEN that happens, the so-called AWB and "gun control" will be DEAD for more than a generation.

yours, sw

csmkersh · 01-12-2019, 06:54 AM

I know. But the thugs on the left will continue to try to destroy our rights.

Doughboy · 01-12-2019, 07:40 AM

csmkersh,

You're 100% CORRECT but I believe that the coming SOLID Conservative majority in the federal court & the SCOTUS will slap the so-called "Progressives", who are really LEFTIST RADICALS, down HARD.

yours, sw

TommyGunn · 01-12-2019, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by primesteven72

Irrelevant..

"Gun Control" is illegal as it is in direct conflict with the Bill of Rights, Second Amendment, which states "Shall not be infringed".

The United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Unconstitutional Official Acts

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

I'm not disagreeing with you philosophically, but the Constitution didn't stop them in 1933, 1938, 1968, and 1994, and it's going to be equally as effective in our times right now.

As far as being "bound to obey unconstitutional laws" or "no court (being) ....bound to enforce it," you may decide to ignore such a law, but I hope you have heaps of $$$$$$ to pay the lawyers who will be needed to find a court that will ignore an unconstitutional law.

Diamondback · 01-13-2019, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doughboy

csmkersh,

Pardon me for pointing out that in 1994 that the USA didn't have a 5 to 4 fairly conservative majority (and likely SOON, a solid 6-3 conservative majority) on the SCOTUS nor an ever-growing number of Constitution-loving/conservative judges at the US District & Appeals Courts levels.
(I suspect in the event that another so-called AWB is passed by the HoR, that the US Senate won't even hear it. IF the Senate did approve, that DJT would veto the bill.)

I strongly suspect that by 01JAN20 that the conservative to LIB ratio of the SCOTUS will be 6 to 3. - IF/WHEN that happens, the so-called AWB and "gun control" will be DEAD for more than a generation.

yours, sw

Sorry, old friend, but John Roberts isn't even "conservative-ISH," just another David Souter awaiting the right moment to shed the snakeskin and show his true colors. Ditto Kavanaugh...

#NeverTrustAnIvyLeaguer

DavidE · 01-13-2019, 08:03 PM

Call me crazy, but I have been waiting for someone to use the Supremacy clause to go after state and local bans and restrictions. Heller was a while back, but there is open ground there for someone who could press a case. New York State is making itself pretty obvious as a target, as is California.

Diamondback · 01-13-2019, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidE

Call me crazy, but I have been waiting for someone to use the Supremacy clause to go after state and local bans and restrictions. Heller was a while back, but there is open ground there for someone who could press a case. New York State is making itself pretty obvious as a target, as is California.

Could work if we didn't have two David Souters-in-waiting on SCOTUS... John Roberts is NO friend of ours, and I wouldn't trust Kavanaugh or any other relatively-recent product of the Ivy League either.

primesteven72 · 01-15-2019, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyGunn

I'm not disagreeing with you philosophically, but the Constitution didn't stop them in 1933, 1938, 1968, and 1994, and it's going to be equally as effective in our times right now.

As far as being "bound to obey unconstitutional laws" or "no court (being) ....bound to enforce it," you may decide to ignore such a law, but I hope you have heaps of $$$$$$ to pay the lawyers who will be needed to find a court that will ignore an unconstitutional law.

Wrong.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

csmkersh · 01-16-2019, 06:06 AM

primesteven72,

Your post was a perfect description of yourself.

11-11-2017, 07:49 AM	#1
bearcat6 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Oregon Posts: 1,963	Assault Weapons Ban Here is Fiensteins law. https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pub...-bill-text.pdf

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
AK receiver changes	GunGeek	Gun Talk	32	08-08-2017 05:29 AM
The Kalashnikov Conspiracy	GunGeek	Automatics	7	10-28-2016 05:13 PM
There is no reason to have an Assault Rifle--Really?	Hummer	Gun Talk	24	07-23-2016 02:35 PM

11-11-2017, 08:20 AM	#2
WaltGraham Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Shenandoah Valley Posts: 3,892	I didn't see blunderbuss in there anywhere...

11-11-2017, 01:45 PM	#3
csmkersh Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 10,710	If it comes to a Senate vote we need to start pushing for a recall of Finestein and McConnell.

11-11-2017, 02:36 PM	#4
TommyGunn Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Morgan County, Alabama "In Dixie Land I'll take my stand." Posts: 8,461	Hopefully this goes nowhere at warp speed.

11-13-2017, 06:08 AM	#8
Diamondback Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Seattle area--Sodom & Gomorrah on Puget Sound Posts: 2,045	Cap, the Dems don't NEED an outright majority as long as they have enough Kapo Kollaborators like the four named above... AZ is no-win this go-around. McSally will be a McConnell butt-remora just like Joni Ernst, Kelli Ward is in some ways a bit too Hillary Clinton-ish like her ghoulish lobbying for appointment to the McCain seat "as soon as it opens" when his brain cancer came out. Alabama is trouble with the Establishment joining the Dems to go full Jihad on Moore, who the jury hasn't even been empaneled yet on... bad news is that most Team Blue senators are from "safe" Blue States, you could catch Patty Murray or Maria Cantwell with an, er, "prosthetic appendage" hilt deep into a preteen child on worldwide television and Seattle would still stand by her--ditto CA, OR, NJ and NY.

01-11-2019, 07:22 PM	#10
primesteven72 Banned Join Date: Dec 2018 Location: North East Coast. Posts: 10	Irrelevant.. "Gun Control" is illegal as it is in direct conflict with the Bill of Rights, Second Amendment, which states "Shall not be infringed". The United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Unconstitutional Official Acts 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby. No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

01-12-2019, 06:19 AM	#11
csmkersh Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 10,710	Where have you been the last 50 years? Being unconstitutional didn't halt the AW ban of 1994.

01-12-2019, 06:42 AM	#12
Doughboy Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 471	csmkersh, Pardon me for pointing out that in 1994 that the USA didn't have a 5 to 4 fairly conservative majority (and likely SOON, a solid 6-3 conservative majority) on the SCOTUS nor an ever-growing number of Constitution-loving/conservative judges at the US District & Appeals Courts levels. (I suspect in the event that another so-called AWB is passed by the HoR, that the US Senate won't even hear it. IF the Senate did approve, that DJT would veto the bill.) I strongly suspect that by 01JAN20 that the conservative to LIB ratio of the SCOTUS will be 6 to 3. - IF/WHEN that happens, the so-called AWB and "gun control" will be DEAD for more than a generation. yours, sw

01-12-2019, 06:54 AM	#13
csmkersh Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 10,710	I know. But the thugs on the left will continue to try to destroy our rights.

01-12-2019, 07:40 AM	#14
Doughboy Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 471	csmkersh, You're 100% CORRECT but I believe that the coming SOLID Conservative majority in the federal court & the SCOTUS will slap the so-called "Progressives", who are really LEFTIST RADICALS, down HARD. yours, sw

01-13-2019, 08:03 PM	#17
DavidE Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: New Jersey Posts: 2,166	Call me crazy, but I have been waiting for someone to use the Supremacy clause to go after state and local bans and restrictions. Heller was a while back, but there is open ground there for someone who could press a case. New York State is making itself pretty obvious as a target, as is California.

01-16-2019, 06:06 AM	#20
csmkersh Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 10,710	primesteven72, Your post was a perfect description of yourself.