Post by Oscar "DoubleAction" Knight on Feb 13, 2013 21:29:10 GMT -5
Published on Feb 12, 2013
Even Obama's experts say his gun control policies won't work. According to an internal Department of Justice memorandum, a gun ban, like the one being debated right now in Congress, will not work without a mandatory gun buyback, and "universal" background checks will not work without requiring gun registration. Call Congress at 202-224-3121 and tell them to reject President Obama's gun control agenda -- and to get serious about prosecuting criminals and fixing our broken mental health system.
"Confiscation could be an option,” Cuomo told The New York Times yesterday when discussing semiautomatic weapons. “Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”
Australia implemented a mandatory buyback program in 1996 following a mass shooting. “The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns and put in place a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons,” USA Today recalls. “The buyback led to the destruction of 650,000 gun.”
Some liberal activists want the policy imitated here. “That would be like destroying 50 million guns in America today,” the Center for American Progress’ Matt Miller wrote after noting that Australia eliminated 20 percent of the weapons in the country. “The Australian ‘outlaw and repurchase’ option is one approach. But if Congress balks at banning certain weapons entirely, it could make gun owners an offer they can’t refuse. Instead of $200 a gun, Uncle Sam might offer $500.”
Feinstein also said that that former President Bill Clinton had volunteered, on a phone call, to help her get a new gun law passed.
Post by Oscar "DoubleAction" Knight on Feb 14, 2013 13:10:52 GMT -5
I am the one who signed The Gun Control Act of 1968
Lyndon B. Johnson
676 - Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union. January 14, 1969
In the Safe Streets Act of 1968, Congress determined "To assist state and local governments in reducing the incidence of crime."
This year I am proposing that the Congress provide the full $300 million that the Congress last year authorized to do just that.
I hope the Congress will put the money where the authorization is.
I believe this is an essential contribution to justice and to public order in the United States. I hope these grants can be made to the States and they can be used effectively to reduce the crime rate in this country.
But all of this is only a small part of the total effort that must be made--I think chiefly by the local governments throughout the Nation--if we expect to reduce the toll of crime that we all detest.
Frankly, as I leave the Office of the Presidency, one of my greatest disappointments is our failure to secure passage of a licensing and registration act for firearms. I think if we had passed that act, it would have reduced the incidence of crime. I believe that the Congress should adopt such a law, and I hope that it will at a not too distant date.
On October 22, 1968, Lyndon Johnson signed the Gun Control Act of 1968, one of the largest and most far reaching federal gun control laws in American history. This act represented a dramatic increase in federal power. Much of the motivation for this large expansion of federal gun regulations came as a response to the murders of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King.
The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban (1996) was an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 which was passed by the 104th US Congress in the Fall of 1996. Officially known as 'Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence' -- 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)', 'Public Law 104-208' and is often referred to as the Lautenberg Amendment after its sponsor, Frank Lautenberg.
The Lautenberg Act conflicts with State Laws that are in effect that do not impose a statute under federal law, and or state laws preventing persons from owning a firearm, ammunition, or possessing of such items.
In Example: A person convicted of Domestic Violene in Texas is charged with and convicted of a Misdemeanor Charge Class A. A person convicted of Domestic Violence in very few other states Domestic Violence is charged as a felony.
In all states a violation of a protective order, as well as any other act of Domestic Violence while a protective order is in place is Considered a Felony and the Charges that were initially filed will automatically become a felony charge of Domestic Violence.
The Lautenberg Amendment and or Act does not specify to whether or not a Felony Conviction of Domestic Violence whether by plea, or by Deferred Adjudication or a Misdemeanor Charge of Domestic Violence should fall under the act.
The Lautenberg Amendment excludes all persons convicted of any type of Domestic Violence, or the Subject of a Magistrates Protective order from owning or possessing any type of Firearm, Ammunition, and or other types of weapons that involve a projectile device.
The nation's police forces are up in arms over a new federal gun control law that could strip thousands of them of their guns and jobs. Most police organizations have enthusiastically supported every gun control scheme President Clinton has put forward. Few Americans realized that such legislation almost always contained an exemption for the policemen themselves regarding their official duties. But poetic justice may finally have arrived. Unfortunately, its arrival also heralds the decimation of constitutional rights of a million or more other Americans.
Last September 28, as part of a massive appropriations bill, Congress passed the so-called Lautenberg Act, which greatly increases the number of Americans prohibited by federal law from owning firearms. For the first time, thanks to an amendment by Georgia's Rep. Bob Barr, law-enforcement officials are not exempt from the nation's gun control laws.
The Lautenberg Act prohibits anyone from owning a gun or possessing any ammunition who has ever been convicted of a misdemeanor involving the use or attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon against a spouse, child, or intimate partner. (People with any felony conviction have been prohibited from owning guns since 1968.) Any person with such a misdemeanor on his record who is found in possession of a gun or even of a single bullet can face a $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison — longer than the average convicted murderer serves in this country.
Gerald Arenberg, executive director of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, observed that the act "has thrown the whole world into confusion for cops." Victor Kappeler, director of the Criminal Justice Graduate Program at Eastern Kentucky University, estimated that if accurate reporting of all such police domestic violence occurred, and if all such assaults were fully prosecuted, 10% of the nation's law-enforcement officials (70,000 individuals) could be found guilty and thus banned from possessing a firearm under the new law.
We recently got rid of the laws to register any and all Long Guns up here no matter what type or Cal they are. We have purposely sold or traded almost a million long guns since and have not notified the Gov of one transaction since as well. Yes our Handguns have to be registered but that is a minor formality if you are a law biding citizen with a clean record for at least 5 years. If you have a violent record in your past the odds are a lot slimmer you will obtain any type of gun licence period as we just don't any idiots owning guns up here. This system seems to work very well with very few shootings in Canada in any given year. It seems the weak minded Morons are more into useing knives now on the streets here as the sentence is not as long as a gun crime would be. This gentleman WON his case in court on Friday Feb 15th and even has his guns back already. We are sending him money to help with his legal fee's as they are substantial but the court has set a precedent where we can DEFEND our Homes and Families and we certainly will. The Crown is not appealing his case at this time as that would really make them look extremely foolish in the Public's eyes especially after what this man was put thru by his neahbours. Our CSSA which is very similar to your NRHA helped him a lot with many of the bills at 1st and also directed him to a great lawyer as well.
Last Edit: Feb 17, 2013 16:50:56 GMT -5 by blueglass