Nilloc
Senior Veteran
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...amilies-and-establish-gun-free-zones/6RDGkxLKWe need to insist the the secret service be forced to disarm too.
Tasers should be enough.
Upvote
0
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...amilies-and-establish-gun-free-zones/6RDGkxLKWe need to insist the the secret service be forced to disarm too.
Tasers should be enough.
Even if it did, it'd get thrown out as unconstitutional faster than you would believe. Ex Post Facto and all...
Like all of these petitions nothing will come from it.
Still signed.
I think its akin to a placebo. Make people think they're doing something, when in actuality, its being completely ignored...
Yeah, that said it did give me a evil bit of pleasure when I signed the, "Deport people who signed petitions to secede from the union" petition too.
Something about a few hundred thousand butthurt people waking up one day to find out they've been given their wish but not quite how they envisioned it made me smile.
What are the "120" specific gun models she's referring to?
There is the problem, the list is not made public. That makes it extremely suspicious. I seriously doubt this will make it up to the President to sign, ever.
I almost wonder (a bit conspiritorial I know) but since they can't let a good crisis go to waste, is it possible that this is the first step to disarming the American people? All dictatorships start that way....hmmm it does bring one to thought...
It wouldn't be unconstitutional to require the registration of firearms after the purchase.
Ex post facto, or after the fact applies to criminal liability for actions taken before the law was passed.
Actually it would not only be Ex post facto, it would likely also be in violation of the 4th Amendment if I remember correctly.
It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that the government is trying to get a list of people whom has these firearms in order to illegally seize them.
Visualizing a world with 9 Diane Fiensteins in it.Disarm? No. There's too much case law interpreting the 2nd Amendment in favor of private ownership, that you'd need a SCOTUS with 9 Diane Fiensteins in order to make that happen.
So it ain't gonna.
Paranoid much?
Do you live within a few hours of Chicago? I do, and since Chicago got a 2nd term in Washington, I actually think I'm more than justified to not trust the Federal Government.
Benghazi-gate
Fast & Furious -- Which I think the actual purpose of this was to give guns to Drug Cartels and create an upsurge in gun violence.
Bullying the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court into upholding a bad piece of legislation that clearly violates the Constitution...
Would you like a longer list?
Disarm? No. There's too much case law interpreting the 2nd Amendment in favor of private ownership, that you'd need a SCOTUS with 9 Diane Fiensteins in order to make that happen.
So it ain't gonna.
I know I said I'd walked away from this thread, but this just goes to my point on gun laws being ignored.
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/cops-nbc-told-dont-use-gun-clip-85497.html
NBC broke gun laws, to discuss a story about making more gun laws. The irony is so think you could cut it with a spoon!
This looks like an attempt to gauge the temperature of the American gun and anti-gun public.
It's extreme. I too hope it fails.
Wow, that seems to be delusional since I don't recall the city of Chicago being on the ballot...