just got a letter from the NRA...

KI4KWF · 09-08-2007, 01:59 PM

saying that the biggest gun ownership-2nd ammendment battle of all time is about to start in the Supreme Court. Its gonna be groups like the NRA and vet's vs. The city of Washington DC, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Micheal Bloomberg, and other "mayors against gun ownership" from New Orleans, San Fran, Chicago, and others. Of course, they want money to help in cost of lawyers, but has anyone else heard about this case? I just wanna know how big of a deal this is gonna be. I think if they take away the guns I'm gonna move to Cananda.

deesgirl · 09-08-2007, 02:02 PM

Do you have the right to bear arms in Canada? Personally I think if they really start tweeking too much with the second amendent they are gonna have a 2nd revolution on their hands... I hope they aren't that stupid. (They=govt.) Then again I hope the sheeple out there in America aren't stupid enough to let them get away with tweeking it even for a half a second.

<~~~former Army, M16 loving jeep girl

KI4KWF · 09-08-2007, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deesgirl

Do you have the right to bear arms in Canada? Personally I think if they really start tweeking too much with the second amendent they are gonna have a 2nd revolution on their hands... I hope they aren't that stupid. (They=govt.) Then again I hope the sheeple out there in America aren't stupid enough to let them get away with tweeking it even for a half a second.

<~~~former Army, M16 loving jeep girl

x2 maybe we should go buy a few AR-15's and a truckload of ammo before they get too far with this. Can anybody say...Minutemen? Paul Revere? George Washington?

**BLS33** · 09-08-2007, 02:08 PM

The NRA has always been willing to compromise I hope some other less complacent groups are involved.

**Nuthin** · 09-08-2007, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLS33

The NRA has always been willing to compromise I hope some other less complacent groups are involved.

That's a fact. I hope so, too.

Coyotes97 · 09-08-2007, 02:13 PM

They are referring to this
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3557023&page=1

**Matt Gertsch** · 09-08-2007, 02:14 PM

When I was in ordering my M1A on Tuesday, the owner of the gun shop was telling me about how the feds are trying to adopt Cali's gun laws. Cali is also making their laws more restrictive, expanding the term assault weapon to cover anything with a detachable magazine. Glad I didn't wait on that purchase.

California is also in the process of passing a bill that requires that all new firearms stamp their serial number onto the shell when they fire.

You guys might want to buy your guns now before Nancy and her buddies have a chance to screw you out of them forever. You guys really don't want to have to abide by Cali's dumb gun laws.

**BLS33** · 09-08-2007, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Gertsch

.

California is also in the process of passing a bill that requires that all new firearms stamp their serial number onto the shell when they fire.

A bill pushing ballistic fingerprinting is in play in WI right now, a big fat waste of money. It has been implemented in other states and been proven ineffective and expensive.

kairo · 09-08-2007, 02:19 PM

I've got a whole bunch of guns I bought private party. No record of sale, no record of purchase, and thats the way I like it.

People think I'm crazy, but I have an SKS with 1000 rounds of ammo and $1000 in 20s buried out in the desert. Never know when you just might need an untraceable weapon

KI4KWF · 09-08-2007, 02:19 PM

so why buy them now if they're gonna take them away? i am confused...

Quote:

THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendments 1-2 of the Constitution

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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.

**BLS33** · 09-08-2007, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KI4KWF

so why buy them now if they're gonna take them away? i am confused...

They will be grand fathered in.

KI4KWF · 09-08-2007, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLS33

They will be grand fathered in.

so, if we have guns before this goes into law, then we can keep and use them?

**Matt Gertsch** · 09-08-2007, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLS33

They will be grand fathered in.

There is a huge loophole in Cali's law too. Once they become registered assault weapons, they no longer need to be "California legal", because they're registered assault weapons. A friend has several ARs that he did a lot of work to once he registered them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kairo

I've got a whole bunch of guns I bought private party. No record of sale, no record of purchase, and thats the way I like it.

People think I'm crazy, but I have an SKS with 1000 rounds of ammo and $1000 in 20s buried out in the desert. Never know when you just might need an untraceable weapon

Honestly, if you need it, it doesn't really matter if it is "traceable" or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KI4KWF

so, if we have guns before this goes into law, then we can keep and use them?

Yes.

**Nuthin** · 09-08-2007, 02:32 PM

The issues on that one are going to be somewhat complex. Courts have supported the rights of cities to regulate handguns that are *carried* in those cities in Colorado but declined to overturn a statewide CW law.

Generally, a states-rights issue doesn't apply to DC since it isn't a state. It will be interesting to see what issues the Court focuses on... or if the Court even agrees to hear the case.

kairo · 09-08-2007, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Gertsch

Honestly, if you need it, it doesn't really matter if it is "traceable" or not.

Sure it does. Cause when they come a knockin' they may get the shotguns, hunting rifles, and handguns that they have records of my purchase. But they can't get what they don't know I have