American Thinker: The Coming National Gun Ban – and How the States Can Resist R

[firefighterjohn]

Did a quick search and didn't find a dupe...

Very intersting article today on Americn Thinker with huge election implications: Articles: The Coming National Gun Ban ? and How the States Can Resist

 

[T.Lex]

Yes. It would be a long runway toward any type of comprehensive gun ban. Our states would have certain defensive tactics that were unavailable (I believe) to the citizenry of the UK and Australia.

 

[miguel]

Fellow Americans, trust yourself with your freedom, not some ******* in the state house.

Only you can surrender your rights.

 

[Leadeye]

I figure the first thing coming will be a stoppage of imports, pretty sure ATF can do that just by interpreting "sporting purposes" differently. Some major players like Glock will be able to pony up the cash required to stay in the game and companies with USA manufacturing bases may still be allowed to keep going. HiCap new mags for these guns will be toast across the board. People like Uberti, selling higher labor cost items that aren't made here will likely be out of luck. Not enough money in CAS to even get started in dc. Hilly can claim that as a scalp to wave in front of the gun haters.

 

[87iroc]

Yep, they've been slowly pushing us this way for what, 2 generations now? Started with Kennedy's death.

Its scary that bill has 149 Democrat Co-Sponsors.

 

[BogWalker]

AWB or UBC are the two most likely large sweeping changes that could be made.

 

[bwframe]

There are those among us who are quite happy to just see how this goes...

 

[T.Lex]

There are those among us who are quite happy to just see how this goes...

Who?

 

[24Carat]

There are those among us who are quite happy to just see how this goes...

Who?

Me ! It brings to the forefront that of which can't be discussed here .

 

[printcraft]

hitlary clinton will be the best friend gun owners have had since obama!

Wikileaks: PR Firm Seeks Clarification on Hillary's Support of 25% Gun Tax - Breitbart

 

[rugertoter]

Hmmm...don't know about that. Best friend since Obama? No, sadly, she will get some kind of weapons ban rammed through, because of the SC appointments.

 

[Restroyer]

Very good article. Shows that all the elections are important. Such as the governor's election since the article mentions that a state can get a around a gun ban by naming all adults (non felons) as a member of their state militia thus keeping the 2nd Amendment active for that particular state. No democratic governor would do that so it's important to vote for Holcomb (and Young and Trump as well).

 

[TheSpark]

I think the real question is how long will the states care to resist? As long as there are liberals among us our freedoms and constitution will be under attack every day.

 

[T.Lex]

I think the real question is how long will the states care to resist? As long as there are liberals among us our freedoms and constitution will be under attack every day.

With the progression of states that have moved to allow Larrys and/or constitutional carry, I think state-level politicians will - for the foreseeable future - have motivation to resist federal action.

 

[HoughMade]

I recall similarly dire predictions in 2008...and 2012.

 

[ATM]

Very good article. Shows that all the elections are important. Such as the governor's election since the article mentions that a state can get a around a gun ban by naming all adults (non felons) as a member of their state militia thus keeping the 2nd Amendment active for that particular state. No democratic governor would do that so it's important to vote for Holcomb (and Young and Trump as well).

It's even more important that Americans recognize and understand that they actually have rights.

Even the British subjects living in the British colonies here in America understood that.

Rulers may come and go, people in robes as well, but rights, along with the responsibilities of attending to their defense and security for our posterity, endure.

Fellow Americans, trust yourself with your freedom, not some ******* in the state house.

Only you can surrender your rights.

Indeed.

 

[HoughMade]

Very good article. Shows that all the elections are important. Such as the governor's election since the article mentions that a state can get a around a gun ban by naming all adults (non felons) as a member of their state militia thus keeping the 2nd Amendment active for that particular state. No democratic governor would do that so it's important to vote for Holcomb (and Young and Trump as well).

Congratulations, You're in the militia. This has been the law in Indiana for a long time.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Such as the governor's election since the article mentions that a state can get a around a gun ban by naming all adults (non felons) as a member of their state militia thus keeping the 2nd Amendment active for that particular state.

Not tracking.

Everyone 17 and older in Indiana is in the militia.

The Second Amendment is a federal guarantee of the individual's right to arms. Has nothing to do with State militias.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Congratulations, You're in the militia. This has been the law in Indiana for a long time.

Sure has. Indiana Constitution, in fact. (I know you know this, Hough, the comment is to everyone, backing up your post)

Indiana Constitution
ARTICLE 12
Militia

Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.
(History: As Amended November 3, 1936; November 5, 1974).

Section 2. The Governor is Commander-in-Chief of the militia and other military forces of this state.
(History: As Amended November 5, 1974).

Section 3. There shall be an Adjutant General, who shall be appointed by the Governor.
(History: As Amended November 5, 1974).

Section 4. No person, conscientiously opposed to bearing arms, shall be compelled to do so in the militia.
(History: As Amended November 5, 1974).

Question for the attorneys, and really a matter of minutia more than militia: This was amended 11/5/74, but every time I've seen an act of the general assembly become effective, it's been either "immediately", if "an emergency has been declared for this act", or it's been July 1, and the legislators back home with their families in February or March. When did the date of effectiveness change, or if it did not, why the difference here?

Not tracking.

Everyone 17 and older in Indiana is in the militia.

The Second Amendment is a federal guarantee of the individual's right to arms. Has nothing to do with State militias.

Kirk, I think the comment is to the point that the fed gov is not respecting the 2A anymore, and that if the hag starts packing the Court, starting with Scalia's position, that "guarantee" will be much less respected. By the time anything got heard, there'd be a slew of new papers with the color of law that would have Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, and a few others grabbing rifles, were they still among us (and that's presuming they wouldn't have done so already.)

If the gun grabbers do try to reinterpret and say that the RKBA is only for the militia, stare decisis notwithstanding, that will be the only "cover" any of us have under the law.

As I recall, though, we have Title 10, identifying all between 17 and 45(?) as militia, federally, and here in Indiana, Art. 12, as noted above. Is that correct, obviously dependent upon the phrasing of the law, whenever it gets written?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[GIJEW]

It's even more important that Americans recognize and understand that they actually have rights.

Even the British subjects living in the British colonies here in America understood that.

Rulers may come and go, people in robes as well, but rights, along with the responsibilities of attending to their defense and security for our posterity, endure.

^^^THIS!!!^^^

maybe another possibility is that manufacturers might go "Ronnie Barrett" on the gov't and refuse to sell to them? Of course, the socialists in washington district of corruption would (will) just nationalize their assets.