In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Obama--Guns to be banned for elderly?
bnailon
Member Posts: 460 ✭✭✭
Received this today. Anybody heard anything about this? Nothing on SNOPES.com. If this is true, mayhem will occur...
Guns to Be Banned for Elderly
Staff Reports
United Press International
Washington
Deputy Attorney General Designate David Ogden is circulating a draft of an executive order in which, among other things, firearms possession would be severely limited to people over 60.
An assistant to Ogden told us, "It appears that in these changing times, it is no longer necessary to allow the elderly to be armed. With all of their physical ailments and increasing senility, to leave them in control of a deadly weapon would be ludicrous."
While the Executive Order may sound too powerful, experts in Constitutional law state that it is not actually un-Constitutional.
"It's a question of wording." states Columbia Law Professor, Dr. John Braxton. "The Constitution forbids the Congress, that is, the legislative branch, from passing any laws infringing on gun ownership. The executive branch is not included in this proviso. As long as the Congress doesn't get involved, it's technically a non-issue."
The Justice Department was tossing the idea of a gun ban for seniors during the Carter and Clinton Administration, but public opinion stopped these initiatives. Now, the Obama White House believes differently.
An unnamed aide close to Ogden agreed to talk on the condition of anonymity.
"Clinton and Carter didn't have as much of a mandate as President Obama. They were both Southerners, and the Second Amendment was sacrosanct to their constituents. However, President Obama comes from a new sort of politics, where divisive issues like firearms do not apply to him."
"Quite frankly, it's a shame that no one has had the good conscience to have done this already. It's a simple process, and the majority of the American people will understand it and follow the law."
The enforcement mechanism for this particular executive order has not been published. It is likely that the confiscation of weapons will be similar to Great Britain's handgun ban, in which citizens willingly gave the weapons to police.
It is expected that the executive order will be given around July 1, when senior-related gun deaths reach their peaks.
The aide to Ogden stated: "For eight years you see the rolling back of regulation, and crime has skyrocketed. In fact, in Massachusetts alone, murders have risen 50% since 2002. Armed robbery has also risen dramatically. With such circumstances, we must act boldly."
Guns to Be Banned for Elderly
Staff Reports
United Press International
Washington
Deputy Attorney General Designate David Ogden is circulating a draft of an executive order in which, among other things, firearms possession would be severely limited to people over 60.
An assistant to Ogden told us, "It appears that in these changing times, it is no longer necessary to allow the elderly to be armed. With all of their physical ailments and increasing senility, to leave them in control of a deadly weapon would be ludicrous."
While the Executive Order may sound too powerful, experts in Constitutional law state that it is not actually un-Constitutional.
"It's a question of wording." states Columbia Law Professor, Dr. John Braxton. "The Constitution forbids the Congress, that is, the legislative branch, from passing any laws infringing on gun ownership. The executive branch is not included in this proviso. As long as the Congress doesn't get involved, it's technically a non-issue."
The Justice Department was tossing the idea of a gun ban for seniors during the Carter and Clinton Administration, but public opinion stopped these initiatives. Now, the Obama White House believes differently.
An unnamed aide close to Ogden agreed to talk on the condition of anonymity.
"Clinton and Carter didn't have as much of a mandate as President Obama. They were both Southerners, and the Second Amendment was sacrosanct to their constituents. However, President Obama comes from a new sort of politics, where divisive issues like firearms do not apply to him."
"Quite frankly, it's a shame that no one has had the good conscience to have done this already. It's a simple process, and the majority of the American people will understand it and follow the law."
The enforcement mechanism for this particular executive order has not been published. It is likely that the confiscation of weapons will be similar to Great Britain's handgun ban, in which citizens willingly gave the weapons to police.
It is expected that the executive order will be given around July 1, when senior-related gun deaths reach their peaks.
The aide to Ogden stated: "For eight years you see the rolling back of regulation, and crime has skyrocketed. In fact, in Massachusetts alone, murders have risen 50% since 2002. Armed robbery has also risen dramatically. With such circumstances, we must act boldly."
Comments
Like Hell! They can piss up a rope![:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!]
quote:The aide to Ogden stated: "For eight years you see the rolling back of regulation, and crime has skyrocketed. In fact, in Massachusetts alone, murders have risen 50% since 2002. Armed robbery has also risen dramatically. With such circumstances, we must act boldly."
It's ALWAYS about people control. They can "F" off![:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!]
The 'greatest generation'..cowards all..are responsible for the gun laws we suffer under today.
Disarming them seems...fitting, somehow.
Regardless, the gubmint is NOT going to disarm my loved ones any more than they will me. End of story!
Right there, JP, is the answer to your question. This guy is CONVINCED that the problem is 'this adminstration'...not his actions in electihg the LAST ten administrations.
The brain-dead utter stupes that have election after election after election put into office slime bags that work tirelessly to dismantle this Republic NEED to step forward and take responsibility for their failure to defend America against usurpation.
SOME of us were on the wall in the seventies...SCREAMING the alert.
We were hated...FAR worse then today..when only the terminally STUPID still believe in the political system.
I am in that age group.
I will NOT OBEY.
I don't expect much help from the cowards of the 'greatest generation', however.
Calling the greatest generation cowards? I think there a few of those old mem who would dispute that fact. This is the worst comment I have ever seen on this forum. Where IS the moderator?
You ever HEARD of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, limited federal government ?
Pardon me while I puke....you and your silly nattering.
Each generation of `heroes' has spilt their blood on the uncaring sands and rotting jungle floors of far off lands `for American freedom'...only to come home to even LESS freedom them when they left.
Yet they settle down, quietly...and vote in yet MORE corruption...and spew their hatred and vitriolic bile at those pointing out that the Emperor HAS NO CLOTHES on....
You call it what you will.
I will call it what it is.
He has always said that his are not dangerous.
"It's a question of wording." states Columbia Law Professor, Dr. John Braxton. "The Constitution forbids the Congress, that is, the legislative branch, from passing any laws infringing on gun ownership. The executive branch is not included in this proviso. As long as the Congress doesn't get involved, it's technically a non-issue."
Dr. John Braxton has apparently applied the first 5 words of the 1st Amendment to the 2nd.
No, Mr. Braxton. The President or the individual states could initially have found ways to shut up the elderly, to control there writings and to keep them from assembling. They could never and cannot now (Constitutionally) disarm them. Something about the 'Right of the people...' as compared to 'Congress shall make no law.' Really makes one wonder what it takes to be a Law Professor at Columbia.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by bnailon
"It's a question of wording." states Columbia Law Professor, Dr. John Braxton. "The Constitution forbids the Congress, that is, the legislative branch, from passing any laws infringing on gun ownership. The executive branch is not included in this proviso. As long as the Congress doesn't get involved, it's technically a non-issue."
Dr. John Braxton has apparently applied the first 5 words of the 1st Amendment to the 2nd.
No, Mr. Braxton. The President or the individual states could initially have found ways to shut up the elderly, to control there writings and to keep them from assembling. They could never and cannot now (Constitutionally) disarm them. Something about the 'Right of the people...' as compared to 'Congress shall make no law.' Really makes one wonder what it takes to be a Law Professor at Columbia.
Apparently very little.[xx(]
Good.
The 'greatest generation'..cowards all..are responsible for the gun laws we suffer under today.
Disarming them seems...fitting, somehow.
Sure, in your twisted mind "each and everyone" of that generation are cowards and responsible for bad gun laws. Only a nut job would convict an entire generation of people for ANY crime. Wonder if your clan of * will all agree with you or for once make their own decision?
An assistant to Ogden told us, "It appears that in these changing times, it is no longer necessary to allow the elderly to be armed. With all of their physical ailments and increasing senility, to leave them in control of a deadly weapon would be ludicrous."
No, the definition of ludicrous is believing that our government has our best interests at heart, and will do evrything they can to ensure the furtherance of liberty.
While the Executive Order may sound too powerful, experts in Constitutional law state that it is not actually un-Constitutional.
'Experts', huh? Looks as though the 'experts' need some remedial training. Of course, 'shall not be infringed' is rather simple to understand. As I have stated before, it is not that these folks do not comprehend the words of the 2nd; they just do not accept them.
"It's a question of wording." states Columbia Law Professor, Dr. John Braxton.
Once again, it's not the words that are the problem; it is acceptance of the meaning of those words.
"The Constitution forbids the Congress, that is, the legislative branch, from passing any laws infringing on gun ownership. The executive branch is not included in this proviso."
Wrong. The Constitution forbids the infringement of the people's RTKBA, period, by any individual, organization, entity, etc.
"As long as the Congress doesn't get involved, it's technically a non-issue."
Technically, since this proposed legislation is unconstitutional, it is technically a non-issue, technically null and void, and I will technically disregard it.
The Justice Department was tossing the idea of a gun ban for seniors during the Carter and Clinton Administration, but public opinion stopped these initiatives. Now, the Obama White House believes differently.
An unnamed aide close to Ogden agreed to talk on the condition of anonymity.
"Clinton and Carter didn't have as much of a mandate as President Obama. They were both Southerners, and the Second Amendment was sacrosanct to their constituents. However, President Obama comes from a new sort of politics, where divisive issues like firearms do not apply to him."
Interpretation: We abhor what the Founders wrote, we do not respect the Constitution, and we will use executive orders to accomplaish what we can't get done through the Congress. In short, we will do whatever the hell we feel like doing.
Got news for you *. So will I.
"Quite frankly, it's a shame that no one has had the good conscience to have done this already. It's a simple process, and the majority of the American people will understand it and follow the law."
Probably true. However, there exists a small minority that will not, and that small, overlooked minority will make the difference. Cornwallis would agree.
The enforcement mechanism for this particular executive order has not been published. It is likely that the confiscation of weapons will be similar to Great Britain's handgun ban, in which citizens willingly gave the weapons to police.
This isn't Great Britain.
It is expected that the executive order will be given around July 1, when senior-related gun deaths reach their peaks.
The aide to Ogden stated: "For eight years you see the rolling back of regulation, and crime has skyrocketed. In fact, in Massachusetts alone, murders have risen 50% since 2002. Armed robbery has also risen dramatically. With such circumstances, we must act boldly."
'Boldly'? Trampling the rights of the people via executive order is an underhanded, schit-* way of doing things. 'Cowardly' would better describe their actions.
The Constitution and the men who wrote it were quite clear. I intend on freely exercising my RTKBA. Period.
The MEN of that generation..over 60... WILL NOT COMPLY. The pzant cowards...what age are you, tr ? will turn their guns over.
See how really simple it all is...if you have even a tiny functioning brain ?