There isn't any reason to suspect that the federal supreme court justices are dim-witted. Given the fact that the vast majority of those who engage in "gun trafficking" desire to keep their merchandise and dealings off the grid, and given the fact that only complete morons would use their own registered "guns" to engage in illicit activities, "gun" registrations cannot, and will not, ever, curb "gun" "trafficking" and commission of illicit acts, not unless the vast majority of us are turned into complete morons. One must consider, therefore, that an alterior motive for forcing "gun" registration exists among the majority of those who have facilitated the "laws" pertaining to gun registration. We all know, or should know, that the NWO seeks comprehensive record of "gun" ownership in the states, as well as worldwide. We all know, or should know, that the states are one of the few places in the world where a great many of the people possess "guns," and thus is one of the few places in the world which has not been successfully subjected to overt hostile invasion. The states also are one of the few places in the world where those individuals who comprise the government have had to tread carefully to avoid pissing off the people to the extent of widespread open rebellion. That is not to say that our government has not tread upon us, because it has and continues to, but it has had to do so at such a slow pace that the conquering and enslavement of We The People has taken more than 200 years and has yet to reach its climax. That being said, make no mistake people, that climax is drawing near. If you want to register your pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc, do so; but remember, the right to bear arms, a natural right that was explicitly stated in the Constitution's Amendments, as opposed to a civil right granted by the Constitution's Amendments, shall not be infringed upon, whether that infringement takes the form of forced fees or other expenses, forced classes, or forced geographical limitation on these lands of ours. Any such infringement, without your consent, constitutes violation of the Constitution, which is a capital crime. Yet, particularly in and around DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, those who purportedly are entrusted with upholding the Constitution and its amendments wish all of us to come to believe that "there's nothing to see here, nothing at all," and that this all is for public safety. Might it be the case that, in the one place where the greatest concentration of criminals, at the highest levels, the only safety on the minds of these Justices is the safety of themselves and their compadres sitting in those plush offices off Pennsylvania Avenue as they all look out and see the faces of the oppressed glaring back at them?
Note on wordplay for those who aren't aware: Guns refer to naval guns, mounted on naval ships. Pistols, revolvers, rifles and shotguns all are small arms, not guns. None of these are firearms, for firearms were quite specifically and narrowly defined, such as a "sawed-off shotgun," not to be confused with the non-firearm version, a shotgun which hasn't been sawed off. For any of these to be identified as a weapon, the particular item must have been used in the commission of a bona fide crime. None of these "gun laws" can be applied lawfully to small arms, for the simple, pure, utter fact that a gun is a gun and a small arm is a small arm, and to equate the two is to equate apples to dirt. There is a distinction, and the failure to learn that distinction very well may land you in jail. For those who would intentionally blur the definitions for personal gain, you will reap what you sow, and harvest time is approaching.
Take that as food for thought, and note that while great sweeping change is needed across this land, we're more likely to accomplish it in a relatively safe manner by joining hands and physically passing through each village, town, city as one solid mass of people, sweeping our oppressors out of their hideyholes as we proceed, banning them from ever returning, rather than taking lives, and leaving those clean-swept public offices staffed with newly elected officials, chosen from our own ranks, until such time that each community can implement the desired changes and call for formal elections from which the chosen can and will be held accountable for their actions in office once sworn in.
Commentary by FreeDom,
Acting Administrator
Nesaranews
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/18/federal-court-strikes-down-some-dc-gun-laws-as-unconstitutional/
Federal court strikes down some D.C. gun laws as unconstitutional
In a mixed decision, a federal appeals court on Friday struck down as unconstitutional several strict gun registration laws in the nation's capital, but upheld other restrictions aimed at public safety.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that the city cannot ban gun owners from registering more than one pistol per month or require owners to re-register a gun every three years. The court also invalidated requirements that owners make a personal appearance to register a gun and pass a test about firearms laws.
But the court upheld other parts of the law, such as requiring that so-called long guns -- including rifles and shotguns -- be registered along with handguns. The ruling also allows gun owners to be fingerprinted and photographed, pay certain fees and complete a firearms safety training course.
In all, the court upheld six gun laws and struck down four.
The District of Columbia put the registration laws in place after a landmark 2008 Supreme Court decision that struck down a 32-year-old handgun ban in the District of Columbia. The high court ruled in that case the Second Amendment protects handgun possession for self-defense in the home.
A federal judge had previously upheld all the new registration laws.
District of Columbia officials argued that the laws were aimed at preserving gun owners' constitutional rights while also protecting the community from gun violence.
But writing for the appeals court majority, Judge Douglas Ginsburg said some of the laws did not pass constitutional muster. He rejected, for example, the city's argument that the one-pistol-per-month rule would reduce illegal trafficking in weapons.
"The suggestion that a gun trafficker would bring fewer guns into the District because he could not register more than one per month there lacks the support of experience and of common sense," Ginsburg said.
Ginsburg, who was appointed by President Ronald Regan, was joined by Judge Patricia Millett, an appointee of President Barack Obama.
Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, named to the court President George H. W. Bush, dissented in part, saying she would have upheld all the registration laws. She said the majority should have shown more deference to public officials trying to create a workable firearms policy.
Henderson noted that Washington is different from other jurisdictions given the "unique security risks" in a city filled with high-level government officials, diplomats, monuments and government buildings that ban guns.
Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser said she was not surprised by the decision after she was informed of the ruling during a radio interview.
"Our gun laws have been under attack for many years," Bowser said. "We obviously disagree."
Bowser, a Democrat, said the District of Columbia Council should be free to pass laws with "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership in their city.
Only six states and the District require gun owners to register some or all firearms, according to the San Francisco-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The District is one of only a few places -- including Hawaii and California -- that also have registration requirements for rifles and shotguns.
Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA Law School, said that while the ruling may be a setback for the District it shows that courts are willing to uphold some restrictions on gun owners that enhance public safety.
"This decision leaves little doubt that gun registration is constitutionally permissible," Winkler said. "States that want to require gun owners to register their guns will be buoyed by this decision."
Winkler said it may be the final ruling on Washington's gun laws because the Supreme Court has shown little interest in taking up gun cases over the past few years.
The latest lawsuit was brought by Dick Heller, the same man who challenged the city's handgun ban and won before the U.S. Supreme Court.
It was the second time the appeals court had considered the registration laws. In 2011, the court upheld the constitutionality of the basic registration requirement for handguns, but sent the case back to a lower court so city officials could explain why the various other restrictions were necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment