Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More Gun control

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    More Gun control

    This may have been previously posted , but the 1st time I've seen it.
    I feel this will be the time in my life( 60 plus ) I would feel more vulnerable & need more protection.

    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."

    #2
    Unbelievable!!

    Comment


      #3
      so wrong in so many ways...

      Comment


        #4
        Snopes - False

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by SOLID EAGLE View Post
          Snopes - False
          x2

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by SOLID EAGLE View Post
            Snopes - False
            Whew! Thanks for looking into.

            Comment


              #7
              Too funny!!! Thanks Snopes..........again!

              Comment


                #8
                You left out the first line of the story that says, THIS IS SATIRE.

                Comment


                  #9
                  OK, so this particular incident is false, but is there truth to the executive order parts where it can be done and not be unconstitutional?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    per Wikipedia (sorry was lazy and it was easy to find, I know not the best source)

                    "To date, U.S. courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order, and a 1996 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the US government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll.[3] Congress may overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it or by refusing to approve funding to enforce it. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.[4]"

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Mike D View Post
                      is there truth to the executive order parts where it can be done and not be unconstitutional?
                      Not sure Mike...I'm thinking anything in the arena of gun control will fall under and/or be refered back to Heller which supports individual rights.


                      So, can an executive order to raise ammo tax be defended by Heller?? Are AR's and the like protected under Heller?? Some say yes like me and you and some say no like our new AG.....maybe more cases for the scotus at some point??

                      Just have to wait and see what the next move is and take it from there.

                      jmho...

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Upset

                        I will admit upfront, that I am biased. I am over 60, served two tours in Viet Nam and have been involved in Law Enforcement for nearly 30 years. I am not the best pistol shot in the world but I am willing to bet that I would be competitive with 95% of folks who have pistols, not just in accuracy but in determining if shooting is necessary. Of course if you have a mental disease or defect, gun ownership is not a good idea. However those defects cross all age lines. I will make the same statement concerning black guns. If me or my family is threatened with unjustified deadly force, I will terminate the threat with the least violence possible, then call for assistance. The call for assistance will be second not first.


                        Terry

                        Comment


                          #13
                          i wouldnt let anyone wearing a diaper carry a gun either!

                          Comment


                            #14
                            It may be satire, but it is not too far of a stretch to know that this kind of crap (for lack of a nicer word) has the potential to take place with the wacko that is in the white house and his lackies in congress.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Terry View Post
                              I will admit upfront, that I am biased. I am over 60, served two tours in Viet Nam and have been involved in Law Enforcement for nearly 30 years. I am not the best pistol shot in the world but I am willing to bet that I would be competitive with 95% of folks who have pistols, not just in accuracy but in determining if shooting is necessary. Of course if you have a mental disease or defect, gun ownership is not a good idea. However those defects cross all age lines. I will make the same statement concerning black guns. If me or my family is threatened with unjustified deadly force, I will terminate the threat with the least violence possible, then call for assistance. The call for assistance will be second not first.


                              Terry
                              Just have to tell you Terry Thank you for all you have done for our country both military and PD service. And I agree with you.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X