# The Coming National Gun Ban – and How the States Can Resist



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

We all know that a perfect storm of evil would allow a gun control bill like H.R. 4269 (already in the wings) to get passed. Interesting solution proposed by the author of making all citizens in a state a part of the militia if the militia clause is used as the basis for banning.



> The legislation has already been written. H.R. 4269 would enact a national, permanent ban on the manufacture and sale of so-called "assault weapons" and all firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The bill, introduced last December, already has149 Democratic co-sponsors (218 are needed to pass the House).
> 
> H.R. 4269 would ban all AR-15 and AK-type rifles and all civilian versions of military rifles produced anywhere in the word within the past 60 years or so. The bill would also ban all parts kits, stripped receivers, "bump-fire" stocks, thumbhole stocks, trigger cranks, so-called "compliant" rifles, and "any&#8230; characteristic that can function as a [pistol] grip." Law enforcement is exempt from the bill's provisions.
> 
> H.R. 4269 is not a "kick down the door and confiscate 'em" bill. Existing rifles and magazines are "grandfathered" (but the transfer of existing magazines is permanently prohibited). Gun banners know that it is literally impossible to perform a door-to-door gun confiscation in a nation of 300 million people, and that any attempt to do so would certainly be met with violence. Consequently, they have pre-empted the "Come and take it" crowd by employing a long-term strategy. Once the manufacture and sale of certain weapons is prohibited, it is only a matter of time before the legislation would be amended to outlaw the transfer of "grandfathered" rifles as well as magazines, thus enacting a de facto confiscation within a generation.


Articles: The Coming National Gun Ban ? and How the States Can Resist


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

*"Once the manufacture and sale of certain weapons is prohibited, it is only a matter of time before the legislation would be amended to outlaw the transfer of "grandfathered" rifles as well as magazines, thus enacting a de facto confiscation within a generation..."*

With the simultaneous 'education' of the young people in the government schools, and the demonizing of firearms by the media, this is a very powerful attack. It has a good chance of success.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

sideKahr said:


> *"Once the manufacture and sale of certain weapons is prohibited, it is only a matter of time before the legislation would be amended to outlaw the transfer of "grandfathered" rifles as well as magazines, thus enacting a de facto confiscation within a generation..."*
> 
> With the simultaneous 'education' of the young people in the government schools, and the demonizing of firearms by the media, this is a very powerful attack. It has a good chance of success.


Pretty clear to me that the powers that be, left and at least some right, really do want to push it to violence.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

what a joke .... if Hellery can sign an EO banning private gun ownership - abolishing 3-4 of the basic rights in one swoop - the SC backs her up - you REALLY think some lame azz "tricks" would be allowed? .... 

just about as naive as it gets ....


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Illini Warrior said:


> what a joke .... if Hellery can sign an EO banning private gun ownership - abolishing 3-4 of the basic rights in one swoop - the SC backs her up - you REALLY think some lame azz "tricks" would be allowed? ....
> 
> just about as naive as it gets ....


"Be Allowed?" I get what you mean, but the thought was interesting. I think that HRC would push at least some to the point of acting out.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

RedLion said:


> "Be Allowed?" I get what you mean, but the thought was interesting. I think that HRC would push at least some to the point of acting out.


I agree. Texas: first use of force. Utah: first economic action.

New York and California: first tongues to come out near the 'Queen of the Flies' boots.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

sideKahr said:


> I agree. Texas: first use of force. Utah: first economic action.
> 
> New York and California: first tongues to come out near the 'Queen of the Flies' boots.


I think that you will find folks taking action across the nation in one form or another. I could not in good conscience leave my Daughters with a country stripping citizens of basic freedoms.


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

Illini Warrior said:


> what a joke .... if Hellery can sign an EO banning private gun ownership - abolishing 3-4 of the basic rights in one swoop - the SC backs her up - you REALLY think some lame azz "tricks" would be allowed? ....
> 
> just about as naive as it gets ....


 CA needs 365K gun owners out of 8M to sign a petition to get the new anti guns on a ballot and possibly blocked. Only 120K step up and support it. So the Governor signs them into law. Thinking enough people will actually do anything to stop the gun bans, now that's naive.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Chipper said:


> CA needs 365K gun owners out of 8M to sign a petition to get the new anti guns on a ballot and possibly blocked. Only 120K step up and support it. So the Governor signs them into law. Thinking enough people will actually do anything to stop the gun bans, now that's naive.


To be fair, comparing CA to any other state is a stretch.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Chipper said:


> CA needs 365K gun owners out of 8M to sign a petition to get the new anti guns on a ballot and possibly blocked. Only 120K step up and support it. So the Governor signs them into law. Thinking enough people will actually do anything to stop the gun bans, now that's naive.


Don't you think CA is a special case? I don't judge the rest of the country by their actions.


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

The point is only 120K out of 8m would take the time to even sign a paper. Let alone take the next step and take up arms and put their lives and liberty on the line. I'm guessing the numbers will be a lot smaller across the country when SHTF.

Here's a link to the bill from the NRA back in 2015.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...-and-magazine-ban-in-house-of-representatives


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Chipper said:


> The point is only 120K out of 8m would take the time to even sign a paper. Let alone take the next step and take up arms and put their lives and liberty on the line. I'm guessing the numbers will be a lot smaller across the country when SHTF.
> 
> Here's a link to the bill from the NRA back in 2015.
> https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...-and-magazine-ban-in-house-of-representatives


I get your point and it is truly a travesty.


----------



## Targetshooter (Dec 4, 2015)

Lets think here for a min. , do you all really think that " The US people " gun owners " will let this happen " ? Hell no . I think that the lefties are just trying to push buttons before November 8 th.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

RedLion said:


> To be fair, comparing CA to any other state is a stretch.





sideKahr said:


> Don't you think CA is a special case? I don't judge the rest of the country by their actions.


Many other states/cities (NJ, CT, RI, NY-NYC, IL-Chicago, MA, MD, PA, HI etc) have heinous anti-2A laws approaching the idiocy of CA.

It has been documented time and time again, WE The People vote for Regulation/Security over Freedom.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Chipper said:


> The point is only 120K out of 8m would take the time to even sign a paper. Let alone take the next step and take up arms and put their lives and liberty on the line. I'm guessing the numbers will be a lot smaller across the country when SHTF.


One can only assume that, in general, people in California are indifferent to or just don't like guns. That's their right, I guess.

That bill would not have passed in Pennsylvania. As far as the nation in general being apathetic to the 2nd A, look at the huge gun sales figures and unprecedented numbers of carry permits being issued. Apples and oranges.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Slippy said:


> Many other states/cities (NJ, CT, RI, NY-NYC, IL-Chicago, MA, MD, PA, HI etc) have heinous anti-2A laws approaching the idiocy of CA.


Slippy, I'm not aware of any heinous anti-2A laws in my state of Pennsylvania. Our state constitution contains its own version of the 2nd A. We have open carry without permit. 'No Gun' signs carry no force of law. We're very pro gun freedom here.

Perhaps you're referring to the city of Philadelphia, where there is no open carry without a carry permit.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

sideKahr said:


> One can only assume that, in general, people in California are indifferent to or just don't like guns. That's their right, I guess.
> 
> That bill would not have passed in Pennsylvania. As far as the nation in general being apathetic to the 2nd A, look at the huge gun sales figures and unprecedented numbers of carry permits being issued. Apples and oranges.


It is no secret that a significant majority of Americans support gun ownership and conceal carry. That is a major reason that Clinton and the Dems are hush hush on the topic this election cycle, as gun control is not the winning side of the fight.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

sideKahr said:


> Slippy, I'm not aware of any heinous anti-2A laws in my state of Pennsylvania. Our state constitution contains its own version of the 2nd A. We have open carry without permit. We're pro gun freedom here.


Sadly, PA is "mostly" a Pro 2A state.

A few points;

Can a PA citizen legally sell a handgun that he owns to another citizen or does he need to get "permission" from an FFL or the local Sheriff and pay a "permission fee" to the state?

Can a citizen transport a firearm in a vehicle without a "permission slip" from the state? And can they transfer the firearm loaded?

Does the state of PA recognize US citizens from other states right to carry a firearm in PA?

The answer to all three of these scenarios above show that PA, while not as bad as CA or NJ, does have restrictions on their citizens to "bear arms."

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/pennsylvania/


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Slippy said:


> Sadly, PA is "mostly" a Pro 2A state.
> 
> A few points;
> 
> ...


1. To sell a handgun in PA, the buyer needs to pass the insta-check, the same as anyone else. I've sold handguns without hassle. No restrictions on long guns.

2. Sure we can transport firearms in a vehicle; I've had Troopers check out my shotgun through the rear window without a word said. If you want to carry a loaded pistol in a car, you need a carry permit because that is concealing a firearm.

3. Yes, carry permits from many other states are recognized here.

I think I see what you're getting at. No, we don't have complete, '1790's on the frontier' gun freedom. Who does? But our laws seem quite commonsense, and are far from heinous. We try to keep guns out of the possession of criminals and the insane, while allowing maximum freedom for hunting, sport, and self defense. What's wrong with that?


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

My two cents on gun freedoms in MN. We do not need to complete any sort of background check to privately sell to another person. Personally I would only sell to folks I know well. Unless you have a permit to carry, then all firearms are to be in the trunk and unloaded. Permits from other states are recognized, but not most.
We do not have a lot of legal restrictions on where you can carry. You can carry everywhere in MN other than on federal property (hunting not included), in court rooms, jails and prisons, inside of schools (you can possess on school grounds) and not in the Capital Building unless you have notified the Highway Patrol of intentions to carry in said building. Otherwise you can carry anywhere, including businesses that post no carry.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

RedLion said:


> My two cents on gun freedoms in MN. We do not need to complete any sort of background check to privately sell to another person. Personally I would only sell to folks I know well. Unless you have a permit to carry, then all firearms are to be in the trunk and unloaded. Permits from other states are recognized, but not most.
> We do not have a lot of legal restrictions on where you can carry. You can carry everywhere in MN other than on federal property (hunting not included), in court rooms, jails and prisons, inside of schools (you can possess on school grounds) and not in the Capital Building unless you have notified the Highway Patrol of intentions to carry in said building. Otherwise you can carry anywhere, including businesses that post no carry.


Yep. Not complete, wild-west freedom. But I could live with that.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Pa does have an instant check and supposedly data such as name, social security number, gun type, caliber and serial number are deleted in 72 hrs. However, law enforcement in the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania keep an illegal data base that can be rummaged through from a squad car. The existence of which is deneighed. The exception with checks for handguns is gifting an immediate family member. As long as sale of a rifle or shot gun is to a citizen of Pa and you have no reason to believe that the possession of such firearm by that person is illegal, private sales and transfers are legal. Philadelphia battles the state government to be more like New Jersey.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

sideKahr said:


> 1. To sell a handgun in PA, the buyer needs to pass the insta-check, the same as anyone else. I've sold handguns without hassle. No restrictions on long guns.
> 
> 2. Sure we can transport firearms in a vehicle; I've had Troopers check out my shotgun through the rear window without a word said. If you want to carry a loaded pistol in a car, you need a carry permit because that is concealing a firearm.
> 
> ...


Not diggin' at you SK, you and I are on on the same page but you've proven my point,

I believe it to be "heinous" that any government would usurp and regulate the private sale of a Product (a handgun in this case) through an unconstitutional act called "insta-check".. That goes against any and all freedoms associated with Property Rights. I also find it a heinous that any government would attempt to regulate the transfer of a legal Product (in this case a firearm). Loaded or not, it is regulation by threat of conviction.

I also find it heinous that a state government would not recognize ALL the citizens of the US the right to keep and bear arms without a Permission slip and a tax from the government to buy the permission slip.

"Common Sense" is another term for what I mentioned earlier in this thread. WE the people vote for regulations/security before rights.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

The do it right now progressive mellenial won't wait a generation. 3-4 years later there will be an offer of a tax break for turning them in with lots of Hollywood elites showing everyone how easy it is and what a break you get. In 4-5 years they'll announce the breaks about to end so act now, and many will. In a decade they'll wipe out 75-90% of the privately owned firearms owners. The remaining 10-25% is no serious voting block, so it will be easy to tax them. They will start with added insurance requirements then out right registration/ taxing fees. Within 20 years total time gun ownership will be among the elites and the few hold outs and they will be marginalized in grotesque fashion.



sideKahr said:


> *"Once the manufacture and sale of certain weapons is prohibited, it is only a matter of time before the legislation would be amended to outlaw the transfer of "grandfathered" rifles as well as magazines, thus enacting a de facto confiscation within a generation..."*
> 
> With the simultaneous 'education' of the young people in the government schools, and the demonizing of firearms by the media, this is a very powerful attack. It has a good chance of success.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

Would you be ok with a voluntary insta check? I personally don't want to hand my firearm over to a crazy killer who pretends well to be normal? Also if a voluntary check was done the seller should be absolved of any liability for the actions of thr buyer. If you choose not to check out a buyer I think you own their actions.



Slippy said:


> Not diggin' at you SK, you and I are on on the same page but you've proven my point,
> 
> I believe it to be "heinous" that any government would usurp and regulate the private sale of a Product (a handgun in this case) through an unconstitutional act called "insta-check".. That goes against any and all freedoms associated with Property Rights. I also find it a heinous that any government would attempt to regulate the transfer of a legal Product (in this case a firearm). Loaded or not, it is regulation by threat of conviction.
> 
> ...


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Slippy said:


> Not diggin' at you SK, you and I are on on the same page but you've proven my point,
> 
> I believe it to be "heinous" that any government would usurp and regulate the private sale of a Product (a handgun in this case) through an unconstitutional act called "insta-check".. That goes against any and all freedoms associated with Property Rights. I also find it a heinous that any government would attempt to regulate the transfer of a legal Product (in this case a firearm).


Fair enough. Any restriction is a restriction, and to a purist is undesirable. I guess I see it differently, to me some restrictions are desirable.

In the preamble, the founders stated why they had acted as they did, and one of their goals was "to promote the general welfare". A box of dynamite is a legal product. If you quarry limestone, it's just your private property. It's sale is restricted and tracked to make sure it doesn't fall into the hands of those benighted souls who would do us harm. It's taxed partly to pay for the overhead of that program. That is promoting the general welfare. Surely you don't want some ding-dong picking up a few loosies of 40% at the convenience store?


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

I am not ok with anything more.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

So if I borrow or buy your boat, go for a sail, kill some one and toss them into the bay you own my actions because you didn't run a check? How about I skip town after mailing a video of the event staring your boat and the body is found with the attached gps, you alone go to the big house?

I do not agree with that logic be it a car, boat, plane, gun or baseball bat. I also favor private ownership of stingers,laws, claymores and other basic infantry weapons. Perhaps that puts me out on a limb but that is my view of the 2nd.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

stowlin said:


> The do it right now progressive mellenial won't wait a generation. 3-4 years later there will be an offer of a tax break for turning them in with lots of Hollywood elites showing everyone how easy it is and what a break you get. In 4-5 years they'll announce the breaks about to end so act now, and many will. In a decade they'll wipe out 75-90% of the privately owned firearms owners. The remaining 10-25% is no serious voting block, so it will be easy to tax them. They will start with added insurance requirements then out right registration/ taxing fees. Within 20 years total time gun ownership will be among the elites and the few hold outs and they will be marginalized in grotesque fashion.


That view of one future US is a frightening one. It's also very possible.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

stowlin said:


> Would you be ok with a voluntary insta check? I personally don't want to hand my firearm over to a crazy killer who pretends well to be normal? Also if a voluntary check was done the seller should be absolved of any liability for the actions of thr buyer. If you choose not to check out a buyer I think you own their actions.


I don't own their actions, they own their actions. That's the problem with our society, no one takes personal responsibility anymore.

People have been murdered with ice picks, icicles, automobiles, rocks, sticks, knives, wrenches, candlesticks, pillows, ropes, chains, chainsaws etc, etc etc.

Many first time murderers are people who have never been arrested for anything ever, hence a background check would have come up negative on that person... then he goes and murders someone. You can't stop that with regulation.

Am I to get an insta-check on the guy who is buying my car? My chainsaw? My pillowcase?

This is insanity.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Slippy said:


> I don't own their actions, they own their actions. That's the problem with our society, no one takes personal responsibility anymore.
> 
> People have been murdered with ice picks, icicles, automobiles, rocks, sticks, knives, wrenches, candlesticks, pillows, ropes, chains, chainsaws etc, etc etc.
> 
> ...


I totally agree. I will also say that I am totally fed up with the insanity.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

So you want personal responsibility but would take none for putting a gun in their hands? Suggesting that people are murdered other ways is fine; but I'm asking if you had a reasonable ability to voluntarily check and be free of liability if that'd be fine. You may be fine if they go out and shoot up a school full of children but I'd like to see an instant background check and have the piece of mind knowing the gun I sold was sold to a responsible person and not a mentally ill man bent on mass murder.



Slippy said:


> I don't own their actions, they own their actions. That's the problem with our society, no one takes personal responsibility anymore.
> 
> People have been murdered with ice picks, icicles, automobiles, rocks, sticks, knives, wrenches, candlesticks, pillows, ropes, chains, chainsaws etc, etc etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

stowlin said:


> So you want personal responsibility but would take none for putting a gun in their hands? Suggesting that people are murdered other ways is fine; but I'm asking if you had a reasonable ability to voluntarily check and be free of liability if that'd be fine. You may be fine if they go out and shoot up a school full of children but I'd like to see an instant background check and have the piece of mind knowing the gun I sold was sold to a responsible person and not a mentally ill man bent on mass murder.


Correct. I am not responsible for someone else going out and committing murder. Again, if someone buys a car from me and gets drunk and kills 3 children with that automobile, I am not responsible.

If someone buys a gun from me and kills 3 children with that gun, the killer is responsible, not the seller of the gun. If I sell someone a hammer and that person kills a baby with that hammer, I am not responsible...etc etc etc

Why is this so hard to understand?


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

Well for me its pretty simple. If you sold a car to someone who didn't have insurance, didn't license it, didn't have a license you should be responsible for not making sure. The same holds true to me for a gun. If I sell a gun I sure as hell want to make sure they aren't a deranged person ready to kill others with the device I just gave them - be it a gun or a car. I don't think it should be mandatory but I should have the option to do so if I like.



Slippy said:


> Correct. I am not responsible for someone else going out and committing murder. Again, if someone buys a car from me and gets drunk and kills 3 children with that automobile, I am not responsible.
> 
> If someone buys a gun from me and kills 3 children with that gun, the killer is responsible, not the seller of the gun. If I sell someone a hammer and that person kills a baby with that hammer, I am not responsible...etc etc etc
> 
> Why is this so hard to understand?


----------



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

So if I sell duct tape to a fellow in the hardware store, and a treat later he uses some of that duct tape to restrain an 11 year old boy who is subsequently raped, I'm responsible for the rape?
That's like saying its Naires fault if I burn my balls. PLEASE.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

jim-henscheli said:


> So if I sell duct tape to a fellow in the hardware store, and a treat later he uses some of that duct tape to restrain an 11 year old boy who is subsequently raped, I'm responsible for the rape?
> That's like saying its Naires fault if I burn my balls. PLEASE.


If you can't comprehend the difference between duct tape and 9mm semi automatic then I am guessing you can't gather that I'd like to make it an OPTION for me to get a check on anyone I MIGHT sell a gun too. Now if you want to sell guns, duct tape, and cars to people that hurt other people and don't bother feeling an ounce of responsibility I'm good with that - just don't blame me if today's lawyers don't take everything you own, and this government doesn't lock you up for not availing yourself the option.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

sideKahr said:


> *"Once the manufacture and sale of certain weapons is prohibited, it is only a matter of time before the legislation would be amended to outlaw the transfer of "grandfathered" rifles as well as magazines, thus enacting a de facto confiscation within a generation..."*
> 
> With the simultaneous 'education' of the young people in the government schools, and the demonizing of firearms by the media, this is a very powerful attack. It has a good chance of success.


Kids and the new generation will be brain washed into turning in people that have these so called prohibited firearms related material. They will turn the young against the old. If you see the video where eric holder is talking about educating and brain washing the young against guns.


----------



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

If you can't comprehend the difference between duct tape and 9mm semi automatic then I am guessing you can't gather that I'd like to make it an OPTION for me to get a check on anyone I MIGHT sell a gun too. Now if you want to sell guns, duct tape, and cars to people that hurt other people and don't bother feeling an ounce of responsibility I'm good with that - just don't blame me if today's lawyers don't take everything you own, and this government doesn't lock you up for not availing yourself the option.[/QUOTE]

I see the difference of course, the point is more that I would not ever feel the need to run a check, because I don't sell to random people. And even if I did, it's sort of like running a check on someone before you sell them a bike.
I would not run a background check on someone to whom I was selling a bicycle simply because there was the chance that they had a dui, and they may run someone down, on purpose with the bike. I sold it, it's not my problem. If someone acts sketchy I would(and have) not sell ANYTHING to them, not a block of cheese. But ultimately all I can do is size them up then and there and hope for the best.
The thinking behind background checks will eventually lead to calling the midwife to ask if there was anything strange about the delivery, before someone can buy a hammer. 
I get covering your butt, that's smart, I keep pictures of my friends ID with the bill of sale. But at some point, bringing in third and forth and fifth parties to a transaction between two people, you have to ask were it ends. JMO


----------



## Maol9 (Mar 20, 2015)

sideKahr said:


> ...I think I see what you're getting at. No, we don't have complete, '1790's on the frontier' gun freedom. Who does? But our laws seem quite commonsense, and are far from heinous. We try to keep guns out of the possession of criminals and the insane, while allowing maximum freedom for hunting, sport, and self defense. What's wrong with that?


Wyoming disagrees with PA and so do ME, MT, VT, WV, AK, AZ, KS,. All eight of those states believe your 2ndA is your firearm / concealed carry permit.

Re private sales: Current License or ID, and Voter Registration with a bill of sale should provide enough documentation to satisfy the law in most places. For instance; seller and purchaser must both be a resident of the state the sale takes place and neither can be a felon. Since Felons can't vote, a voters registration card proves your not a felon. That is what I would personally require. I just ain't in the selling mood...

However just watch, this will soon be what they will '*reasonably*' propose: Well now that Felons can vote... we can't have private sales... Besides how can we be sure people with Marijuana histories don't possess a firearm (since it's still a misdemeanor, they can vote) so we just can't have private sales... Pot users can't own a firearm under Federal Law.

I don't care, but those freedom loving heads might want to put down the joint; while with glazed bloodshot eyes they watch their rights go up in smoke...

It will go on and on and on...


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

She will use the "well regulated Militia" clause to "regulate" the crap out of us.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Slippy said:


> Many other states/cities (NJ, CT, RI, NY-NYC, IL-Chicago, MA, MD, PA, HI etc) have heinous anti-2A laws approaching the idiocy of CA.
> 
> It has been documented time and time again, WE The People vote for Regulation/Security over Freedom.


It is also well documented that the people take little notice of history. Foolish, foolish, sheeple.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

And here we are ....... right on schedule just as planned.



Prepared One said:


> It is also well documented that the people take little notice of history. Foolish, foolish, sheeple.
> 
> View attachment 26985


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

The only way to ban is a Amendment override. It wont happen. EO/EAs will just be taken to court and proven unconstitutional.


----------



## Maol9 (Mar 20, 2015)

csi-tech said:


> She will use the "well regulated Militia" clause to "regulate" the crap out of us.


Once again Wyoming is way ahead with this one...

Article 17 of the Wyoming Constitution consists of the five sections relating to the State Militia.

Article 17 of the Wyoming Constitution:

Section 1
Of Whom Militia Constituted
The militia of the state shall consist of all able-bodied qualified residents of the state, and those nonresidents who are accepted into service, between the ages of seventeen (17) and seventy (70) years; except those exempted by the law of the United States or of the state. But all residents having scruples of conscience averse to bearing arms shall be excused therefrom upon conditions as shall be prescribed by law.[1]

Section 2
Legislature to Provide for Enrollment, Equipment and Discipline
The legislature shall provide by law for the enrollment, equipment and discipline of the militia to conform as nearly as practicable to the regulations for the government of the armies of the United States.[1]

Section 3
How Officers Commissioned
All militia officers shall be commissioned by the governor, the manner of their selection to be provided by law, and may hold their commission for such period of time as the legislature may provide.[1]

Section 4
Flags
No military organization under the laws of the state shall carry any banner or flag representing any sect or society or the flag of any nationality but that of the United States.[1]

Section 5
Governor to Be Commander-in-Chief; Powers
The governor shall be commander-in-chief of all the military forces of the state, and shall have power to call out the militia to preserve the public peace, to execute the laws of the state, to suppress insurrection or repel invasion.[1]

No it's not perfect but it certainly is a hitch in their gettalong...


----------

