Free: Contests & Raffles.
(iii) a barrel shroud or (iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip,
I hope you're right, that something like this will never pass. But do not call the Brady bill a failure. The Brady Bill, or Crime Bill, was probably the greatest triumph of the anti gun group as we know it.
Lets not all run to the kitchen and make aluminum foil helmets just yet...
Quote from: Dave Stiles on May 31, 2009, 09:57:59 AMIt should make us fighting mad! We need to make it clear to our lawmakers in Washington and in Olympia and to the Executive branch and to the courts that these proposed flagrant violations to the 2nd Amendment will not be tolerated. We will not give up our gun rights under any circumstances. The can't arrest all of us; we are millions strong and we need to make our voices heard loudly and clearly; "Don't even think about taking away our right to bear arms." We can't just lie down and play dead like the British and Australians did. Let them know that if they try any of this nonsesne they will have a fight on their hands, the likes of which they have never seen before. It's time to get serious!Talk is cheap... what do you think is going to happen when a force comprised of your children, your cousins, nephews, neighbors kids, best friends kids show up to take your weapons? And oh by the way, they have you vastly outnumbered and at a technical dis-advantage. Are you going to start killing your friends, nephews, sons, daughters, etc.? I don't think so...it would be suicide to take on the best military force known to man let alone face your neighbors and family after you shot one of them. So go ahead and blow smoke up someone else's ass, I don't believe a word you say. Something needs to happen but attempting to resist our own armed forces is the stupidest thing yet. So it's time you get serious and figure out how you're going to fight them by yourself because if you point a gun at any of my family or friends then ......
It should make us fighting mad! We need to make it clear to our lawmakers in Washington and in Olympia and to the Executive branch and to the courts that these proposed flagrant violations to the 2nd Amendment will not be tolerated. We will not give up our gun rights under any circumstances. The can't arrest all of us; we are millions strong and we need to make our voices heard loudly and clearly; "Don't even think about taking away our right to bear arms." We can't just lie down and play dead like the British and Australians did. Let them know that if they try any of this nonsesne they will have a fight on their hands, the likes of which they have never seen before. It's time to get serious!
There is a law that the U.S government can not use the military against U.S. citizens. Can't remember what the law is called but I will see if I can find it. It is a really strange name.
Posse Comitatus Act
Quote from: Bigshooter on May 31, 2009, 07:05:50 PMPosse Comitatus ActUnless they declare Marshal Law... then see how long that act lasts.
But would National Guard fall under that since it is a state funded military? Just a thought
On September 26, 2006, President Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that U.S. armed forces could restore public order and enforce laws in the aftermath of a natural disaster, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on Oct 17, 2006, subsequently repealed in their entirety.[2]Section 1076 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies". It provided that:The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.[3]
There are a number of situations in which the Act does not apply. These include:National Guard units while under the authority of the governor of a state; Troops used under the order of the President of the United States pursuant to the Insurrection Act, as was the case during the 1992 Los Angeles Riots. Under 18 U.S.C. § 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if civilian law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threats involving the release of nuclear materials, such as potential use of a nuclear or radiological weapon. Such assistance may be by any personnel under the authority of the Department of Defense, provided such assistance does not adversely affect U.S. military preparedness.
