Interesting question for you all to ponder....
Someone who knows someone who knows someone called me today to pass along some rumors coming out of the Statehouse.
I was asked to put this before the Just.One.Person Nation for its response.
You know the drill: Read, ponder, reply (via e-mail or the comments section).
I will pass along the general consensus to people who know people who know people... You get the idea.
Sen. Ashford plans to introduce legislation requiring firearms be locked and stored, with penalties for firearms used by minors and also a 48-hour window in which stolen firearm must be reported.
The information passed to me says that there is talk of adding... wait for it... a ban on assault weapons.
And by assault weapons, I mean the ones that antis call assault weapons and not the select-fire rifles as defined by the Department of Defense.
OK, no surprise there.
Here’s the fun part, however.
As part of a compromise (Gunscribe’s FAVORITE word), the bill would also include complete pre-emption for CCW, full reciprocity (no details on what states), and the elimination of private businesses ability to post “no-guns” signs.
Oooohhhhhhh.....
So, the basic question before us is this: Are we willing to trade our ARs and AKs for near complete carry rights?
I have a firm opinion on this, but I don’t want to taint the reader.
I did, however, advise the friend of the friend of the friend of the friend that a LOT more information needs to be shared.
Such as:
- How is “assault weapon” defined?
- How complete is the reciprocity?
- What about all the banned places on the state list?
- By banned, do you mean no more sales or do you mean deliver to nearest police station?
So, that’s the issue, Freedom Fiends. Do you trade your AR for CCW? Do you tell the lawmakers to get bent and Molon Labe? What else do you need to know?
E-mail or comment back to me. Your comments will get to some ears that have some say. I will make my opinion known, but I need to hear from all of you first.
EDITED TO ADD: If you would, leaving you thoughts in the comments section is preferred as the powers that be tend to read this humble lil' blog (SiteMeter sees ALL!). Carry on.
Stay safe;
xxxJM24xxx
Friday, December 21, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
52 comments:
I do not trust him & no I will not give up my Ak
Not being a Nebraska resident, I really don't have anything to say that you need to care about, but since you asked . . .
I would tell them to get stuffed. The fact that they're willing to offer such a "compromise" indicates to me that they don't think they have the votes to pass such legislation without getting the pro-rights folks on board.
Alternatively, it could mean that they think you'll eventually be able to get what they're offering without their Faustian "bargain."
Either way (and even without knowing the details), it sounds like a lousy deal to me.
I'm in the "Hell No!" camp on this one. The things they are offering will eventually happen anyway. The things they are taking away violate your right to keep and bear arms.
Brass
I am in Washington state, so I don't have a dog in this fight, but my response is: molon labe.
Compromise with evil has only one result: evil. You may not be able to stop it, but that is no reason to ever give it any moral sanction by "agreeing" to a "compromise".
It's a good thing we don't have to trade our ARs and AKs for carry rights. Regardless of any "laws" that the authoriturds may or not pass, we already have the absolute right to own and to carry any type of weapon we want, wherever we go, in any way we see fit, without asking permission from anyone, ever. Tyrants may choose to violate our rights, but that does not change the fact that they exist.
After Sen. Ashford's "slight of hand" with LB97 that took a bill which was stated to "Repeal terminated provisions relating to settlement escrow funds" and amended into bill to add universities and hospitals to the list of locations that ban CCW, I have great difficulty trusting my District 20 representative.
Yes, a 'compromise' could be reached to give up 'assault weapons' for statewide CCW, but there is no guarantee that it simply will be undone in the future. (And yes, the only 'guarantee' of safety from our Representatives who call themselves 'Lawmakers' is when they are not in session!)
So I say, no compromise! No more bills to turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals.
As an aside, it is my also my opinion that LB97 is / was unconstitutional. Not on a Second Amendment basis (which seems to be infinitely arguable) but because the bill came into being in an manner which violated the Nebraska Constitution. (See my posting: http://p207.ezboard.com/fccwnebraskafrm8.showMessageRange?topicID=162.topic&start=1&stop=25)
Even though such a bill would benefit me, a Missouri resident;
Tell them to fold it until it's all sharp corners and stick it where the sun don't shine.
We need to take a page from the gunbanner's playbook and insist on a continual increase of our rights with no backsliding and no compromise.
Free Nebraska!
Joe
Wow. Is there precedent for a ban that doesn't allow grandfathering?
Terrible idea.
"Yeah. That sounds like a really good deal. But I got a better one. How about, I give you the finger... You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap. I know my rights."
My advice to all of the good folks in Nebraska (myself being a former one), run like hell on this one.
If this passes, the CCW provisions would most likely be challenged in court. I believe not allowing businesses to post would prove unconstitutional by violating private property rights. Then you're stuck with a scary rifle ban which could be much worse than the '94 ban (see California).
I have to agree that a private property owner has the right to ban firearms on their property, no matter how stupid of an idea it is.
Besides, I like using AR's and Mini-14's to deal with the coyotes on my family farm.
One other point, doesn't NE have one of the highest NFA ownership per capita rates in the US? What about those?
My advice to all of the voters in NE, write your legislator and state that any support for an AWB, no matter the compromises will cause them to immediatly lose your vote for any public office. I would NOT mention this rumor, but word it more generally.
I imagine there's enough pro-rights legislators to squash this pretty early, but a mailed letter reminding them of their constituancy's thoughts would help.
Μολὼν λαβέ
No, CCW preemption does not end the abuse by the City of Omaha (registration, restricted open carry, age restrictions, ect.) and other surrounding problems. We need complete premption. Ashfords's definition of CCW preemption is you can carry your gun in your car just so you follow his rules, not complete preemption. This is a lose, lose, lose deal. We already know how compromises work out look at LB97 where the compromise was OK you can have college campuses but not hospitals.
To quote "Μολὼν λαβέ"
The way I see it, people attempting to restrict our right to keep and bear arms are "freedom terrorists". No, they don't hijack planes... they hijack ideals. No, they don't terrorize with killing or threats of killing. They terrorize with OTHER PEOPLE'S killing through the misuse of firearms, and the THREAT of your own death at the hands of people who misuse firearms.
In short, they are no better than terrorists, so let's just call them what they are, eh?
And you don't NEGOTIATE with terrorists.
I've got a better idea - instead of infringing on the second amendment why don't we take a break and infringe on the first amendment for awhile. Start with prohibiting the media from popularizing the picture and name of a mass murderer right after a crime? In particular when the scumbag cites being "famous" as the primary motivation for his crime?
Gee, and now why is it you/anyone would choose to believe any of these lying, stealing bastards would EVER tell the truth or maintain ANY level of integrity with the lowly unwashed electrorate. Avoid this, and vote the ALL back to the farm!
First they came for the select-fire weapons, and I didn't worry, because I still had my AR.
Then they came for the ARs, and I didn't worry, because I still had my mini-14.
Next they came for the semi-auto rifles, and I didn't worry, because I still had my CCW...
...see where this is going? Anyone in the UK want to shed light on how compromises like this play out in the end?
i might consider trading a 1994-style AWB for Alaska-style CCW. consider, but most likely turn down.
No effing way.
No way, I own way too many "assault" weapons for just one CCW permit. There is no way in hell my tommy gun would ever be traded in, glad the anti's don't realize that will hold a 100rd drum. As Lincmerc said, what about the NFA guns that I own? just a little over 70yrs ago they took full auto weapons away now semi's? Kiss my ass gov't.
Give up my AR's and AK for a better CCW law?
Let me think about this for a minute.........
Uh, No thanks!
I'll stick with the affirmative defense clause of 28-1202 for my CCW law.
Maybe they should have a law making it illegal to randomly shoot people in shopping malls and other places.
Hell no. Compromise is for those who know they are likely to lose.
How's this for a compromise. The elected officials start honoring the rights of their citizens or they resign or get recalled?
Why has no one started a recall petition on this brain dead idiot.
Quoth:No, they don't terrorize with killing or threats of killing.
I don't know how to say it any plainer: the BATFE most definitely does terrorize with killing and threats of killing. When they come for your firearms, do you really think they are going to say "pretty please?"
What if I would want to CCW an AR pistol?
I think the "get stuffed" option fits best here.
What part of "Shall not be infringed" is so easily misunderstood?
A bit of (lukewarm) opposition to "assault weapon" bans from the governor?
NO WAY IN HELL!!
NO WAY IN HELL!!
NO WAY IN HELL!!
Do you hear me?
Damn gun-grabbers. There is a reason the national AWB was allowed to expire: it didn't work! Take a certain style of rifle away from me because some nut-job killed 8 people with one? What about all the people that get killed in automotive accidents? Maybe we should ban cars and trucks as well.
Good grief, don't do it!
I speculate the only reason this "compromise" is being offered, is because they realize where the momentum on this issue is going.
Look at the number have states that have loosened up on carry laws in the last 10 years.
Look at the posts above.
They're starting to realize, WE ARE WATCHING, AND WE VOTE.
No Compromise!
As I said on CCW Nebraska.
Compromises tend to lead to the loss of more of our rights than is justified. I personally think that we need to keep pressuring our representatives at the Local, State, and Federal level. Keep writing the letters and emails. Be polite and respectful while explaining the facts. There are enough sites out there that provide sample letters. You don't have to use them exactly as they are, use them for ideas of how to phrase your points while keeping your own identity.
Another thing a couple of us at my work are thinking about is taking a page from the latest NRA First Freedom magazine. It has an article in it about students that are protesting the loss of their basic right to protect themselves by CCW at colleges by going around with an empty holster where they are not allowed to carry. Just a thought.
I'm in Ohio, not NE, but my opinion is to run, not walk away from any possible "compromise" like this. 45superman makes great points.
Far too many people see the phrase "gun violence" and focus on the wrong word.
NO DEAL!
If it was really the violence that Ashford wanted to stop, he would propose a law that increased the penalty for using an "assault weapon" in the comission of a violent crime. Then he would ban the establishment of gun-free-zones, which have been proven time and again to attract criminals, terrorists and psychos.
"Anyone in the UK want to shed light on how compromises like this play out in the end?"
They don't. Your CCW card is nothing but a piece of paper after they've come for any hanguns, chemical agents and all types of tipped knifes.
Here's an idea though, why don't we start by allowing CCW everywhere except on federal property (excluding parks), this includes the nullification of gun -supposedly- free zones.
Give it a year, and see if we still need to ban "assault weapons".
The again, there's no real need to ban them now, but still ...
If they still insist on their old deal then, we revert to the situation before. If all is well, there'll be no difference, but there could also be an increased amount of shootings in the wake of the CCW repeal.
There's a tie/win situation right there!
The pro-"compromise" side seems to be doing rather poorly. According to my count, they appear to be losing 30 (or thereabouts) to . . . zero. Methinks it will take quite an impressive comeback for the "compromisers" to salvage this one.
I give the answer my Drill Sergeant (circa 1985) gave when he was MOST vehement in the negative:
" NO. Not only NO, But HELLLLLLL NO. And not ONLY HELL NO, but HELLLLL F***IN' NO! "
And his reply to someone like Ashford: "Are you as ATE UP as you wanna be?"
Ashford's greatest Gun Control Ally will be term limited out soon, and Ashford himself will be gone after the next election. Schimek will also be moving on. These LIBS have to get something done now or NEVER. Vote People. And share your views, rationally. Remind your fellow voters we live in a world ordered by physics, not emotion.
I live in a pretty good gun state.(Pa) But I would NOT be willing to give up an AK or ANYTHING for that. They may as well get stuffed. Got here from WoG.
What I think many have lost site of is the trend by our government to disregard the constitution. The government has NO jurisdictional authority over the people of this nation outside of DC or forts and arsenals. The federal government is constrained to only the enumerated powers given it by "We the People". In
United States v. Cruikshank stated that no indictment could be properly brought since the right "of bearing arms for a lawful purpose" is "not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." Our right to keep and bear arms existed before the Constitution was written. We are not granted that right BY the Constitution. The Constitution only prohibits the government from infringing on our right. Does anyone here think the government has not infringed on nearly every right of it's citizens. In fact, the right of arming oneself has always been the attribute of citizenship under a free government. Our country started out that way, it is not that way today. We have been betrayed!
PA is a good gun state? I live in PA and have never seen such an anti-gun attitude anywhere I have ever lived before. I live in a rural area, too. The local sheriff lied to me and told me it was illegal to take a gun out my front door for any reason unless I had a hunting license or a CCW. When I first moved here and mentioned that I had guns, the first question was ALWAYS "are they registered?"
From Alabama - Take your pick:
Hell No.
Get Bent.
Bite Me.
Molon Labe.
I think you get the idea.
One of these days, some trial lawyer is going to realize that the Von Maur mall is liable for injuries to people shot by the gunman. When they post no firearms signs, and take no other action to insure public safety, i.e., armed guards, metal detectors and eliminating ALL other weapons, they have guaranteed the public a safe environment which they did not exercise due diligence to provide.
They'd be better off, if they took the signs down and let the state and its licensees provide for safety, as do most businesses. It's just a matter of time till a survivor family or trial attorney wakes up and sees the liability here. JC Penney and others figured it out in a hearttbeat after it was explained to their risk management people.
From North Carolina ....
MOLON LABE
You need to call your legislators. Nevermind complaining on t3h intarwebs. Put direct pressure on them. Also for crying out loud get involved working for candidates who have it right and VOTE!
Same here, Μολὼν λαβέ
Ohio checking in...
"The only purpose for a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should have never laid down."
bad wannabe slave masters! no gun bans for you!
I invested twenty years of my life in the United States Air Force to secure the rights of Americans. I will not lightly surrender those rights just because some politician says that will make me safer.
Banning guns doesn't prevent or deter crime. Everywhere it has been done, death follows. In the worst examples of the 20th century governments around the world disarmed and murdered millions of their own citizens. It won't happen here as long as we retain the right to keep and bear arms. That right is guaranteed by both the Nebraska and United States Constitutions.
The freedom we enjoy as Americans was paid for in blood by generations of our ancestors. We must not surrender their hard won victories.
Ben Franklin said it best:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Dennis
Please check out www.constitutiondenied.com. Something your readers may be interested in.
Raven-1911
Anybody who would even consider accepting such a "compromise" would be an absolute idiot.
Scott W
Phx, AZ
First, I wouldn't trust 'em.
Second, it seems that they are trying to change the debate. By getting people to accept the trade off, they win the argument that strict limitations can be placed on The Second Amendment.
There is no reason why you should not be able to keep your "Scawy wooking guns" and get the changes to the concealed carry laws.
Don't give in, Stay vigilant.
No deal. No bargaining away my rights. It won't happen. I like my black gats, and I'm not going to put them in jail.
Yeah, what r. bilburg said.
In fact, so many of the respondents so eloquently voiced my reaction, that I'll just say, "me too, bigtime". After reading Gunscribe's blog on the actual Nebraska laws and constitution, I just got more and more agitated. My God! It says right there what the gub'ment can and can't do, and they just ignore it! GRRRRRR!
In Colorado, we still have evil black rifles and CCW. To date, all these guns I own have yet to rise up and kill anyone. I HAVE heard that guns kill people, though, so I don't sleep well.
I sent an email to Senator Ashford nicely giving my comments on this possible piece of legislation. I recommend you all doing the same thing. Here is his email address:bashford@leg.ne.gov
I suggest being nice so we don't look like a bunch of hicks with guns.
網頁設計,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品
A片下載,成人影片下載,免費A片下載
色情遊戲,寄情築園小遊戲,情色文學,一葉情貼圖片區,情惑用品性易購,情人視訊網,辣妹視訊,情色交友,成人論壇,情色論壇,愛情公寓,情色,舊情人,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,色情小說,做愛,做愛影片,性愛
免費視訊聊天室,aio交友愛情館,愛情公寓,一葉情貼圖片區,情色貼圖,情色文學,色情聊天室,情色小說,情色電影,情色論壇,成人論壇,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,情色視訊,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,視訊交友網,視訊聊天室,視訊美女,視訊交友,視訊交友90739,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,080聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,女同志聊天室,上班族聊天室,小高聊天室
AV,AV女優
視訊,影音視訊聊天室
影音視訊聊天室
視訊,影音視訊聊天室
免費視訊聊天,辣妹視訊,視訊交友網,美女視訊,視訊交友,視訊交友90739,成人聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,情色視訊,情人視訊網,視訊美女
一葉情貼圖片區,免費視訊聊天室,免費視訊,ut聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,影音視訊聊天室,
辣妹視訊,美女視訊,視訊交友網,視訊聊天室,視訊交友,視訊美女,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,視訊交友90739,免費視訊聊天室,成人聊天室,視訊聊天,視訊交友aooyy
哈啦聊天室,辣妺視訊,A片,色情A片,視訊,080視訊聊天室,視訊美女34c,視訊情人高雄網,視訊交友高雄網,0204貼圖區,sex520免費影片,情色貼圖,視訊ukiss
Post a Comment