Flash back 1 yr 9 mos
Thought you might want to know, I talked to a BATF agent and he said "Even if the courts say the Second Amendment guarantees your right to keep and bear arms, it says nothing about ammunition or its componants."
What is your opinion on this.
Lance
What is your opinion on this.
Lance
0
-
My opinion is that that guy was a knucklehead! 0 -
Tell him the Constitution provides for a Treasury Department, but doesn't guarantee him a job.
[}:)][:D]
NOTE;
They are now part of the Justice Department.0 -
Access to ammunition would go right along with the un-infringed right to bear arms. Ammunition is a part of a functioning arm. 0 -
Like saying we have the right to free speech and outlawing TV's radio and newspapers or limiting "which" words we can speak. Banning books has already been tried. A book in itself is not "speech" per say but an element of speech. One would assume that analogy would be the same for ammunition and the second ammendment.
As "arms" are tools that are incomplete and useless without ammunition so common sense would tell us it is also included but then when has the BATF ever exercised common sense.0 -
quote:Originally posted by zink
Thought you might want to know, I talked to a BATF agent and he said "Even if the courts say the Second Amendment guarantees your right to keep and bear arms, it says nothing about ammunition or its componants."
What is your opinion on this.
Lance
We know that there are elements of society that wish to take away the right to self-defense. It is not surprising to see that they are prepared to use whatever means necessary.0 -
quote:Originally posted by zink
Thought you might want to know, I talked to a BATF agent and he said "Even if the courts say the Second Amendment guarantees your right to keep and bear arms, it says nothing about ammunition or its componants."
What is your opinion on this.
Lance
IF that is true, I would have to say that it's just one of MANY stupid comments I can now attribute to any number of government agencies/employees. Most branches of 'gubment seem to excel at ignorance![;)]0 -
Jerking your chain, I suspect. Or possibly just sour grapes.
If you cannot legally obtain any ammo to put inside a rifle or handgun, then you cannot legitimately bear arms, i.e. be armed in the context of the 2nd Amendment.
Same holds true if you are not permitted to get parts to satisfactorily maintain those firearms. If they cannot be discharged as originally intended by their maker, then you are not bearing arms in the context of the 2nd Amendment.
Caveat here is to not allow Philadelphia lawyers, i.e. all the wannabees, to plant seeds of doubt where none should be. The only opinions that matter now going forward on this issue are those of the nine Justices sitting in the Supreme Court should it come down to their review.
Everyone else - no matter what their opinion, level of income and influence, status in society, rank in law enforcement or position in public office - can pretty much go and pound puppy poop into dust if they don't like the Founding Fathers' forethought and handiwork.
Just my 2 cents.0 -
should have thrown the jerk in a well [:D] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
The only opinions that matter now going forward on this issue are those of the nine Justices sitting in the Supreme Court should it come down to their review.
Everyone else - no matter what their opinion, level of income and influence, status in society, rank in law enforcement or position in public office - can pretty much go and pound puppy poop into dust if they don't like the Founding Fathers' forethought and handiwork.
Just my 2 cents.
Exactly. I do hope it goes all to the way. Time for them to poop or get off the pot.0 -
When the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" was passed in 2005 (protecting firearms manufacturers against frivolous lawsuits) there were two attachments tacked on. One was that every firearm must be sold with a lock. The second was that ammo be re-evaluated for it's capability to be armor piercing. What armor will they use in this test?
This has the potential to make virtually all rifle ammo illegal, along with many handgun calibers.
As your BATF person said, if they can't ban the firearms..........
There is a time limit on this bill.
We will see.0 -
Remember this? Now whay say you?
Lance0 -
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
don't listen to what government employees say. I lost my driver's license, and the knothead at the DMV was telling me I had to sell my car cuz I couldn't own a car until I got my license back. they know better, they're full of it. so you ask this guy about your gun rights? shows you what he thinks about you and your rights.
you know? I got in a traffic accident, and the cop was telling me I had to tell him what state I was born in, as part of "new terrorism laws", or else he couldn't "complete" the report. he said the FBI wanted the information. so I called the FBI and asked them if that was true. I got everything from "I don't know" to "you can fill out a Freedom Of Information Act form to get that information" to "call wshington, DC" who said "call your local office" who said "call washington DC" who said "call your local office" who said "call washington DC"... I called them enough times and they refused to talk to me any more, I asked to talk to their supervisor, they refused, hung up on me, I kept calling back demanding to talk to their supervisor, one lady who already said numerous times "I won't let you talk to a supervisor" then said "I'm the supervisor, what do you want" I said "you aren't" she said "yes I am" I said "no you're not" she hung up on me, I called back, they said quite sarcastically "we'll call you" I was thinking "what do they mean by that??"...
and guess what??? the f'ers called and left a prank message on my answering machine!! the FBI! can you imagine that.
they don't give a rat's ass about you.
try it. you call the FBI and ask them if you're supposed to give your place of birth as part of a police report so the FBI can have that information, and see what you get. any day of the week. try it.
LMAO
That is some funny stuff there!!!! Get tears from laughing at that.LMAO0 -
The bullet is the weapon. The firearm just puts it in its place. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
When the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" was passed in 2005 (protecting firearms manufacturers against frivolous lawsuits) there were two attachments tacked on. One was that every firearm must be sold with a lock. The second was that ammo be re-evaluated for it's capability to be armor piercing. What armor will they use in this test?
This has the potential to make virtually all rifle ammo illegal, along with many handgun calibers.
As your BATF person said, if they can't ban the firearms..........
There is a time limit on this bill.
We will see.
Biden, I believe, proposed a similar bill some years back calling most all rifle ammo "armor piercing".0 -
Ain't it simply amazin" how opinions change?
Lance0 -
That's about as dumb as saying the right to "bare arms" actually means that you can wear a short sleaved shirt.
I work with idiots just like that ass and we had this discussion the other day. They always seem to have a poo eating grin on their faces when they say that too.0 -
quote:Originally posted by zink
Thought you might want to know, I talked to a BATF agent and he said "Even if the courts say the Second Amendment guarantees your right to keep and bear arms, it says nothing about ammunition or its componants."
What is your opinion on this.
Lance
Imagine the uproar if the government came out and said that you still have the first amendment but you could no longer purchase paper or ink. Of course, with the fairness doctrine we're about there anyway.0 -
"Arms" consist of a 'system' which includes all components!
If it were argued this way in court with the accompanying documentation to show it has always been this way I think 'we' would have a very good chance of winning the argument.
BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO HAVE THIS ARGUMENT![V]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
18 comments