Tyrannical Laws By cowardly politicias - was DC forced to re register

[U201491]

Tyrannical laws by cowardly politicians.


NRA-ILA | District of Columbia: Gun Owners Forced to Re-Register Their Firearms


District of Columbia: Gun Owners Forced to Re-Register Their Firearms

Posted on December 24, 2013

Starting on January 1, 2014, all registered gun owners in DC are required to re-register their firearms within ninety days.
Those who fail to comply with this new registration law within ninety days will lose their status as a registered gun owner
and may be punished with fines of up to $1000 or even jail time. This new requirement goes into effect on New Year's
Day and might cause otherwise law-abiding residents to unknowingly become criminals.
Those living in the District will be subject to this misguided and mandatory re-registration every three years.

For more information about the DC re-registration requirement, click here.
MILLER: D.C. gun registry forces fingerprinting at police station - Washington Times

Read More

 

[Caveman Jim]

BUBBLEGUM THAT!!!!!

 

[drew]

DC will do anything to deny people their rights and make lawful ownership of firearms a major burden.

Everything they do regarding guns is screwed up.

 

[U201491]

Connecticut: Attention Gun Owners and Sportsmen -
Next Round of Anti-Gun Law Provisions Take Effect on January 1

Posted on December 24, 2013

The next round of provisions from Senate Bill 1160 (now Public Act 13-3), passed by the
Connecticut General Assembly and signed into law by Governor Dan Malloy (D), take effect on Wednesday, January 1, 2014.

EFFECTIVE ON JANUARY 1, 2014:

All lawfully possessed magazines that can hold more than ten rounds must be registered
with the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) by January 1, 2014.

Any non-resident who moves into Connecticut after January 1, 2014, will have ninety days
to permanently disable, sell to a gun dealer or take out of state, any magazine that can hold more than ten rounds.
Anyone who lawfully possessed a magazine able to hold more than ten rounds prior to April 4, 2013,
but did not register it by January 1, 2014, may be subject to a fine of not more than $90 for the first
offense and will face a Class D felony charge on subsequent offenses.


Any semi-automatic centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has specific listed
features, certain semi-automatic pistols and certain semi-automatic shotguns are immediately
classified as "assault weapons" and must be registered with the DESPP by January 1, 2014.

Any non-resident who moves into Connecticut after January 1, 2014, will have ninety days to permanently disable,
sell to a gun dealer or take out of state, any firearm that is now mislabeled and now classified as an "assault weapon."
For more details on this new law and to see if your firearm will need to be registered by January 1, 2014, please click here.
Failure to register these newly illegal firearms, for first time offenders, is a Class A misdemeanor if the person can
prove they owned the gun before April 4, 2013, and have otherwise complied with the law. Otherwise,
it is a Class D felony with a mandatory minimum one-year prison sentence.



These requirements are only some of the many onerous and deeply flawed provisions that penalize responsible
gun owners and sportsmen in Connecticut with the intention of turning law-abiding citizens into criminals.
Unfortunately, it seems as though the misguided Connecticut legislature won't stop until they have completely
obliterated your rights. As we've seen in other states, such as in neighboring New York, these controversial
registration provisions begin the slide down a slippery slope toward eventual confiscation.
These are legitimate worries, and residents of the Constitution State should be weary.
History shows that in instances where government officials promise no harm will come through their flawed
registration schemes, the end result winds up being quite different. Gun registration enables gun confiscation,
and criminals never register their firearms.

Your NRA is working to reverse this dangerous law which has no effect on criminal access or misuse of firearms,
but we need your help! To get involved and volunteer your efforts against these misguided efforts, please
click here.
<broken link removed>

 

[deen_ad]

Tyrannical laws by cowardly politicians.


NRA-ILA | District of Columbia: Gun Owners Forced to Re-Register Their Firearms


District of Columbia: Gun Owners Forced to Re-Register Their Firearms

Posted on December 24, 2013

Starting on January 1, 2014, all registered gun owners in DC are required to re-register their firearms within ninety days.
Those who fail to comply with this new registration law within ninety days will lose their status as a registered gun owner
and may be punished with fines of up to $1000 or even jail time. This new requirement goes into effect on New Year's
Day and might cause otherwise law-abiding residents to unknowingly become criminals.
Those living in the District will be subject to this misguided and mandatory re-registration every three years.

For more information about the DC re-registration requirement, click here.
MILLER: D.C. gun registry forces fingerprinting at police station - Washington Times

Here's the original thread posted a few days ago by Dave Workman.
http://www.northwestfirearms.com/legal-political/157128-gun-re-registration-other-washington.html

Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
"Defender of Freedom" award
NRA Recruiter
Second Amendment Foundation Member
Washington Arms Collectors Member
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member

"Having a gun is like a parachute, if you need one and don't have it you may never need it again"

 

[U201491]

Here's the original thread posted a few days ago by Dave Workman.
http://www.northwestfirearms.com/legal-political/157128-gun-re-registration-other-washington.html

Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
"Defender of Freedom" award
NRA Recruiter
Second Amendment Foundation Member
Washington Arms Collectors Member
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member

"Having a gun is like a parachute, if you need one and don't have it you may never need it again"

Ohh Ok, sorry, did it have the conn. one there too?

 

[CounterOfBeans]

Tyrannical laws by cowardly politicians..... This new requirement goes into effect on New Year's Day and might cause otherwise law-abiding residents to unknowingly become criminals. Those living in the District will be subject to this misguided and mandatory re-registration every three years.

Re: "misquided and mandatory" -

Ever notice how DC license plates also say "Taxation Without Representation" across the bottom, even though one of our battle cries against England was "No Taxation Without Representation". This is not an accident, nor is it misguided. It's the direct result of the Constitution under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, which says (in part):

"Congress shall have power....To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,"

The DC clause was specifically put in the Constitution because under the Articles of Confederation, Congress used to convene for law-making business in whatever State would host it. In 1783, Congress was convened in Philadelphia when it was attacked by Revolutionary soldiers who were mad about not getting paid for their service. Congress had to quickly leave because Pennsylvania authorities refused to abide Congress' request to call out the militia for protection. So when the Constitution Convention came around, delegates determined that Congress would never be attacked and embarrassed like that again and so they wrote in the clause that provided the federal government with its own patch of land for office space, where it was authorized to exert its own autonomy and defend that autonomy as it saw fit. This is why gun laws are so tough in DC? The state of affairs in DC is not misquided, it's a constitutionally designed feature of DC.

D.C. is utterly and eternally a federal landscape, which means the people who call DC home choose to exist as federal citizens,... not State Cititzens. There are quite literally two different legal categories of "citizen" under the Constitution: State Citizens and federal citizens. This is because the Constitution is a "contract" and the only "parties" to it (i.e. full blown beneficiaries) were the State Citizens who created it (Creator/Creation). State Citizens were the only kind of citizens that existed during the Constitutional Convention. It was State Citizen delegates who were chosen by their respective States to act as their States' legal representatives. It was they who designed and debated over its "terms and conditions", "legal relationships", "obligations" and were the only ones who signed the contract and perfected it through ratification.... for State Citizens' needs and purposes.

DC citizens didn't exist during the Constitutional Convention and the framers didn't put much time into thinking about the concerns of citizens who didn't yet exist. As a result, the Constitution says nothing of their interests, save for Congress' generosity when carrying out Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. That fact is no less a fact simply because we modern citizens get all bent about it. Our being bent is the direct result of having not been taught this information in public schools. Apparently, not even public schools in DC itself.

DC "citizens" don't get to vote either because they are not State Citizens, i.e. they are not constitutionally "eligible" to vote. Yet Congress can tax them constitutionally. The laws DC citizens are "forced" to live by are passed by Citizens of the States. Congress is the only government for DC citizens and it gets to "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over" the district. The impression that the Constitution works the same way in DC as it does in the States is just that... an impression... an impression created by Congress' usual generosity in approximating the rights and privileges enjoyed by State Citizens, the best it can. Ultimately though, DC was constitutionally created to be office space for the federal government, not to be a housing development.

See Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35; 2000:

"There is general agreement that the District Clause was adopted in response to an incident in Philadelphia in 1783, in which a crowd of disbanded Revolutionary War soldiers, angry at not having been paid, gathered to protest in front of the building in which the Continental Congress was meeting under the Articles of Confederation. See, e.g., KENNETH R. BOWLING, THE CREATION OF WASHINGTON, D.C. 30-34 (1991); THE FEDERALIST NO. 43, supra, at 289; JOSEPH STORY, 3 COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION §§ 1213 (1833). Despite requests from the Congress, the Pennsylvania state government declined to call out its militia to respond to the threat, and the Congress had to adjourn abruptly to New Jersey. The episode, viewed as an affront to the weak national government, led to the widespread belief that exclusive federal control over the national capital was necessary. "

"In 1818, President Monroe, who had been a delegate to the Virginia ratifying convention, noted that the people of the District of Columbia "have no participation" in Congress' exercise of power over them, and asked Congress to consider "whether an arrangement better adapted to the principles of our Government" might be possible. 33 ANNALS OF CONG. 18 (1818). No specific arrangement was proposed. See generally 3 STORY, supra note 25, § 1218 (1833) (noting that inhabitants of the District "are not indeed citizens of any state, entitled to the privileges of such, but are citizens of the United States" and that "they have no immediate representatives in congress")."

"In 1791, Maryland ratified the cession, stating that "all that part of the said territory called Columbia which lies within the limits of this State shall be . . . forever ceded and relinquished to the Congress and Government of the United States, and full and absolute right and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil as of persons residing or to reside thereon." "

The rights and privileges of federal citizens are not the same as those of State Citizens. State Citizens originally created the Constitution to suit their needs. No one elses. For the citizens that emerged eventually through the DC clause and the territorial clause (Art. 4, Sec. 3, Par. 2), Congress is constitutionally assigned the role of managing their rights and privileges as part of its duties of being the custodian and agent of the Union's interests.

For those who complain about getting their rights stepped on, I have no sympathy for them.....DC was, at the outset, created specifically for the protection of the federal government, and all DC citizens have EVER had to do to fix their pathetic woes is simply move 5 miles, in one direction or another, to leave DC and regain their status as State Citizens and get on with life, complete with a full set of rights.

 

[rufus]

Everything they do regarding guns is screwed up.

Everything they do regarding everything is screwed up.

 

[U201491]

Re: "misquided and mandatory" -

Ever notice how DC license plates also say "Taxation Without Representation" across the bottom, even though one of our battle cries against England was "No Taxation Without Representation". This is not an accident, nor is it misguided. It's the direct result of the Constitution under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, which says (in part):

"Congress shall have power....To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,"

The DC clause was specifically put in the Constitution because under the Articles of Confederation, Congress used to convene for law-making business in whatever State would host it. In 1783, Congress was convened in Philadelphia when it was attacked by Revolutionary soldiers who were mad about not getting paid for their service. Congress had to quickly leave because Pennsylvania authorities refused to abide Congress' request to call out the militia for protection. So when the Constitution Convention came around, delegates determined that Congress would never be attacked and embarrassed like that again and so they wrote in the clause that provided the federal government with its own patch of land for office space, where it was authorized to exert its own autonomy and defend that autonomy as it saw fit. This is why gun laws are so tough in DC? The state of affairs in DC is not misquided, it's a constitutionally designed feature of DC.

D.C. is utterly and eternally a federal landscape, which means the people who call DC home choose to exist as federal citizens,... not State Cititzens. There are quite literally two different legal categories of "citizen" under the Constitution: State Citizens and federal citizens. This is because the Constitution is a "contract" and the only "parties" to it (i.e. full blown beneficiaries) were the State Citizens who created it (Creator/Creation). State Citizens were the only kind of citizens that existed during the Constitutional Convention. It was State Citizen delegates who were chosen by their respective States to act as their States' legal representatives. It was they who designed and debated over its "terms and conditions", "legal relationships", "obligations" and were the only ones who signed the contract and perfected it through ratification.... for State Citizens' needs and purposes.

DC citizens didn't exist during the Constitutional Convention and the framers didn't put much time into thinking about the concerns of citizens who didn't yet exist. As a result, the Constitution says nothing of their interests, save for Congress' generosity when carrying out Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. That fact is no less a fact simply because we modern citizens get all bent about it. Our being bent is the direct result of having not been taught this information in public schools. Apparently, not even public schools in DC itself.

DC "citizens" don't get to vote either because they are not State Citizens, i.e. they are not constitutionally "eligible" to vote. Yet Congress can tax them constitutionally. The laws DC citizens are "forced" to live by are passed by Citizens of the States. Congress is the only government for DC citizens and it gets to "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over" the district. The impression that the Constitution works the same way in DC as it does in the States is just that... an impression... an impression created by Congress' usual generosity in approximating the rights and privileges enjoyed by State Citizens, the best it can. Ultimately though, DC was constitutionally created to be office space for the federal government, not to be a housing development.

See Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35; 2000:

"There is general agreement that the District Clause was adopted in response to an incident in Philadelphia in 1783, in which a crowd of disbanded Revolutionary War soldiers, angry at not having been paid, gathered to protest in front of the building in which the Continental Congress was meeting under the Articles of Confederation. See, e.g., KENNETH R. BOWLING, THE CREATION OF WASHINGTON, D.C. 30-34 (1991); THE FEDERALIST NO. 43, supra, at 289; JOSEPH STORY, 3 COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION §§ 1213 (1833). Despite requests from the Congress, the Pennsylvania state government declined to call out its militia to respond to the threat, and the Congress had to adjourn abruptly to New Jersey. The episode, viewed as an affront to the weak national government, led to the widespread belief that exclusive federal control over the national capital was necessary. "

"In 1818, President Monroe, who had been a delegate to the Virginia ratifying convention, noted that the people of the District of Columbia "have no participation" in Congress' exercise of power over them, and asked Congress to consider "whether an arrangement better adapted to the principles of our Government" might be possible. 33 ANNALS OF CONG. 18 (1818). No specific arrangement was proposed. See generally 3 STORY, supra note 25, § 1218 (1833) (noting that inhabitants of the District "are not indeed citizens of any state, entitled to the privileges of such, but are citizens of the United States" and that "they have no immediate representatives in congress")."

"In 1791, Maryland ratified the cession, stating that "all that part of the said territory called Columbia which lies within the limits of this State shall be . . . forever ceded and relinquished to the Congress and Government of the United States, and full and absolute right and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil as of persons residing or to reside thereon." "

The rights and privileges of federal citizens are not the same as those of State Citizens. State Citizens originally created the Constitution to suit their needs. No one elses. For the citizens that emerged eventually through the DC clause and the territorial clause (Art. 4, Sec. 3, Par. 2), Congress is constitutionally assigned the role of managing their rights and privileges as part of its duties of being the custodian and agent of the Union's interests.

For those who complain about getting their rights stepped on, I have no sympathy for them.....DC was, at the outset, created specifically for the protection of the federal government, and all DC citizens have EVER had to do to fix their pathetic woes is simply move 5 miles, in one direction or another, to leave DC and regain their status as State Citizens and get on with life, complete with a full set of rights.

Pretty much, it is now a leper colony for elitists.

 

[simon99]

District of Columbia = Ground zero for idiocy.

 

[Botte Hork]

Pretty much, it is now a leper colony for elitists.

And a view into the future for those who desire more federal involvement in everything.

 

[U201491]

And a view into the future for those who desire more federal involvement in everything.

Very true and worse.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

Pretty much, it is now a leper colony for elitists.

I'm not sure, but I think you missed my point. The Constitution that many of us swore an Oath to uphold and defend, itself, is the permission slip for Congress to pass the so-called "Tyrannical laws by cowardly politicians". On many other issues, I will agree with you all day long that many of the politicians that occupy federal offices in DC are cowards and worse..... but my point about the "re-registration" laws is that DC citizens are not eligible for the same consideration that State Citizens enjoy under the Constitution. The supreme law of the Land authorizes Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation OVER" that "district". It is not Congress' place to treat federal citizens like State Citizens. It's federal citizens' place to move out of DC if they want to get treated like State Citizens. Congress' exercise of the power given to it by the Constitution is not the problem. The problem is the ignorance of the people who insist on beating their head against a wall that they create for themselves. We should be spending our time and energy getting uppity about things that actually have merit. DC citizens need to just move (5 whole miles one direction or another) or shut the hell up.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

Pretty much, it is now a leper colony for elitists.

I'm not sure, but I think you missed my point. The Constitution that many of us swore an Oath to uphold and defend, itself, is the permission slip for Congress to pass the so-called "Tyrannical laws by cowardly politicians". On many other issues, I will agree with you all day long that many of the politicians that occupy federal offices in DC are cowards and worse..... but my point about the "re-registration" laws is that DC citizens are not eligible for the same consideration that State Citizens enjoy under the Constitution. The supreme law of the Land authorizes Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation OVER" that "district". It is not Congress' place to treat federal citizens like State Citizens. It's federal citizens' place to move out of DC if they want to get treated like State Citizens. Congress' exercise of the power given to it by the Constitution is not the problem. The problem is the ignorance of the people who insist on beating their head against a wall that they create for themselves. We should be spending our time and energy getting uppity about things that actually have merit. DC citizens need to just move (5 whole miles one direction or another) or shut the hell up.