Dealing with Gun Control: Legal Loopholes to Sidestep the Law

Print page

Survivopedia_gun control

The second amendment was written to guarantee that all Americans would have the means to protect themselves and also act as a tacit second layer to the armed forces to protect this nation in time of need. It is harder for criminals and an unwanted government to impose their will on armed citizens than on unarmed citizens.

As a retired police officer, gun owner, and avid outdoors man, I believe it is everyone’s inalienable right to keep and bear arms. With this in mind they wrote the Second Amendment. Any other regulation on guns should be in line with it. Recent gun control laws put our rights under siege.

See how to deal with new gun laws without breaking them or giving up your Second Amendment rights.

Don’t Give Up Your Rights

To keep your rights in this country you need to vote for politicians that will do what you tell them to do. Voting is the most powerful way to make sure that proposed laws suit your needs, and also the best way to protect all of your rights against hot button issue thinking and rhetoric that are used to justify limiting personal freedoms. Never forget that your right to vote does not end on election day.

When you don’t like proposed new laws, lobbying, peaceful protest (like Gandhi), and notifying your elected leaders should solve the problem. Make it your business to fax, email, post editorial notes in newspapers, make comments on radio and TV, and use social networking forums to make sure you are heard.

There is a right way and a wrong way to contact your congressmen. When writing, faxing, calling, texting, or emailing, threatening or cursing can lead to being ignored at best, or at worst arrested. That said, the English language is quite vibrant and you can use strong tones and clear writing that are far more compelling than threats and emotional spewing.

If an elected official continues to ignore the will of the  people, have them recalled in a special election to remove them from office. An example of this was the 2013 Colorado recall election that took two anti-gun congressmen out of office. We did it twice, and we can do it as many times as needed to stop all these attempted infringements on our inalienable right to protect ourselves using guns.

How to Deal With Gun Laws Without Breaking Them or Giving Up Your Second Amendment Rights

Survivopedia_2nd-AmendmentGet involved in organizing groups to bring public awareness to the new proposed laws and explain why these laws are bad. Take time to gather facts, case studies, statistics, and personal accounts that support your claim. Peaceably and publicly work to get signatures on petitions from people who share your feelings on this new proposed law.

The more signatures you have the more attention the politician will give to the up coming debate on this proposed new law. While you should never make threats, you can most certainly let politicians know that you will use gun laws as a litmus test for who you vote for in the next election.

Things to Avoid to Stay Out of Trouble

As gun owners you should know what your current state gun laws are, and obey them to the best of your ability. For instance, if the law states no hand guns loaded or unloaded in the passenger section of the vehicle, then lock the gun up in the trunk.

If possible get a concealed weapons permit to manage situations where you might be arrested for carrying a gun or have to deal with other problems caused by people that think they know what they are talking about when they see you carrying a gun.

Just as an example, when I was off-duty prior to retirement, I had to deal with an occasional individual that saw my gun and could not resist calling the police to say I was armed and dangerous. In the meantime, I was just wandering around the store looking for cat food!

While I may not like “gun control laws”, think they are useless, and suffer with them as much as everyone else, having all my papers in order will have to do until common sense and good education finally prevail in our society.

Particulars about Driving While Armed

It is always advisable when stopped in a traffic stop to have your driver’s license, registration, proof of insurance, and concealed weapons permit out and ready to hand to the law enforcement officer when asked for it. If your are wondering why it takes so long for this individual to come up to your vehicle, for their safety your vehicle tags, type of vehicle, and location all have to be called in.

If there are any wants or warrants on you, they will know and take the appropriate action. If you come back clean they will also know about your concealed  weapon’s permit. In some states you do not have to tell the law enforcement officer while in other states you have to.

A Special Guide for Women

In this country it has been shown that in areas where women have decided to arm themselves, violent crimes have decreased. More women are buying firearms, learning to shoot them, and have concealed weapon permits.  Unfortunately, if anti-gunners have their way, it will be a serious hindrance to women that do not realize the anti-gun movement is one of the worst, dirtiest, and corrupt anti-women movements in history.

Women today need to get more involved in gun politics because laws dedicated to “mental illness” tend to be stacked against women. Simply take a look at the DSM V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), and you will see that many mental disorders tend to be female mental stereotypes.

In addition, since women were largely unable to afford to buy guns in the past, new laws and additional fees harm a woman’s right to bear arms more than it does for men. Today, laws being passed can make it impossible for you to own guns and be on an even keel with men in terms of self defense and gun power. Let your voice be heard, not just in the buying and obtaining of weapons in mass numbers, but in active protests, voting, and lobbying.

Guns and Mental Illness

There is no such thing as a person that wants to see innocent people killed just because someone has mental issues. On the other side of the equation, even the craziest person on Earth can recognize that a crime is happening and take action to shoot the perpetrator. This is just one reason why I feel that PTSD or other mental health issues should not be a litmus test for banning gun ownership.

Aside from that, we have all seen the rhetoric between the left and right wing. When people don’t agree with our view point, it becomes very easy to call the other party “crazy”.

At some point, government sponsored health insurance, government controlled health guidelines, government licensed medical providers, and government sponsored “research” on mental issues can easily create a situation where variances from government rhetoric can lead to a diagnosis of “mental illness”. From there, you will not be able to keep your guns even though the truth is you are sane enough to have them.

We as a community must not let anti-gunners control the mental health question in a way that strips us of our legal precedence to carry arms. We must take actions among ourselves to make sure that we are all good, responsible gun owners.

Here are a few things I have used in the past to deal with situations where having a gun could have led to a disaster:

  • Always have at least 5 people you trust that are willing to hold your gun and keep it in time of need. Make sure they understand you are having some difficult times and that the gun needs to stay locked up and out of your hands until you get your thoughts and feelings sorted out. This is no different from having a designated driver when you go out drinking and partying.
  • Make a written list of situations in which you feel you would be dangerous if armed. If that situation comes up, simply follow your plan to turn the gun over to someone you trust until the situation passes.
  • Do not wait and hope that a mental problem will get better by itself. Getting help now will spare you a lot of pain and will help you get back on your feet faster.
  • Even as I write this, 1/3 of all people in the United States are taking medication for anxiety and panic. If you are going to ban these people from having guns, you should also ban them from having cars because they might (and sometimes do) try to commit suicide by driving their vehicle into oncoming traffic or up a pole. Do not tolerate double standards just because the government gets more money out of motor vehicles and fuel than it does from gun rights.

We as gun owners live in complicated times where people do not really know the truth. We must be responsible and ethical gun owners that will protect our rights and be ready to defend this nation as called to do in the Constitution. It is my hope that our nation will see an end of gun control and more constructive dialogue on mental health issues and other problems that need to solved at the community level.

(Carmella Tyrell also contributed to this article.)

BPH1.2

This article has been written by Fred Tyrell for Survivopedia.

28,212 total views, 1 views today

Fred Tyrell

About Fred Tyrell

Fred Tyrrell is an Eagle Scout and retired police officer that loves to hunt, fish, hike, and camp with good friends and family. He is also a champion marksman (rifle, pistol, shotgun) and has direct experience with all of the major gun brands and their clones. Fred refers to himself as a "southern gentleman" - the last of a dying way. He believes a man's word is his bond, and looks forward to teaching others what he has learned over the years. You can send Fred a message at editor [at] survivopedia.com.
Rate this article!
[Total: 4    Average: 4.5/5]

Comments

  1. The Tyrells are thoughtful and entertaining bloggers indeed. This posting is exceptionally well done. Thank you and keep up the good work!

    (9)
    (0)
    • C. David Imlay says:

      Mr. Fred Tyrrell:

      I appreciate your being a retired police officer and the like. I, for one, am not an advocate of being led on a Legal issue (interpreted issue in all respects) when the lawful issue is more enforceable. You made direct references to the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. When I read the 2nd Amendment, I read it exactly as it is written. There is a clause in that Amendment that states quite plainly and without confusion. That clause is ".... and no Law may be made that infringes upon the rights of the individual ..... " Which this means to me is No Law, whether it is registration, conceal carry, or any law concerning the size of weapon owned can be created to stop or deter me from owning and using any type of weapon the 2nd Amendment allows me to. There is NO mention of not owning an automatic weapon, a bomb, hand grenade, or any nuclear device for defense of any sort.

      The U.S. Constitution IS the Supreme Law of the Land and has been ratified since at least 1781, which means without complete Amendments created for specific arguments of that Constitution, that Constitution remains intact exactly as it is written. All other Federal laws may be Supreme Laws of the Land BUT none of those Laws can supersede the Constitution without direct amendment to the Constitution for those direct correlations to those Federal Laws. In other words those Federal and State Laws become Null and Void as long as the U.S. Constitution remains unchanged without directed Amendments to it from those Federal and State standpoints.

      Even police officers can NOT interpret Law as they do NOT hold State or Federal License to be a LAWMAKER. Police of all standards are nothing more than enforcers of the Laws created by those Lawmakers in all essence and any interpretation brought to the law by any Law Enforcement is a criminal act of posing as somebody they are not. That is Deception and Fraud.

      (13)
      (4)
      • carmela tyrrell says:

        C. David -

        Hello!

        Thankyou for your feedback on our article. As the co-author, I must admit to being a bit confused by your comment.

        First - I am not sure where I, or my husband "interpreted" (as in explained the meaning) of gun control law beyond what you would see in any other publication where people state their opinion, belief, or share relevant experiences. Can you list specific statements and explain your perception?

        Second - I am VERY curious about your reference to "lawmakers" having licences?! The last time I checked, we vote for lawmakers/politicians, but they don't carry a license to create laws.

        In closing, while many people may feel that the Constitution should be the first and last word on gun rights, and many other things, we live in a country where state and federal laws differ from that view. To ignore those laws or suggest people not obey them to the best of their ability is foolhardy. This was the point of our article, and also to offer suggestions on how to bring state and federal law back into line with the Constitution. In this case - we advocate awareness of existing laws and how they and possible loopholes affect ownership and transport of arms, voting, recall, and politely contacting politicians to let them know what we want them to do in the way of lawmaking.

        (8)
        (2)
        • Hi,
          Actually, our Supreme Court has ruled that any "law" that contradicts our Constitution is in fact not a law, and "creates no duty to obey". The earlier comment is correct. That said, it is only relevant if we are willing to commit "our lives, our fortunes, and our Sacred honor" to uphold it. The tyrants are relying on us not being so commited, and if indeed we are not, they win regardless of the "law". It is time to choose...

          (1)
          (0)
          • carmela tyrrell says:

            Ed,

            A good statement, and I always love to see that people believe in our Constitution. There are many areas from guns to taxes and Obamacare where I truly wish the Supreme Court would do their job and stand down other government bodies.

            In a nutshell, way back in the early days ,the Supreme Court basically claimed the power to shoot down laws it felt were in violation of the Constitution, hoewver it does so at its own discretion. That "discretion" - as you may be aware, is determined by who is sitting on the court at the time (which is determined by our elected officials); and what kind of cases come up.

            Please see Marbury vs. Madision, where the Supreme Court clarified its own power to check the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government.

            I also found this link very helpful for explaining the unique nature of the Second Amendment and how it was never incorporated into the 14th... When you look at that and the case Presser vs. Illinois, it becomes clear how the states and counties justify taking away our rights, and also what needs to be done to stop them.

            http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

            Bottom line - SCOTUS clarifying in favor of the Constitution (as expressed in Marbury vs. Madison) will always be dependent upon getting the right officials elected into office, then those officials having the chance to get the right justices into the Supreme Court, and THEN having the right case come up that overturns past decisions and all laws that inhibit our Second Amendment Rights.

            The only other way to get rid of these laws is to have a Constituation convention. But even then - you need the right people in the right offices that will vote in accordance with pro-gun changes in this country.

            Personally - I would never ask another person to put their life at risk by not having any gun/ammo that they feel suits their needs. I had stalkers before I married my husband, and also know too well what it is to be in a situation where a gun would have come in real handy. Bottom line if a criminal intent on kindapping, raping, killing, or carrying out some other mischief wants to do so - they will make it a point to get a gun the same way they get drugs or anything else. Gun laws and the right of their victim to live free of intimdation and harm mean NOTHING to real criminals and never will.

            On the, perhaps less tangible side, I have no fear of guns or being killed by them. I consider such ridiculous given crazy drivers (some of whom are depressed and suicidal) yapping, texting, and sexting on cell phones or even watching TV while they drive, or the quackery at the hands of "licensed" doctors and the kinds of diseases that I have seen in friends and family members.

            So to me - gun laws are ridicoulous from a practical point as well as a philosophical one. I support using votes, judicial, and legislative action to undo "gun control" and all the rest. However, the right people have to be in place; and I am grateful for the chance to advocate for that.

            (3)
            (0)
          • carmela tyrrell says:

            PS -

            As with many others that disagree with gun control laws - I am still bound by them. That said - we can change laws - and I am all for that!

            (2)
            (0)
  2. Frank Gough says:

    Actually, while anti-depressant & anti-anxiety drug use is up more than 400% over the past 20 years, it most assuredly is NOT the 33% you claimed in your article above. The combined total is only about 12-13% of the US population according to the Oct 19, 2011 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics, which is the last report issued publishing such statistics. The next report is due in June 2015, and will undoubtedly be higher, but still not 1 in 3 people.

    (1)
    (6)
    • carmela tyrrell says:

      Frank,

      Hello!

      Thankyou for pointing this out. I went by this link at the NIMH: and went ahead and did the math...

      http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml#Anxiety

      Anxiety 18.1% + Panic 2.7% + PTSD 3.5% + Generalized Anxiety Disorder 3.1 % = 27.4. By time you add in depressive disorders (which account for 90% of all suicides) you have, at minimum, an additional 7% of the US population; and 34.4% of the population suffering from mental disorder.

      From there, it is important to realize that medications are the most common form of therapy for anxiety, panic, and depression because there is scientific evidence to show that hormonal imbalances in the brain contribute to these disroders. Therefore, most people with these disroders are given medication.

      This link from the National Alliance on Mental Illness shows clearly that 70% of those suffering from depression alone use medications.

      https://www.nami.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Mental_Illnesses/Depression/Depression_Gaps_and_Guideposts_Summary_of_Findings.htm

      If the numbers for anxiety, and panic hold the same pattern, approximately 1 in 3 people in the US are, in fact, using medication for these diseases.

      I also wish to note that mental disorders are like any other in the sense that one person may have multiple conditions. That percentage is most likely offset by the fact that many people suffering with these disorders may not even know that they need help, or that it is available.

      In closing, I thank you for the opportunity to share this additional information so that gun owners and gun rights advocates can understand why it is so very important to get informed about mental health issues and take active steps to control the agenda in a useful way instead of simply taking away constitutionally guaranteed rights of us all.

      (16)
      (0)
      • carmela tyrrell says:

        PS - I mean professoinal help and prescriptions. Many people with mental disroders try to treat themselves first with everything from herbs to meditation. If we count those, it would not surprise me if 50 - 75% of the people in the US today actually suffer from anxiety, depression, and panic disorders and are taking some type of drug as a mitigation strategy.

        (3)
        (1)
        • Mahatma Muhjesbude says:

          Exactly, And don't forget all us 'closet' or 'recreational' imbibers. All those new 'enlarged' alcohol freezers in gas stations and such aren't there for looks. When i was doing some 'counseling' for 'disturbed' combat Vets at the VA hospital a few years ago, I was surprised at the minimum criteria formula for an 'alcoholic abuse' diagnosis of disabled Vets. By their standards, almost everybody I know has an alcohol abuse problem?!

          Well done article.

          (1)
          (0)
  3. Jim Kimbrough says:

    Excellent article. An experience from the CB radio days. I was one of the organizers of a national sideband radio club, at the time and we were trying to get extra channels. My Congressman, Bill Nichols arranged a meeting for our officers with the FCC(expenses covered). The first thing that he told us was: "Do not waste time with a signing a petition, although it is a good idea. The best thing is to write your Congressman and Senator a personal letter and be very explanatory of your request/requests. The reason being is simple! Most officials 'might' read a petition, but most put them in File 13 ... even with thousands of signatures. However, if he arrives at his office, for a few days in a row, and there are large bags of thousands of letters blocking his doorway ... he and his office personal will read a number of them. Consider this: A petition only takes a minute or so to sign and most never bother to read past the first paragraph, where a considerate and explanatory takes longer for the writer to compose. IF you do not receive a reply in a week or so ... place a personal phone call and inquire about it. The chance of positive results are considerably higher by doing this. I strongly suggest this effort be done concerning our 2nd Amendment Rights!! I've sent mine and received positive conformation, over a month ago!!

    (14)
    (0)
    • BrooklynResident says:

      I am "represented" by Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand. They wouldn't respond to me except if I sent them a rock airmail. And their response would hardly be helpful.

      (6)
      (0)
      • RLABruce says:

        You are correct; by yourself, you will not get any action from those sorry representatives. But if thousands of their constituents wrote letters and organized recall efforts, they will fear for their reelections and the power they derive from their positions.

        (6)
        (0)
      • carmela tyrrell says:

        Brooklynresident - right now people in NY are infuriated with SafeAct. If Schumer and Gillibrand don't listen - perhaps it is time to start a campaign to have them (and Cuomo) recalled. It is only when the people remain silent that politicians remain uniformed about the will of the people and what is really wanted. In that respect, they are like everyone else - they can only do what they think is best in the absence of input from others that they serve.

        (4)
        (0)
        • While I agree with your sentiments and feel that citizens should not sit back and passively accept what our controllers (which we have allowed) hand to to us as the "rules", I do not feel that our representatives will be responsive in the least to constituent requests or demands.

          Fact is, they simply do not care and citizen freedom does not in any way fit their paradigm of the way we should live. Law after law, Federal action after action has had unpopular opposition from the majority of citizens, but that has not stopped them for a second. For example, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obamacare, bank bailouts, continual push for more draconian gun control etc.

          The Federal government wants themselves to be the masters and we the People to be their obsequious slaves. Our opinion, even if unified, on the major issues is of no concern to them whatsoever. I have written my representatives regularly and encouraged others to do the same. I may as well be a voice crying in the wilderness as the only thing it has done is waste my time.

          I think the biggest problem we face is citizen complacency which to me comes from a citizenry which has been conditioned to accept authority from their first day of school all the way into their private lives. Until the people, stop pursuing pleasure and distractions like TV and movies continuosly and start fighting actively for their freedoms as a majority, authority will rule our lives.

          Unfortunately, I see complacency and deference to authority growing and activism becoming more scarce on the whole. Nonetheless, I will continue to do my part as best I can and hope for the best but with skepticism that I will get much support from the silent and easily led majority.

          Most people will stay asleep until the pot comes to a full boil methinks. By then, it may be too late. Until then, remaining totally within the "law" may unfortunately not be the best choice one can make .

          (5)
          (0)
          • carmela tyrrell says:

            Terry,
            I agree with you on most points. However, it only took one man in Colorado to start a recall movement that got two senators tossed out. We the people have power - but we have to work to get what we want.

            With regard to going outside the law - I would not take the chance. It's not so much about being a sheep as it is I see a legitimate path to changing the laws and believe that the power of the Constitution will stand if we do our job of choosing the right leaders and actually paying attention to what they do.

            (2)
            (0)
  4. Jim Kimbrough says:

    Excellent article. An experience from the CB radio days. I was one of the organizers of a national sideband radio club, at the time and we were trying to get extra channels. My Congressman, Bill Nichols arranged a meeting for our officers with the FCC(expenses covered). The first thing that he told us was: "Do not waste time with a signing a petition, although it is a good idea. The best thing is to write your Congressman and Senator a personal letter and be very explanatory of your request/requests. The reason being is simple! Most officials 'might' read a petition, but most put them in File 13 ... even with thousands of signatures. However, if he arrives at his office, for a few days in a row, and there are large bags of thousands of letters blocking his doorway ... he and his office personal will read a number of them. Consider this: A petition only takes a minute or so to sign and most never bother to read past the first paragraph, where a considerate and explanatory takes longer for the writer to compose. IF you do not receive a reply in a week or so ... place a personal phone call and inquire about it. The chance of positive results are considerably higher by doing this. I strongly suggest this effort be done concerning our 2nd Amendment Rights!! I've sent mine and received positive conformation, over a month ago!! Jim Kimbrough

    (3)
    (0)
  5. victor scarinzi says:

    Good job. We been fine in past.

    (1)
    (0)
  6. kevin bernaciak says:

    I believe we all have the right to keep and bear arms. Including folks that have gotten into trouble. I speak as one of those people that unfortunately had been in trouble once in my life. Protecting myself, my home and others. I paid the price and had never been in trouble before or after. Why are my gun rights taken? Does not my constitution and Bill of Rights state that these rights shall not be infringed? This I believe is what was originally written. The watering down of our Constitution is a crime. In the Old West when a fella was released from prison he was given money, a horse and his GUN back. In Alaska a felon can legally own a gun. I do not consider myself a criminal. I am a law abiding citizen and need to be able to protect my home and family also without being sent to prison for simply having a gun. I find it amazing that I am allowed without the threat of imprisonment to own air guns. Air guns that can take down a buffalo. Price to me is 3x's the amount of a firearm .

    (7)
    (0)
    • Louis Hutton says:

      I live in Cullman County, Alabama. I held a concealed carry permit for 15 years until 3 years ago when I reapplied for an update, and was refused. The local sherrif refused my permit because I was arrested in the 1960's for a serious crime--kidnapping of a junkie that had stolen a tape layer from me-- I did NOT commit the crime, and when the person who alleged this lie refused to come to court, the charges were dropped completely and I never heard anything else about it. The only other arrest on my record was a misdemeanor charge of NSF checks, for which I served 30 days in jail--that was in 1968--so for the last 45 years, my record (even my "criminal history" ) is completely clean !!! Still, I can't leggally buy or carry a gun. I believe this to be a total infringement of my 2nd Amendment rights. What can I do about it???? Somebody please respond !!!

      (1)
      (0)
      • Frederick Tyrrell says:

        L. Hutton, If criminal charges were dropped they cannot be used to keep you from owning a gun. By federal law, the only misdemeanor that can keep you from owning a gun is a charge of Domestic Violence. If there was a Restaining order on you at the time, (even by mistake), the state can cancel your conceal carry permit. You need to see a lawyer and have the records expunged.

        (5)
        (0)
      • carmela tyrrell says:

        If you cannot afford a lawyer, contact the legal aid society or state lawyer's registry (some of them do have credentials to represent you in federal court). Most lawyers do a certain amount of pro-bono work for tax writeoffs, if they have a special interest in a particular area of case law, or for other purposes.

        The other thing you can try is ask the criminal justice professors at a local college. If you are near a law school, they may also know of a student recently licensed and looking to get a start in the community.

        (1)
        (0)
  7. just one question: If someone is convicted of bank fraud and they are now a felon, why can they not purchase a weapon since the act itself had nothing to do with a weapon ?

    thank you

    (1)
    (0)
    • Frederick Tyrrell says:

      Federal Law states that no convicted Felon may own or have accecess to firearms.
      See a lawyer about getting your record expunged.

      (5)
      (0)
    • Mahatma Muhjesbude says:

      You're right Ben. The reason and short answer to your question is that it there is no rational objective value to the prohibition of firearms and voting privileges (forgot about that?) as part of the 'punishment' for criminal offenses. Especially as an eternal life sentence. It has been proven to be a totally ineffective deterrent, and a completely useless way of preventing actual appropriation of weapons of virtually any kind, even mass destruction by anyone anytime they are determined to do so.

      If you are paying for a crime with incarceration that is the ultimate Penal encompassing solution. Subsequent sanctions have been proven to be absolutely useless and only serve to perpetuate the destruction of rehabilitative potential by creating a permanent class of second class citizens socially branded forever. which amounts to the essence of the concept of cruel and unusual punishment. And destructively marginalizes any higher value of rehabilitation and correction. Any reasonably objective intellectualism supports this. But they get away with it, as many of us now reluctantly admit, because of our own abject apathy and intentional mind control redirection and ultimate control of our emotional content with games, sex, and drugs. (bad food being the main one)

      My Uncle fell in with some bad boys in the hood during the last part of WWII after high school and got caught stealing cars. In those days the judges sometimes gave them a sentencing choice after the conviction. Hard time or enlist in the Military. He came back a decorated wounded war hero, and lived a normal productive life as a law abiding citizen. He was an avid sportsman and hunter and was a reserve deputy and active church member. In 1968 he automatically became prohibited from possessing a firearm by the 1968 Gun Control Act, because he had a felony conviction. He was very depressed after that, and felt bad about the future of the country. So there are a lot of EX-criminals out there that do rehabilitate completely and live decent law-abiding lives. Why should they be 'punished' forever" if they already payed their dues?

      The answer to that is pretty obvious. They shouldn't in any reasonably objective and morally intellectual society. Except unless the ruling power elite and their brainwashed minions had an...agenda? So that they can eventually totally control you, your money, your thinking, and your children's lives.

      I know some people are starting to wake up, so that's a good thing, but we need the vast majority to experience an epiphany as to the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the Constitution and WE, The People'.

      The Population Disarmament Agenda accomplished through the subversion of our inalienable natural rights by making laws that will eventually facilitate that agenda in extrapolation from the original 1968 GCA by creating more such laws was the straw that broke the camels back and set the stage for our eventual enslavement.

      And the 'hoax' and fraud part is that they play this crime against us on the outright blatant lie of necessary extreme crime prevention measures for the vainglorious and fruitless pursuit of 'Public Safety'! Which is an oxymoron in itself when you think about it. The public will always be unsafe by the nature of the beast. There's absolutely no way to 'mechanically' control it without totalitarian enslavement, or alter the paradigm in manifest collective consciousness without universal enlightenment.

      The only way to ever secure our future is to repeal the '1968 GCA' and completely disappear it, no substitutes, no compromise. Then repeal the 1934 NFA, and the '86 ban on machine guns. This effectively ENDS all gun control and prevents any possibility of future totalitarian intrusion on our lives.

      The socialist brainwashing that criminals will be out of control and mass shootings in the street will not happen if there is no gun control is a specious myth and all the efforts and expense on gun control now in place would do much more good to change the behavior of potential criminals in a preventative way, or to simply have swifter and better methodology for simply keeping them off the street when they are bad and creating a safer society in the process.

      But best of all, BY REPEALING ALL ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL GUN LAWS, their devious plans to disarm the greatest standing army in the world, the American Free Citizens, by making them all criminals in any way they can, WON'T MEAN A DAMN THING ANYMORE!

      (1)
      (0)
  8. Before reading my post below, please read this:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-246_7l48.pdf

    "...concluded that petitioner’s Fifth Amendment claim fails because he
    did not expressly invoke the privilege in response to the officer’s
    question."

    The fact is all the "laws" mentioned in the surviopedia areticle are not "laws", they are color of law statutes, codes and regulations. In reality, if you claim your right to keep and bear arms (and/or any of the other rights protected by the Bill of Rights) then they cannot lawfully mess with you. I'm not saying they won't, but, how many of you have actually, confidently, stood up and claimed your own right to keep and bear arms? Probably none of you because you don't really know them. We are a nation of ignorant sheep.

    All the blather about gun control is to deepen the belief that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply and that you are required to obey them. Nothing is further from the truth. The entire system is a lie designed to decieve you.

    They'll even go so far as to tell you that those constituion

    But, remember, just like the 5th amendment's referencing of your right to remain silent, your 2nd amendment referenced right to keep and bear arms must be claimed!

    The Salinas v. Texas supreme court case is important because of this one fact: We are not running under constitutional law. The defacto system is admiralty/commercial/corporate law. The defacto system is, however, subordinate to the "Supreme Law of the Land", The Constitution *FOR* the united States. All you have to do to flush the defacto system is to claim your Constitutionally protected rights and you effectively hit the handle flushing the NWO/Defacto system down the crapper is into the septic tank where it belongs.

    (2)
    (0)
    • carmela tyrrell says:

      Netranger,

      Good link, and points. However, the Supreme Court has made some other rulings in the past that make these codes and restrictions legal. Bottom line - if you violate state codes with regard to guns, the Supreme Court is not likely to bail you out; UNLESS the judges apply what is known as a narrow interpretation of the Constitution and reverse prior court rulings. In order to make that happen; you are right back to square one - electing politicians that will uphold your rights and select Supreme Court justices that will do the same.

      This link from the Library of Congress gives details Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment. It has been many years since I read the full brief for Presser vs. Illinois - but I do recommend it highly.

      http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

      (2)
      (0)
  9. You recommend getting a concealed carry. I recommend not doing so. It is gun registration Adolf Hitler style. It is also anti-constitutional. I recommend constitutional carry states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Carry

    The "BEAR" in the Second Amendmant is not a furry animal.

    (1)
    (1)
  10. SPECIAL FORCES says:

    i have all ways believed in the second amendment , to keep and bear arms . i have been saying for 8 years years , that we have a president who is against the rules of law ,and who doesnt care or even like the american people or america ive had signs on my truck, that said , he dont care about an oil spill in the gulf , he eats chicken. he doesnt like capitalism , but he and sorros have more money than the pope .does he help the bkack americans , when are the black americans and the people of the u.s.a. gonna wake up . dont give up your weapons or your rights . only the criminals will have the guns . put signs on your truck or car or carry a sign , and let the people know how you feel, im not against any blacks when i wear a t shirt in wall- mart, that says i wont salute a **** head , i get asked by black americans ,why i dont like obummer, i just say how did you know i meant obummer . i try not to get into pollitical arguement where ever i go , my signs and t-shirts say it all. i like trump and fiorina , then cruize and rubio, i dont want to start on hillary , she will cause her own problems oh do you remember when she said she was broke , well she aint gonna help any blacks , except the loud mouths like sharpton and the rest of them who are out for them selves , and you know who they are . so vote for trump or get nuked . because obummer will be in iran or some where , where he doesnt get nuked, so get out and vote , god bless america and its people .

    (2)
    (0)
  11. Is the language in the constutional amendsments, vauge or hidden within double talk. As any semiliterate person of english would interprit it. Most would say its statements are clearly defined. As I see it. Any elected person by and for the people living under these ratified rules of law. Who fails to uphold or in anyway acts to subjudgdicate these laws, commits an act of treason upon this nation. Including to vote in favor and or lobby for any governing legislation in dirrect conflict or them. I believe my point ineeds no further clarification. other than to say these are in esence, acts of war against the people of this great but somewhat complasant nation.

    (1)
    (0)
  12. carmela tyrrell says:

    Todd,

    Our foundinig fathers had to draw a balance that made the Constitution a living document that would continue to serve the needs of the people across time. One of the things they did was create three parts of governmnet in order to create a system of checks and balances. In order ot keep the Congress and the president/executive branch in check - the Supreme Court gets to determine what the Constitution actually says, and how it applies to the laws the other two branches make, and the rest of us. This is a right some say the Supreme Court took for itself, or others say "clarified in their favor", actually in Marbury vs. Madison - a landmark case that went relatively undisputed. The Supreme Court is checked by the President getting to pick who sits on the bench when one Justice needs to be replaced. The potential new Supreme Court justice must also be approved by the Congress.

    I would also point out the Constitution is not written in stone, and makes allowances to fit changing needs. The Bill of Rights plus other Amendments are proof of that. We DO INDEED use votes to determine the present and future shape of the Constitution. Over time, we have people that take a view that the Constitution should be viewed in a narrow fashion. Others like to use the elastic clause to justify everything from social security taxes to Obamacare.

    Hope this helps to make clear one of many reasons why not just voting, but the process of nominating politicians, and recall if necessary, is so important. If you don't put the truly best and direct citizen vetted (as opposed to vetted by sound bytes you hear in the media or from the party, etc) people forward, you really don't know who and what you are voting for. This is why our country is in such a mess; but it also shows us how to fix the problem.

    (2)
    (0)

Trackbacks

  1. […] This article first appeared at Survivopedia: Dealing with Gun Control: Legal Loopholes to Sidestep the Law […]

    (1)
    (0)
  2. […] all know about the direct assault that the political left has been making against our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. There has been no subtlety to that attack, nor have there been a whole lot of facts involved in […]

    (0)
    (0)
  3. […] Obama is successful with this move, you can be sure that he will have his team of lawyers looking for loopholes to declare that other types of ammunition aren’t for sporting use as […]

    (0)
    (0)
  4. […] play it safe and use the laws to your advantage to wage lawsuits and demand legislative changes instead of getting hung up by them. Make it your […]

    (0)
    (0)
  5. […] play it safe and use the laws to your advantage to wage lawsuits and demand legislative changes instead of getting hung up by them. Make it your […]

    (0)
    (0)
  6. […] play it safe and use the laws to your advantage to wage lawsuits and demand legislative changes instead of getting hung up by them. Make it your […]

    (0)
    (0)
  7. […] play it safe and use the laws to your advantage to wage lawsuits and demand legislative changes instead of getting hung up by them. Make it your […]

    (0)
    (0)
  8. […] Obama is successful with this move, you can be sure that he will have his team of lawyers looking for loopholes to declare that other types of ammunition aren’t for sporting use as […]

    (0)
    (0)

Speak Your Mind

All comments, messages, ideas, remarks, or other information that you send to us (other than information protected according to the law) become and remain our property. You are fully responsible for your comment, as depicted in Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy of the website.

*