| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Senate Bill Would Force Gun Owners to Buy “Smart Guns”
Massachusetts Senators Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren introduced legislation last week, that could have serious ramifications for gun owners in America. The “Handgun Trigger Safety Act” would demand that “anyone selling a handgun must retrofit it with personalization technology before that sale can be completed.”
Infusing a handgun with this “smart” technology would allow the weapon to only be used by the authorized owner. They typically operate with either fingerprinting technology, password recognition, or by being in range of an electronic bracelet or ring. The bill would ban the manufacture of any handgun in the United States that is not “personalized” within 5 years, and would give an additional 5 years time to retrofit any older handguns with the technology before they are sold.
Gun activists are sure to see this as an underhanded attempt restrict gun ownership by making these weapons too expensive to own. Currently, one of the few smart guns on the market today is a .22 that costs $1,800. It also opens the door to placing micro stamps, tracking devices, and other electronic controls in new firearms. Perhaps someday, your gun will be much like your car. The authorities will be able to “turn it off” remotely.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Contributed by Joshua Krause of The Daily Sheeple.
Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshua’s reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter. Joshua’s website is Strange Danger .
Source: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/senate-bill-would-force-gun-owners-to-buy-smart-guns_062015
No!!! NONE of their legislation is applicable to the private person.. if you believe otherwise, PROVE IT!
First, you’ll have to prove that private men/women are party to the CON-stitutions.. fyi, the courts have already ruled that the private people are NOT party to any CON-stitution. Really!!
Lets see what the courts have to say about THEIR CON-stitution and YOU “as a private man/woman”, ready?
Padelford, Fay & Co vs. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah
“But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court , on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it.”
See, I told you! It doesn’t apply to you, UNLESS YOU’RE A STATE! are you a State?? probably not!!
From the above cite, we can reasonably extrapolate that YOU ARE NOT A PARTY to any State CON-stitution either!! The parties to State CON-stitutions would be Counties, Cities, Districts and Corporations! Are you any of those?? Then it doesn’t apply to you either! Nor any of their stupid statutes, codes, policies, etc.. We’ll presume that you haven’t taken an oath to a State CON-stitution either, nor signed one!!
When one is not a party to some agreement, contract, compact or CON-stitution, they are not and cannot ever be constrained by, controlled by or forced to obey it or any promulgations arising from of or by any alleged authority granted by it! Those promulgations would be statutes, laws, codes, policies, etc..
Did you sign any for their CON-stitutions?? no?!?! Ok, have you sworn an oath that would obligate you to follow it/them and or the laws? no??? THEN NONE OF IT APPLIES TO YOU!
Are you aware that ALL government employees are REQUIRED to swear/sign an oath that does obligate them to follow any asinine legislation that politicians can think up?? No oath, no job! Interesting isn’t it?? All of those employees ALL BELIEVE that their
CON-stitution and laws apply to everyone, automatically! Ask them, they’ll tell you!!!
IF as they claim, their CON-stitution and laws automatically apply to everyone, THEN WHY ARE THEY REQUIRED TO SIGN/SWEAR AN OATH THAT OBLIGATES THEM TO FOLLOW THEIR CON-stitution and LAWS? You would think that if it truly automatically applied to everyone, as they claim.. there would be absolutely no need for the governments employees to swear/sign an oath to something that already automatically applies, right??
Remember, before you start quoting statutes, laws, codes, policies at anyone to buttress your assertion of applicability.. those laws get their alleged authority from something that doesn’t apply to the private people.. their CON-stitutions!!
So much for their legislation!