TexasCHLforum.com

May 5, 2011




Dear Friend:




Thank you for taking the time to write. I have heard from many Americans regarding firearms policy, and I appreciate your perspective.



I am committed to making my Administration the most open and transparent in history, and part of delivering on that promise is hearing from people like you. I take seriously your opinions and respect your point of view on this important issue. Please know that your concerns will be on my mind in the days ahead.



Thank you, again, for writing. I encourage you to visit http://www.WhiteHouse.gov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to learn more about my Administration or to contact me in the future.




Sincerely,



Barack Obama

Tax collectors gone wild
"We want our $200 manufactures tax fee paid ..."

yup

shall not be infringed

ok we'll regulate "sporting" ...
Capacity= no more than # shells in a shotgun for ducks
this caliber or bigger for deer
Steel no lead shot

which became (to the ATF)
ok we'll regulate everything NOT "sporting"
no pistol grips
no collapsible stocks
no flashlight mount
etc


And
N.Y wants
can't be pink

Soooo ... how'd that happen ...

hirundo82 wrote:

RPB wrote:Seems like an Act (Gun Control Act/Assault Weapons Ban) is at least in part, unconstitutional if it allows infringement on "self-defense/home defense. I didn't research laws on this much, but I can't see constitutionality of regulating home defense.

I'm not sure that an "Assault Weapons" Ban would be found unconstitutional, but a law that restricts firearms to those suitable to "sporting purposes" would seem to conflict with the key holding in Heller--that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess firearms for self-defense purposes.

I propose that given that there are 2 sides in any armed conflict, one is used for assault, and if assaulted, the other is used for defense of that assault, and often, they are the same weapon. So, assault weapons are, or can be defensive weapons. When either one drops his gun and the other party picks it up, it is often used for the "other purpose"

If an enemy with an assault weapon gives it up and you are holding it, and you are attacked by another enemy, the former assault weapon becomes a defensive weapon against the new enemy holding an assault weapon, which is identical to the one you use to defend yourself..

I've read News reports of AK-47 defending homes, Dr. Suzanna Hupp testified of what an AR-15 defending homes?
I'd bet SKS rifles have too.

But , picatinney rails, bayonet lugs, folding stocks, and a pistol grip make them only useful for assault and useless for defense ..
(Those grips/stocks/flashlight mounts must make the bullet come out harder so it is more bad?)

"not for sporting purposes"

Wish I could do Venn diagrams on here

"Home Defense" is "not for Sporting purposes"
By having power to regulate everything "not for sporting purposes" they infringe upon "home defense" 2nd Amendment self-protection.

Seems like an Act (Gun Control Act/Assault Weapons Ban) is at least in part, unconstitutional if it allows infringement on "self-defense/home defense. I didn't research laws on this much, but I can't see constitutionality of regulating home defense.

Don't expect an answer if you contact the atf

To: <shotgunstudy@atf.gov>
Subject: Question
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:51:09 -0500

I have no interest at all in hunting or killing animals, but I'm curious why you would try to limit or regulate what tool a person can use for self defense in their own home?

If 5 home invaders break into a handicapped person's home who has only 1 hand at night, why couldn't he have a 15 round .410 shotgun with a pistol grip or device to help him maintain control of it and a flashlight and laser? Why do you object to that?
-----------------

Something similar to your post, though not as complete I think, was posted but in reference to why SAIGA shotguns recently increased in price, and got harder to find..... and may be harder to import, and a picatinny rail for a flashlight makes them more assaultive instead of duck-hunty guns. (I see nowhere that they are regulating self-defense weapons, but through a back door of "these are not for "sporting" ... which is a false premise that "sporting is ..... the .... ONLY legitimate use."

But you may have heard ....
the ONLY use for a gun is ..... to kill and maim
the ONLY use for a foot long assault clip is .... to spray lots of bullets real fast


I still propose that the ONLY use for shoes is to allow mass murderers to run around faster to do more damage and they should be banned.... Not every mass murderer used this or that gun or magazine but every one of them wore shoes ....