Profile image
By Jeffery Pritchett
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

State’s New Gun Law Sets Stage for Gun Confiscation (Video)

Friday, April 13, 2018 13:37
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

Illinois has passed a controversial and strict new set of anti-gun laws that now sits on the governor’s desk and one of its provisions requires that all citizens under 21 will not only lose their right to bear arms, but that they will have to turn in their guns, sell them or transfer them to someone else, or, barring that, have them removed from their possession. And liberals always say that no one is going to take away your guns, right?

Well, once again we see that all liberals lie.

At the end of February, the Illinois House of Representatives passed House Bill 1465, a law that would ban the ownership of “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines for anyone under 21 years of age.

HB 1465 was sponsored by Chicago area Rep. Michelle Mussman (D-Schaumburg) and passed by a vote of 64-51 on February 28.

It next went to the Illinois Senate where it added seven co-sponsors including Sen. Jim Oberweis (R-Sugar Grove), whom the NRA had previously given an “A” rating. If this doesn’t show that in Illinois there is no difference between a Democrat and a Republican, what does?

The bill shocked many, though, because one of its provisions stated that citizens under 21 (are they really citizens after this?) had only ninety days to “transfer” ownership of the firearms and magazines they would until then have owned legally or be considered a criminal.

Now, the original sponsor of the bill, Democrat Mussman, hastened to insist that the state wouldn’t be sending cops to kids’ houses to confiscate their guns. She claimed that no confiscation is in the plans but noted that if someone under 21 is caught with such a newly banned gun will be charged with a misdemeanor.

But, this is an example of the camel’s nose under the tent if there ever was. If the cops don’t get anyone to follow the new law, then the only recourse is to strengthen the law to force confiscation of such guns. It is only the next logical step and since laws always grow, never shrink, this is bound to happen eventually. The stage has already been set for it.

Liberals say that they aren’t out to confiscate your guns. But we already have several states doing so right now. Connecticut, New York, and California all have varying degrees of laws where guns are right now being confiscated because of new rules.

This new “under 21” nonsense is only the latest example of the creeping destruction of our Second Amendment rights. And, in fact, it’s all based on misconceptions and outright lies.

First of all, keeping guns out of the hands of people under 21 will have little effect on mass shootings. Thus far the average age of mass shooters is 33. They have not been hotheaded, immature teenagers. Most have been in their 20s and early 30s with a few in their 50s and 60s.

Further, the age restriction makes no sense on a variety of levels. Are we as a society saying that 18-year-olds are stable, mature, and smart enough to vote, drive, live on their own, 

work, own property, enter into certain contracts, AND go into the military to fight our wars… but are too untrustworthy and immature to be allowed to exercise their God-given right to self-protection?

How does that even make sense?

But this age 21 business also causes a problem for young hunters. NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said in a statement published by The Hill newspaper that this all makes for bad law.

“Passing a law that makes it illegal for a 20-year-old to purchase a shotgun for hunting or adult single mother from purchasing the most effective self-defense rifle on the market punishes law-abiding citizens for the evil acts of criminals,” she said.

The paper went on:

Any law that requires an individual to be 21 or older to buy a firearm “effectively prohibits” adults aged 18-20 from buying a firearm “deprives them of their constitutional right to self-protection.”…

The bill that will now head to the Illinois Senate, HB 1465,

  • Makes it unlawful for any person within the State to knowingly deliver or sell, or cause to be delivered or sold, an assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge to, any person under 21 years of age.
  • Makes it unlawful for any person under 21 years of age to knowingly possess an assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge 90 days after the effective date of the bill. Provides exemptions and penalties.
  • Provides that it is unlawful for any person within the State to knowingly deliver or sell, or cause to be delivered or sold, a large capacity ammunition feeding device to a person under 21 years of age.
  • Provides that it is unlawful for any person under 21 years of age to possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device within the State.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Jeanne Ives voted no on the measure, and expressed her concern about the issue earlier this week when Illinois Review asked her about raising the age buying a gun to age 21.

“What other rights are we going to raise to age 21?” Ives answered. “The age is arbitrary. The average age of a mass shooter is somewhere in the 30s.”

But this is all of a piece for the left. Their goal is not “safety” but full control of the populace. After all, an armed populace cannot be controlled.

Along with chipping away at the laws stating just who can and who cannot own a firearm and continually enlarging the list of those who cannot, the left is also waging a war for the mind to create an atmosphere against firearms. The left is attempting to make guns just as abhorrent to civil society as smoking or Christianity.

The left wants to make it so that society as a whole hates guns and are appalled by them at a visceral level. The left wants Americans to view gun owners as horrible, disgusting, hateful people. They want gun owners to be “othered.” And, using the “Rules for Radicals” playbook they are using the tactic of projection to create that feeling of hatred.

For instance, this month the criminal, domestic terror outfit Black Lives Matter came out to portray the National Rifle Association as a “terrorist organization.”

If ANY movement in American history is a domestic terror organization, it is Black Lives Matter. BLM has shut down cities, has caused billions of dollars in property damage, and breaks laws everywhere it operates. Yet, BLM has the temerity to call the NRA a “terrorist” group?

What laws has the NRA broken? What riot has the NRA sponsored? What city hall or local community has the NRA burned down?

But this is how the left works. They are the terrorists, they are anti-American, they are lawbreakers, they are dangerous, yet there they stand pointing the finger at their opponents. And with a national media establishment working in their favor, their message of hate reaches every American, every man woman, and child. And they operate under the maxim that if you tell the lie long enough and loudly enough it will eventually become “fact.”

This is what we face, America. Don’t let them win. Fight these lying liberals with every inch of your being.

Crossposted With Constitution.com

 

 

The post Get Ready: State’s New Gun Law Sets Stage for Gun Confiscation! appeared first on The Lid.

Source: https://lidblog.com/new-gun-law-sets-stage-gun-confiscation/

 

I host the Church of Mabus radio show and it is going on 8 years. I’ve been in the paranormal community for 20 years. I provide content from a network of sources and guests and allies. Ranging from Politics to the Paranormal and the Spiritual. You can check out my other articles here at my BIOGRAPHY at BIN and you can check out my free radio show at this link HERE. Thanks for showing your support and stopping by.

We encourage you to Share our Reports, Analyses, Breaking News and Videos. Simply Click your Favorite Social Media Button and Share.

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question Razz Sad Evil Exclaim Smile Redface Biggrin Surprised Eek Confused Cool LOL Mad Twisted Rolleyes Wink Idea Arrow Neutral Cry Mr. Green

Total 3 comments
  • Ideas Time

    Anyone who swore an oath to office and signed this non-law has committed treason and should treated as an enemy combatant. Time for the sheriff to start arresting these traitors or they too a culpable. See title 2381 and 2382 USC.

  • Jerry

    This is more powerful than the Constitution…read on:

    The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities. ~ See Related Article
     

    The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.
    The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
    The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
    The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
    The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion).
    These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.
    Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.”
    The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.
    During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada.
    The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.
    The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states.
    Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.
    Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states:
    “The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States.” In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, “that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.”
    “This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose.
    Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.”
    The Honorable William Gordon
    Congressional Record, House, Page 640 – 1917

  • Grim

    Let’s see how many cops want to enforce these new un-Constitutional gun grabs, when they start getting shot full of holes, by citizens exercising their God given right to protect themselves from tyranny.

Top Stories
Recent Stories
 

Featured

Loading...

Top Global

Top Alternative

 

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.