American Bar Association Asks States to Adopt Firearm Confiscation Laws
The American Bar Association is pushing state and local governments to adopt firearm confiscation laws similar to those in California.
During their 2017 Annual Meeting, the ABA House of Delegates adopted Resolution 118B, which “urges governments to enact statutes, rules, or regulations authorizing courts to issue gun violence restraining orders, including ex parte orders.”
The ex parte aspect of the resolution means the ABA is pushing confiscation orders that can be issued without any input from the gun owner.
Breitbart News reported that California Democrats secured “gun violence restraining orders” after the May 23, 2014, Santa Barbara attack. That attack was a carried out by an individual who passed a background check for his firearms, registered his guns with the state — per law — and only used standard capacity magazines (10 rounds or less).
In the wake of gun control’s failure to stop the attack, Democrats pushed more gun control via specialized orders whereby a judge issues a firearm confiscation order without the owner of the firearms having a voice in the process. The ABA is now pushing the same thing on a national basis.
The NRA is steadfast in its opposition to the orders because they violate due process. And according to the NRA-ILA, protection of due process is very important to the ABA, except in the case of firearm confiscation.
The NRA-ILA writes:
Over the years, the American Bar Association has defended the due process rights of some very unpopular groups, including, enemy combatants, terror suspects, and convicts on death row. The organization also advocates that stringent due process standards be applied to the disposition of positive rights, such as “universal access to healthcare,” and welfare benefits. Such advocacy might give some the false impression that the ABA holds a principled position on due process rights in general. When it comes to the due process rights of gun owners, however, the ABA has abandoned any pretense of principle and adopted the prevailing left-wing orthodoxy.
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!
Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!
HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.
Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.
MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).
| Online: | |
| Visits: | 1,599,538,519 |
| Stories: | 8,139,505 |
Whistler Blowers, Insiders
I have asked attorneys to prove to me that all this “legislation/statutes/laws/policies” applies to me, with tangible, factual, personal firsthand irrefutable evidence.. the best any of them could do is reference historical papers that I never agreed to, nor am a party to.
They told me the history of law, from the code of hammurabi to the magna carta to present day constitutions,.. i asked if I agreed to or signed any of these historical documents,.. they all had to conceded that I didn’t = no evidence that it applies
They told me that everyone knows it applies,.. I asked, is that your tangible evidence that it applies? no answer!
They told me that i consented, i said prove it.. they couldn’t.
They told me that the law applies because the law says it applies, thats like saying the koran applies to me because the koran said so, and saying something applies because that thing said it does, is total bs and isn’t evidence that it applies either.
They told me that they put people in prison and that proves it applies,.. i said how many of those people in your prison demanded you prove it applies.. the attorneys had no answer, because the attorneys have never once been asked to prove their belief that it applies and none of the people in prison demanded that they prove it applies. So that’s not evidence that it applies either!
They told me that it’s the way that it’s always been done, sorry, that’s not evidence it applies.
They told me that it just applies, I asked, is that evidence that it applies,.. no answer, because that’s not evidence that it applies.
In frustration, after they figured out that they could not prove that it applies, EVERY SINGLE ATTORNEY THAT I’VE ASKED THIS QUESTION OF ALL TRIED THE ABOVE BS ON ME, AND THEY ALL HAD TO RESORT TO SAYING, IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT HERE, LEAVE! That PROVES there is no evidence to prove any of it ever applied to anyone, EVER!
DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) THE TRUMP CARD ENACTED BY CONGRESS FURTHER ASSERTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT AS UNTOUCHABLE
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.
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.
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/gun_control/news.php?q=1237163642