← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Franco
Thread ID: 6071 | Posts: 8 | Started: 2003-04-09
2003-04-09 21:39 | User Profile
4-9-03
Our U.S. Constitution corrupted by The Usual Suspects
Article I, Section 9 of our U.S. Constitution says: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Pretty plain, huh? No law passed after-the-fact.
But the 1996 Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation gun law, from Jewish-by-race Senator Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ], says that anyone who has ever been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence cannot own a gun, even if the act occurred 30 years ago. That's right -- the gun ban is retroactive. Ex post facto.
Of course, this above does not mention the Jews who sponsored the earlier Brady gun law: Senator Howard Metzenbaum and then-Congressman Charles Schumer. It also does not mention the other leading/Jewish gun banners in Congress: Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, etc.
Read about the Lautenberg gun law here: [url=http://www.gunowners.org/klbatf.htm]http://www.gunowners.org/klbatf.htm[/url]
Thanks again, Jews.
2003-04-10 02:57 | User Profile
PS -- a friend suggested that such ex post facto law [above] may now be constitutional due to an unknown Amendment at an unknown time.
If you might know anything about that possibility, please share.
2003-04-10 07:00 | User Profile
The Lautenberg Amendment is simply a law that amends the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968. Constitutional interpretation of law is highly politicized and subject to the whims and prejudices of its ultimate arbiters--the judiciary. If this and other clearly unconstitutional laws are not repealed, judicial determinations such as that cited below will stand.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and various district courts have rejected the Ex Post Facto Clause [and other] challenge[s] to the Lautenberg Amendment, determining that its provisions fall within acceptable constitutional parameters.
The courts have held that the law does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause in that it prohibits post-enactment possession and does not criminalize conduct occurring before its enactment.
[url=http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:JgcSpLkQAxsC:www.house.gov/boozman/issues/crsssecondlaut.pdf+constitutional+amendments+regarding+ex+post+facto+gun+laws&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:JgcSp...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8[/url]
2003-04-10 13:50 | User Profile
We just need to elect more Republicans so we can get conservative judges who will defend the Constitution. [img]http://users.pandora.be/ramones/emoticon/bullshit.gif[/img] Didn't the darling of the cons, Scalia, just vote to uphold the ban on cross-burning?
[url=http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_constitution&Number=552278&page=&view=&sb=&o=&part=all&vc=1&t=-1]http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?C...t=all&vc=1&t=-1[/url]
2003-04-10 15:56 | User Profile
As James Besser of "The Jewish Week" explained,
"Gun control and Judaism have always gone hand in hand."
link to above:
[url=http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=959]http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscont....php3?artid=959[/url]
More here, in my own words:
[url=http://groups.google.com/groups?q=control+yoffie+netanyahu&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=92c05l%24la4%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&rnum=2]http://groups.google.com/groups?q=control+...deja.com&rnum=2[/url]
[url=http://groups.google.com/groups?q=control+yoffie+netanyahu&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=8v7tdn%24r9h%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&rnum=4]http://groups.google.com/groups?q=control+...deja.com&rnum=4[/url]
Links to the Forward within the above articles must be revised as follows:
If the link is [url=http://www.forward.com/BACK/2000/00.08.18/news.html]http://www.forward.com/BACK/2000/00.08.18/news.html[/url] substitute "issues" for "BACK" to produce the active link: [url=http://www.forward.com/issues/2000/00.08.18/news.html]http://www.forward.com/issues/2000/00.08.18/news.html[/url]
2003-04-11 21:08 | User Profile
The point on retroactivity and ex post facto Seq cites is correct --- the thinking is that your criminal history is a "status" and not a "criminal act" for the purpose of the prohibition on gun ownership. That would be good clean logic (I leave to y'all to decide), though, as usual, it's a Constitutional tweak likely to affect a lot of White guys. Anyone ever hear of the Duluth Gun Violence Study? Google it if you're interested. If nothing pops up, let me know and I'll share.
As for the cross-burning decision, Scalia likely let the Virginia statute lie for "states' rights" reasons, though he's usually pretty reliable on free speech issues. If anyone caught the Jewess Linda Greenhouse's treatment of the case, they might have noticed the "distinction" made between "hate speech" and "free speech." Only in Amerikwa, friends.
From guns to burning crosses, every manifestation of White male virility gets smashed down by our jew-infected government. Time to start smashing back.
2003-04-12 09:40 | User Profile
Originally posted by Hugh Lincoln@Apr 11 2003, 15:08 **As for the cross-burning decision, Scalia likely let the Virginia statute lie for "states' rights" reasons, though he's usually pretty reliable on free speech issues. **
Scalia doesn't live in a vacuum. He has to know that most racial violence and intimidation is directed at Whites by non-Whites, and if he was worth a damn to his race he would have questioned how a law against burning crosses addresses that situation. If he'd done that, and given some indication that he's aware of and concerned about the tap dances many state prosecutors are doing to avoid charging minorities with the same hate crime laws that they're so eager to use against Whites, I'd respect whatever decision he made. Of course, I haven't read his comments about this case and he may have said exactly that. And green monkeys may come flying out of my ass next Tuesday. I think the chances are about the same for either of those events to occur. :D
2003-04-12 15:42 | User Profile
Originally posted by Recluse@Apr 12 2003, 09:40 ** [QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln,Apr 11 2003, 15:08 ]...And green monkeys may come flying out of my ass next Tuesday. I think the chances are about the same for either of those events to occur. :D **
I hope for your sake that you're right. :shock: