3/4: Marietta 9.12 Project Set to Host Sheriff Mack to Discuss States Rights
Posted by Editor on March 4, 2010 · 7 Comments
Local grassroots organization, the Marietta 9-12 Project, looks forward to hosting author, speaker and advocate for state’s rights, Sheriff Richard Mack, at a speech and dinner on Friday, March 12 at the Holy Smoke Event Center in Whipple, OH.
Mack became nationally known in 1997 after he and a Montana sheriff both filed actions against the federal government. In Printz v. United States, the two sheriffs challenged the constitutionality of the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act of 1993, specifically the provision that compelled a national background check on all firearm sales. They won against the government with a Supreme Court majority of five justices.
From what I read he made his name opposing background checks before purchasing firearms. Nice idea except for known home-grown terrorists who want to build an arsenal. Or convicted violent felons, or known crazy, violent nuts. The right wing objects to any restriction on gun purchases, even in the case of clearly crazy people like the ones who attacked Pentagon or Holocaust Museum guards. As ye so, so shall ye reap.
Suppose I want to own nuclear arms and surface to air missiles. I haven’t decided yet what to do with them. Does the Constitution allow me to own nuclear arms? Or mortars?
Nurclear Arms do no constitute personal protection. But you can owen field-artillary, anything manufactured before 1910. And on your other point. Background checks don’t work. Convicted felons do not buy there firearms from gunstores, they steel them. As far as crazy people are conserened. Any person with a mental disorder, it is very difficult to do a background check because of HIPPA laws. HIPPA laws protect everyones medical records from public view. Only if a person is found mentaly incompetent, by a court of law. Can a person be prevented from buying a firearm. Background checks can not work, and do not work. So why even have them.
Where do you get that “personal protection” is a limit on what sort of weapon you can own. It’s not that I disbelieve you, I’m just wondering where that comes from. I’m certainly in favor of some limits.
The Courts. And the court decision can very from state to state. It’s kind of like a shotgun. Federal Law says the barrel of a shotgun must be 18inch.long Florida Law says the same thing. But some states say you can only owen a shotgun that has a 20inch barrel. All states are different.
Bryan, in your opinion, where should America draw the line on the right to keep and bear arms? You mention that one requirement is that weapon are for “personal protection.” And I think it goes without saying that weapons used for hunting are okay (and please understand I’m not against guns for personal protection or for hunting). Now I don’t know much about guns but “personal protection” covers a lot of territory depending on what your idea is of the potential threat.
If you’re worried about about a burglar, that’s one thing. You’re covered there with a shotgun (that would be my choice) but a handgun would work too.
But your worried about a lawless gang of criminals trying to invade your house that’s another thing. And if you’re worried about the GOVERNMENT invading your house to deprive you of your Constitutional Rights, then I think any weapon at all would be justified, including hand grenades, automatic weapons and nerve gas satisfy the requirement of being for “personal protection.”
If weapons for “personal protection” then I think that’s defined by who you think your enemies are. What do you think?
Sheriff Mack is a very good speeker. The People of Marietta are very lucky to have him.
The RNC thinks that tea party donors are fools motivated by fear. Sure.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33866.html