Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Vermont Governor to Sign Three Gun Control Bills

“Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self.”- Cyril Connolly (1903 - 1974)

 

Vermont Governor to Sign Three Gun Control Bills  

 


By de Andréa

Opinion Editorialist for    
‘THE BOTTOM LINE’

Posted April 10, 2018



Lawmakers in the Green Mountain State are passing three gun confiscation measures Thursday, sending them to a so-called Republican governor who is prepared to sign them. Not since the late 1700’s has the state of Vermont ever had a law regarding guns. This will be the first unconstitutional anti-Second Amendment laws in the green state of Vermont.  Vermont, who has always been a bit of a maverick was not even part of the original 13 colonies or States. It claimed itself as an independent State, until it became the 14th State in 1791.       Since then it has enjoyed among the lowest gun crime rates in the country, but now with illegal laws to be broken, watch it increase right along with all the other anti-American Communist States in the country.  

Two of the bills, S.221 and H.422, would remove guns from those the state decides to be “at risk” and from those accused of domestic assault charges. Both proposals passed unanimously in the legislature this week and join a third, S.55, already on Gov. Phil Scott’s desk.

Governor Phil Scott talks with forked tongue

“As I’ve said, I strongly support the second amendment and all Constitutional rights,” bla, bla, bla, said Scott in a statement about the illegal legislation. And then he continues to say: “I support S.55, S.221, and H.422 because I believe these bills uphold these rights while taking reasonable steps to reduce the risk of violence.”

 As I said “with Forked Tongur Mine Fuhrer.”

Governor Scott! Ach Tung… I’ve got news for you from headquarters’ Mine Fuhrer.  No gun law has ever stopped a criminal from committing a crime with a gun. Isn’t that why they call them criminals? Oh well, what can you expect from a scared little Fuhrer, after all he has the only state without gun-laws, he’s got to keep up, he feels left out

S.55, which would restrict magazine capacity to 15 rounds on handguns and 10 rounds on rifles, ban bump stocks and raise the age to buy guns in the Vermont to 21, slid past the Vermont state Senate last week by one vote and triggered a magazine giveaway from gun rights groups who rallied to oppose the measure.

S.221 would add a mechanism to Vermont law to allow for so-called “extreme risk protection orders.” Similar measures have been adopted in the Communist state of California, Washington and Florida and have been characterized as “red flag” laws by supporters and “turn in your neighbor” bills by Constitutionalists, pointing to the constitutional due process concerns.

H.422 provides confiscation of firearms from those charged or cited in the state over some domestic violence or abuse accusations not convictions just accusations.  It would allow officers responding to a report to seize guns in plain sight. With the pressure on in the Statehouse by other states to pass gun restrictions, Vermonters have understandably for the first time been reaching for their wallets to stock up on firearms, ammunition, and accessories in recent weeks. March proved to be the busiest month ever for background checks on gun transfers in the state.

But the usually constitutional state of Vermont is just the beginning of the anti-Constitutional un-American hysteria over guns in the U.S.

Not surprisingly, the village of Deerfield, Illinois passed an anti-gun ordinance Monday, and by the end of the week was already facing legal challenges.

Deerfield’s Village Board went all-in on a local law to fine those with “assault weapons” and detachable magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds inside the city’s limits as much as $1,000 a day. This sparked the promise of a lawsuit from two gun rights groups Wednesday and the materialization of separate litigation filed Thursday by a Deerfield resident backed by another pair of Second Amendment organizations. With the ban set to take effect in 60 days, advocates felt time was of the essence.

“We moved swiftly to challenge this gun ban because it flies in the face of state law,” said Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation. Gottlieb’s group, along with the Illinois State Rifle Association, is supporting a lawsuit by Deerfield resident and gun owner Daniel Easterday against the Chicago suburb’s pending new regulations.  I can only guess that Deerfield what’s to have a bloody shootout just like its big brother Chicago.

“While the village is trying to disguise this as an amendment to an existing ordinance, it is, in fact, a new law that entirely bans possession of legally-owned semi-auto firearms, with no exception for guns previously owned, or any provision for self-defense,” said Gottlieb. I guess they hadn’t heard of the Supreme Court Heller vs Washington DC decision.  I guess the governments no longer care what law they violate.

In addition to the suit from Easterday, ‘The National Rifle Association’ and ‘Guns Save Life’ have also announced plans to file legal action against the town of Deerfield.

As for the village, it posted a statement Thursday saying the board “believes it has acted within its statutory authority and will be evaluating the suit in order to respond appropriately.”

THE BOTTOM LINE:  Yeah! Just what part of “…shall not be infringed” don’t you understand? No gun law is in anyone’s statutory authority.

Again my friend I am warning you because it’s my job.  If we lose the Second Amendment and American Citizens are disarmed, we will lose all…that’s ALL OUR RIGHTS my friend.  Some ignorant and brain washed people say the U.S. Constitutional law is old fashion. That just shows how little they know about the architects who wrote it.  When they wrote the Second Amendment they included “shall not be infringed” because they knew the future my friend as well as the past , they knew that governments would try to take away the ability of the people to defend the “security of a free state,” they knew that government officials would become tyrants.  

Governments should fear the people not the people fear the government.
                                             
“If you want good security, go to prison, you will have everything you could want except freedom– Dwight D. Eisenhower

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson

As I said, if we give that right away we will have given away our freedom!    The Framers knew their history and the future…do you?

Thanks for listening my friend. Now go do the right thing, pray and fight for truth and freedom.  If you would like to write me direct with a question or a comment you can contact me at writedeandrea@hotmail.com
- de Andréa
Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list.  It may be the only chance for your family and friends to hear the truth.
The Fine Print
Copyright © 2005 by Bottom Line Publishing, All Rights Reserved -  Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Disclaimer - The writer of this blog is not responsible for the language or advertisements used in links to referenced articles as source materials.

No comments: