Companies fire back in U.S. nationwide 2nd Amendment debate

By Brent Daggett: While President Barack 'baby bomber' Obama is continually putting pressure on Congress to pass a new wave of gun control laws and with various states advocating similar policies, some firearm manufacturers are peacefully rebelling.
Firearm manufacturer Olympic Arms Inc. will no longer sell to New York law enforcement and government agencies in order to protest their recent gun control laws (for more details on that legislation view my article: New York Safe Act has citizens up in arms).
“Legislation recently passed in the State of New York outlaws the AR15 and many other firearms, and will make it illegal for the good and free citizens of New York to won a large selection of legal and safe firearms and magazines.  We feel as though the passage of this legislation exceeds the authority granted to the government of the New York citizens, and violates the Constitution of the United States, ignoring such SCOTUS rulings as District of Columbia v. Heller,-554, U.S. 570 of 2008, McDonald v. Chicago-561 U.S. 3025 of 2010, and specifically the case of United States v. Miller -307 U.S. 174 of 1939.”
Olympic Arms further elaborated.
“In short, Olympic Arms will no longer be doing business with the State of New York or any governmental entity or employee of such governmental entity within the State of New York-henceforth and until such legislation is repealed, and an apology made to the good people of the State of New York and the American people.”
If Olympic Arms stance was too short and to the point, check out the video Olympic Arms talks politics, embedded below:

Olympic Arms is not the only manufacturer that is essentially boycotting New York.
La Rue Tactical, Extreme Fire Power Inc.LLC, Templar Custom and York Arms are all in the fray as well.
It is uncertain if this will start a chain reaction but this issue is far from over and companies aren’t giving up soon.
Let’s now turn our focus to a brief synopsis of a couple of court cases mentioned by Olympic Arms.
District of Columbia vs. Heller 554, U.S. 570 of 2008 — “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within a home…”
McDonald vs. Chicago 561 U.S. 3025 of 2010 — “The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states…”
With this in mind, it’s a pretty safe bet that the aforementioned firearm manufactures would be closely in line with sentiments embraced by Thomas Jefferson.
“Laws that forbid the carrying or arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man,” quoted in Jefferson’s Legal Commonplace Book, originally written by Cesare Beccaria.
However, some politicians would probably believe these notions to be antiquated.
In Washington for example, State Senators Ed Murray (D), Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D) and Adam Kline (D) have introduced new gun control measures.
Some of the provisions of the bill are alarming, to say the least, for 2^nd Amendment supporters.
Page 6, line 27 states:
“(2) No person in this state shall posses or have his or her control at one time both of the following:
(a) A semiautomatic or pump-action rifle, semiautomatic pistol, or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine; and
(b) Any magazine capable of use with that firearm that contains more than ten rounds of ammunition.”
Page 7, line 18:
“(5) In order to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possession the assault weapons shall do all of the following:
(a) Safely and securely store the assault weapon.  The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection,
(5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following: (a) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection;”
Minnesota is also looking into passing many gun control bills, here are but a few.
•HF184-  “Centralized registration maintenance and creation required for individuals who voluntarily wish to be ineligible to purchase firearms for a self-determined period of time; and chiefs of police and sheriffs mandated to accept voluntary surrender of firearms and ammunition from persons on the voluntary register and establishment of procedures for return of the firearms and ammunition upon requests.”
• HF241- “Assault weapons; crime established for manufacturing, transferring, or possessing assault weapons; existing assault weapon disposal or registration provided for; terms defined; data classified; language clarified; and penalties provided.”
• HF242- “Which would create a large-capacity magazine crime; and Large-capacity magazine crime established for the manufacture, transfer, or possession of ammunition feeding devices with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds or any conversion kit, part, or combination of parts; terms defined; and criminal penalties provided.
The battles in this debate are far from over, but let’s hope that since civil liberties are at stake our constitutional rights are upheld.
After all, if our most basic rights are not guaranteed then the Constitution itself will eventually become obsolete.
 
Edited by Madison Ruppert and WD

Source

banzai7