So much for focusing on the Economy...

[top gun]

Despite assertions from the Progressive bots that such things wouldn't happen till after the problems in the economy were solved, the Progressive leaders (read that fascists) are wasting no time assaulting our second amendment rights in an effort to disarm the public.

Introduced January 6th 2009:

H.R. 45, Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009;
Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license.


Obama: "law abiding gun owners have nothing to fear"

The second amendment isn't for hunting, its not for sport, its there as the last resort to protect all our other rights from those who would violate those rights, that includes an oppressive government.

If you own a gun, you will be required to get a license and register with your states attorney general or find yourself labeled a criminal and subject to severe punitive action. Should the A.G. turn down your application... You'll have to surrender your firearms.

This is the same kind of backdoor garbage government used with the "drug stamp act" where you could only possess, acquire or sell drugs if you apply for a drug stamp... a stamp they don't have to issue and have never issued. There is no language in H.R. 45 that requires the states A.G.'s to issue licenses, only that citizens are required to have one or be criminals for possessing a firearm. If passed, this would be a sinisterly clever law that works around the recent SCOTUS decision.

For those who think this is "common sense" legislation and support such efforts, imagine you had to have a license and be registered with the state to exercise your right to free speech, or practice a religion, or any of your other rights, and a failure to obtain such a license would make you a criminal for exercising those rights. Remember, there is no guarantee that you would be issued such a license, no matter how model a citizen you happen to be.

Its not freedom when you need permission from the government to exercise rights guaranteed to you by the constitution. When you need permission, they cease to be rights and become privileges (like driving), your rights are no longer guaranteed and the constitution becomes, as Bush so eloquently put it; "just a G-d damn piece of paper."

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing....

Write, call, outright harass your Congressmen and Senators about this assault on our liberty.

What's the problem? We license cars and computer software and just about anything else important. There's nothing here about taking away law abiding citizens guns.

Much like a good background check I'd find it hard to believe you'd be lobbying for convicted felons and people with documented mental illnesses to be able to pack around a Glock or an AK-47.

Plus one of the problems we have with firearms is a legitimate person buys a weapon... but then he can sell it to Charles Manson and no one is the wiser. A mandated registration process helps stop that practice.

And pleeeease don't get all 1776 sentimental on us.

I'm sure the Founders never meant for criminals of schizophrenic psychotics to have guns to kill innocent law abiding citizens when they drafted the 2nd Amendment.

So let's not over react. It's not anti 2nd Amendment to have to have a concealed carry permit... or a background check... or a registered gun.

 

[Bunz]

For anyone who wants to read the actual text of the proposed bill here is a link.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45:

As to GenSeneca's claims, I did not notice anywhere in the text that it would ban "assault rifles" or limit magazine/clip capacity to 5.

 

[Bunz]

On a side note: My favorite gun manufacturer, Calico (what a great name!), was put out of business after the original "assault" weapons ban. They've since rebuilt their business and now face, once again, being put out of business.

I don't hear anyone on the Left wringing their hands over the of jobs that will be LOST if this legislation goes through... Perhaps if they were Union jobs the Left would give a crap about putting these people out of work.

If you consider me left, I would be quite angry if this bill is even passed through either legislative body.

First... you voted for the guy...

Yep

would you really not vote for him the next time around for signing this into law?

Probably not. Depends on other factors. I voted for Bush in 2000, not in 2004

I don't think the people who voted for him give a crap about whether he makes this law and apparently, there are those who think more of him for it.

In regards to your first statement, you think wrong.

Now as for your thinking that such legislation doesn't stand a chance... think about it, now is a brilliant time to push it through... We have an economic "crisis" thats got the public and the media's attention squarely focused elsewhere.

You seem to forget that America has a short attention span. We are already tired of hearing about how bad the economy is. Any serious effort at this point to push this bill through will raise a ruckus.

Put that with Rom Emanuel's statements about how during a crisis, "we can put through legislation that would not otherwise get passed." He knows that unpopular legislation like this stands its best chance of getting passed, without becoming a firestorm, while the public and media are all watching and talking about the legislative proposals related to the economy.

Kinda like how the Patriot Act got pushed through?

It would be political suicide to bring this up during a slow news cycle, or after the crisis passed, where it would be front page news and on the lips of all the newscasters and talk radio jockeys.

The news cycle would change its focus if this even makes it deep into committee discussion. Reading the bill, it is DOA. Pointless and probably not even Constitutional. It is one of those pet bills that get introduced every year at the begining of the session, kinda like the pointless Impeach Bush nonesense that comes from Kucinich.

Lastly, I don't think Obama wants to wait 4 years to see this get done.... His record is one of being firmly anti-gun. I think he, and those in Congress, are betting on using the economic crisis as a smokescreen to pass just this kind of unpopular legislation - quietly.

I think you are being overly paranoid here Seneca, at least I hope so.
If this bill, or a similar one passes before 2012, you will see GOP control of at least one house and the White House. Its not gonna happen. Dead On Arrival

 

[Bunz]

What's the problem? We license cars and computer software and just about anything else important. There's nothing here about taking away law abiding citizens guns.

Licensing computer software is not a federal law. Nor is licensing cars, that is a state thing. As for taking guns away, it is the begining of a very slippery slope.

Much like a good background check I'd find it hard to believe you'd be lobbying for convicted felons and people with documented mental illnesses to be able to pack around a Glock or an AK-47.

There is already a very good background check system in place before one buys a gun. People convicted of felonies or have a documented mental illness are required to declare that on the 4473 form. Which stops the sale in its tracks. If they lie, and the ATF background check is processed, they will be denied then. And possibly charged with falsifying a federal document.

Plus one of the problems we have with firearms is a legitimate person buys a weapon... but then he can sell it to Charles Manson and no one is the wiser. A mandated registration process helps stop that practice.

Mandated registration of guns in private ownership since when? Registration doesnt prevent this.

And pleeeease don't get all 1776 sentimental on us.

I'm sure the Founders never meant for criminals of schizophrenic psychotics to have guns to kill innocent law abiding citizens when they drafted the 2nd Amendment.

Firstly, there is no reason to even look back to the founding fathers. Look at the pointless effect the Brady Bill had. Criminals are always going to have guns, lets not make everyone who has a gun a criminal.

So let's not over react. It's not anti 2nd Amendment to have to have a concealed carry permit... or a background check... or a registered gun. [/COLOR]

Well the USSC would disagree, because they overruled the DC gun ban last summer. The current system we have now, generally works. Basic federal mandates and then let states decide for themselves.

The State of Alaska does not require a permit for concealed handgun carry. Since this became policy, three things that the antigun folks thought would happen, have not...the number of people who carry concealed has not raised dramatically. The number of gun deaths and specifically murder, has DECREASED, and so has accidental shooting.

I am a firm believer that an armed society is a polite society.

 

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

As was noted, this bill has very short legs and will be easily defeated. Has anyone considered that Obama may very well have stimulated one part of the economy very effectively without ANY government money? Look at gun sales! They're through the roof, and ammunition too. So the recovery has begun, starting with gun sales.

If we can continue the rhetoric of fear I think we can also stimulate the survivalist markets in tools, storage of foodstocks and personal supplies, this will stimulate manufacturing and shipping, produce jobs and before you know it we will have climbed out of the recession.

I do have to give you that one to you Top_Gun .. the economy has stirred within the gun industry from Obama... I just hopefully would oped for less fear.. more fruitful spending. But to each their own.

 

[foggedinn]

Someone in virtually every congress introduces a bill aimed at restricting gun ownership.

Sometimes they are republican, sometimes they are democrat. Sometimes the administration supports the bill, sometimes they don't.

Why is everyone getting so upset this time around?

 

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

Licensing computer software is not a federal law. Nor is licensing cars, that is a state thing. As for taking guns away, it is the begining of a very slippery slope.

There is already a very good background check system in place before one buys a gun. People convicted of felonies or have a documented mental illness are required to declare that on the 4473 form. Which stops the sale in its tracks. If they lie, and the ATF background check is processed, they will be denied then. And possibly charged with falsifying a federal document.

Mandated registration of guns in private ownership since when? Registration doesnt prevent this.

Firstly, there is no reason to even look back to the founding fathers. Look at the pointless effect the Brady Bill had. Criminals are always going to have guns, lets not make everyone who has a gun a criminal.

Well the USSC would disagree, because they overruled the DC gun ban last summer. The current system we have now, generally works. Basic federal mandates and then let states decide for themselves.

The State of Alaska does not require a permit for concealed handgun carry. Since this became policy, three things that the antigun folks thought would happen, have not...the number of people who carry concealed has not raised dramatically. The number of gun deaths and specifically murder, has DECREASED, and so has accidental shooting.

I am a firm believer that an armed society is a polite society.

Bunz what a great post.. and with your promision, I would like to the take liberty of using your Quote!!

I am a firm believer that an armed society is a polite society.

 

[GenSeneca]

Kinda like how the Patriot Act got pushed through?

No, not like the Patriot Act at all... that was certainly front page news and rushed through as necessary emergency legislation. I can make a much stronger case of parallels between the 700 billion dollar bailout and the Patriot Act than you can about the Pat Act and H.R. 45. The bailout and the Pat Act were both front page news, debated and passed without the normal constraints placed on the Congress when considering legislation.

Reading the bill, it is DOA.

I hope you're correct about that.

I think you are being overly paranoid here Seneca, at least I hope so.

I guess it depends on where you draw the line between paranoid and protective. I see an executive, legislative and judicial precedence for concern that such a proposal could not only get passed but be abused. I'd rather alert people to the potential and be proven wrong than ignore it and wake up one day to find yet another one of our rights reduced to a privilege.

 

[Bunz]

Mr. Dysfunctional,
It isnt my quote, someone said it before me. I dont recall where though. But I find it to be quite true.

 

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

I guess it depends on where you draw the line between paranoid and protective. I see an executive, legislative and judicial precedence for concern that such a proposal could not only get passed but be abused. I'd rather alert people to the potential and be proven wrong than ignore it and wake up one day to find yet another one of our rights reduced to a privilege.

Not to mention that the 2nd amendment ensures a last step measure in the checks and balances of our democracy.

If ... If Obama flops to be the socialist crazed demon the far-right has made him out to be.. Wouldn't the first thing to go be gun ownership?

 

[Bunz]

No, not like the Patriot Act at all... that was certainly front page news and rushed through as necessary emergency legislation. I can make a much stronger case of parallels between the 700 billion dollar bailout and the Patriot Act than you can about the Pat Act and H.R. 45. The bailout and the Pat Act were both front page news, debated and passed without the normal constraints placed on the Congress when considering legislation.

Fair enough Seneca, but to the final line of this segment, HR would go through all the normal constraints, going through probably a few different committees, in the house alone, much less face a house vote. Then of course there is the Senate. Which would be a much tougher challenge. There are plenty of Democrats in the Senate that come from strong gun states and would put thier jobs in direct jeopardy with a yea vote in that regard. I could see (D) Mark Begich of Alaska being beaten in a landslide should he support something like this. There are others as well.

I hope you're correct about that.

I hope so as well. Plus I knew we agreed on some things

I guess it depends on where you draw the line between paranoid and protective. I see an executive, legislative and judicial precedence for concern that such a proposal could not only get passed but be abused. I'd rather alert people to the potential and be proven wrong than ignore it and wake up one day to find yet another one of our rights reduced to a privilege.

Fair enough, and I dont disagree. I just see this as political suicide. Plus as Mare Tranquility pointed out, that firearms are still a major force in our manufacturing industry. Employing probably hundreds of thousands directly in the factories and potentially millions in regards to retail sales, gunsmiths, optics, and other accessories. Hunting alone is a billion dollar a year industry.

 

[Bunz]

Not to mention that the 2nd amendment ensures a last step measure in the checks and balances of our democracy.

If ... If Obama flops to be the socialist crazed demon the far-right has made him out to be.. Wouldn't the first thing to go be gun ownership?

I dont disagree, but I think the bill as written is already unconstitutional. There is a provision for "inspections" which will make for an interesting 4th amendment issue.

 

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

I dont disagree, but I think the bill as written is already unconstitutional. There is a provision for "inspections" which will make for an interesting 4th amendment issue.

shouldn't this also tread on 10th amendment rights since this should be a power of the state?

 

[Bunz]

shouldn't this also tread on 10th amendment rights since this should be a power of the state?

I would agree in general, but the bill is written as such to get around this because it is the job of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Its a bogus way to go about it IMHO, but it is a way to skirt the states rights issue.

 

[GenSeneca]

What's the problem? We license cars and computer software and just about anything else important. There's nothing here about taking away law abiding citizens guns.

We don't have a constitutional right to cars, computer software or lots of other things that require a license... we DO have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and this would reduce that right to a privilege subject to the whims of politicians.

For anyone who wants to read the actual text of the proposed bill here is a link.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45:

As to GenSeneca's claims, I did not notice anywhere in the text that it would ban "assault rifles" or limit magazine/clip capacity to 5.

Those thomas loc links are usually temporary and expire quickly, that's why I didn't include it. If that does expire, try this one:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show

As for your other statement regarding my seemingly inaccurate statements regarding the legislation, it was an amendment proposal not featured in the main text that sought to reinstate the assault weapons ban and further reduce magazine capacity to 5, an amendment that I see was not adopted.

My apologies, I wasn't trying to intentionally be misleading but its still a terrible bill that reduces our right to a privilege.. When you're a C-Span junkie like myself, you can easily miss statements like "and as a proposed amendment for the bill..." at the beginning of the clerks statements and mistake what they go on to say as part of the proposed legislation.

I was relieved to see that even over at the Democrat Underground there are rumblings about not wanting to see it passed and outright objections. So I hope you're right about it being DOA but vocal opposition didn't stop them from passing the bailouts... the politicians thought they knew what was best for us, and they got it wrong.

Worth noting, Rom Emanuel was a co-sponsor of the original H.R. 2666 and (D) Bobby Rush of Illinois was the author of H.R. 45, a re-write of the original. After seeing the ire its provoked on both sides, I'm betting Obama's not happy with either of them for introducing the bill.