Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: HR 45: Change WE Can Believe In!
EvilFishy    1/25/2009 9:32:11 PM
---quote---Alan Korwin Gun Law Update: Gun-Rights Testing Planned, Part II 2009-01-21 at 11:17 am ・ Filed under Vox Populi HR 45 ― Gun Rights Licensing Test Illinois congressman Bobby Rush, from Obama's home state and with a voting record on gun ownership as bad as Obama's, introduced a bill on the first day of the 111th Congress that shows what we can expect. If we don't defeat this bill, and others expected to follow it, gun owners will lose guns and the industry will suffer harm beyond description. Under HR 45, if you can't pass a complex test written by the U.S. Attorney General (described in detail below), pay the tax, give up fingerprints and a biometric-capable photo of yourself (that can be turned into a digital facial-recognition number and used as a de facto national ID), every gun you own will become contraband and subject to confiscation, while you stand trial before imprisonment. You'd think Bobby, a former black panther, would know better. Your rights will have an expiration date, and if you screw up and miss it, you'll be in the same mess as people who can't pass the test. Can you say "unconstitutional"? Do you think these "gun bigots" care? Now that the Supreme Court has made it clear in the Heller case that government can't ban guns, the Brady's have stopped saying they want to ban guns. So the virtually treasonous Bobby Rush bill doesn't ban guns, it bans gun owners, maybe by the millions. How many gun owners read poorly or don't test well? How many can't explain local, state and federal gun laws? They'd become prohibited possessors under HR 45. Are there any limits to what the AG can put on the test? The bill doesn't mention any ― it gives the AG a free hand to include anything. Had enough? HR 45 has an innocent-looking line that says 'strike the second sentence of 18 USC 926(a)'. That's the line that says the federal government cannot make a central registry of gun owners. The anti-rights people have to repeal that line, because Bobby's bill flat-out creates a central gun registry. Every gun owner must be registered to keep on possessing the guns they already own, and any transfer of any kind must be registered as well. The mark of the beast is upon us, to apply a metaphor. See the bill for yourself (click "Bill Number" and enter "HR 45″): h--p://thomas.loc.gov Read the gun-ban list the antis have already published: h--p://www.gunlaws.com/GunLawUpdate3.htm Get a book on how you can be more effectively politically: h--p://www.gunlaws.com/books3.htm Here's my detailed analysis of the bill, in plain English. HR 45 The bill starts with a statement of purpose that says: " because the intrastate and interstate trafficking of firearms are so commingled, full regulation of interstate commerce requires the incidental regulation of intrastate commerce." Basically, this eliminates the Tenth Amendment and the Interstate Commerce Clause. The Constitution can't legally be amended by statute. Is that enough to seek Mr. Rush's removal from office? I won't bore you with the other "purposes" which are as bad or worse. Only "qualifying firearms" are affected. That means any handgun, or any semi-auto firearm that has a removable magazine (what they call a " detachable ammunition feeding device"). After the bill becomes law (IF it becomes law), it's illegal for you to have or get those firearms, even if you already own them, without a special federal license. There are grace periods up to two years to register yourself once the law is passed. Do you see how clever this is? You cold-dead-fingers guys can keep your guns if you like, refuse to register yourselves, and then you're subject to arrest on the spot. If you go anywhere with your guns ― to the range, a store, a gunsmith, a friend's house, hunting, competition ― and you're spotted, you go straight to jail. If you're already on a list (can anyone say "carry permit" or "hunting license"?) and you don't sign up, well, just connect those dots. Where does the cold-dead-fingers part come into play? I'll bet the ranges will start requiring you to show your papers before you can hit the line. To get the license you must "submit to the Attorney General" (they chose that phrase right by golly): a passport-type photo, identifying info, any name you have ever used or ever been known by (I have nicknames, pen names, stage names, omitting any presumably violates the statute) a thumbprint, certification that any firearms will be "safely" stored and out of possession of people under 18, authorization to give up any mental health records, and a certificate that you passed a government-run test. The test must include knowledge of: safe storage, safe handling, use of firearms at home, the risks of firearms at home, local state and federal legal requirements for firearms, reporting requirements for firearms, and ANY other subjects the AG decides are appropriate. You date and sign the submission, ma
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2
Nanheyangrouchuan       1/27/2009 1:00:53 AM
Wouldn't pass the Senate and its constitionality would of course be challenged in court.
Legislators intentionally introduce legislation meant to appease their constituents and fulfill campaign promises knowing it doesn't have a snow ball's chance, especially when they are junior people.
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       1/27/2009 1:12:35 AM

Wouldn't pass the Senate and its constitionality would of course be challenged in court.

Legislators intentionally introduce legislation meant to appease their constituents and fulfill campaign promises knowing it doesn't have a snow ball's chance, especially when they are junior people.



I am well of aware of token legislation and I am aware of other draconian bills that have been introduced for the very reasons you stated.
 
I am also aware of legislation that directly contradicts the US Constitution that was PASSED, upheld by the Courts, and remains law to this day.  
Obama may have the numbers in both houses if not to pass this bill as it stands already than to pass a similar bill (hell even one watered down) in another piece of MASSIVE legislation where it could be over looked.
 
It has happened before.
 
You are right that it would be challenged in the courts.  However, that does not mean squat given degree of variation between federal judges and the USSC.
 
How many unconstitutional pieces of legislation passed the court-s muster and stand today?
 
Obama apparently was telling the truth on the campaign trail which means so-called Gun Control, in one form or fashion, will be comming down the road if not now in this incarnation than soon.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    BHO was the guy who said he woulod regulate coal fiored power plants out of business.   1/27/2009 1:41:41 AM
He may be a science luddite and economically stupid, but he's a fairly good socialist/marxist apparatchik in the Saul Alinsky mold. He'll find a way to advance Bobby's legislation. He has a good political technician and fellow socialist in Raum Emanuel.
 
Figure a year tops, before we know either way.
 
Herald 
 
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus       1/27/2009 7:27:12 AM
RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       1/27/2009 11:34:57 AM

RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
This guy lived before PC and information age. All big companies now have automatic reply systems. You need DOS attack or send in millions of junk mail to defeat the system.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       1/27/2009 11:44:22 AM

Wouldn't pass the Senate and its constitionality would of course be challenged in court.

Legislators intentionally introduce legislation meant to appease their constituents and fulfill campaign promises knowing it doesn't have a snow ball's chance, especially when they are junior people.


Yeah, than why was there 18th Amendment?
 
Why is the unconstitutional War on Drugs still raging?
 
Why was the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act got ratified, again?
 
Why was the Patriot Act got renewed again?
 
Why was there fairness doctrine?
 
Why did BART police kill a black man and try to confiscate cellphones afterwards, while the local government have been curbing right to keep and bear arms for decades?
 
All you need is another psycho get some guns and ammo, go to another victim disarmament zone to unload his grievance onto others, then you can kiss goodbye to Second Amendment. First Amendment will soon follow, just like how Fourth got trampled by various laws.
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull       1/27/2009 12:58:42 PM




Wouldn't pass the Senate and its constitionality would of course be challenged in court.



Legislators intentionally introduce legislation meant to appease their constituents and fulfill campaign promises knowing it doesn't have a snow ball's chance, especially when they are junior people.







Yeah, than why was there 18th Amendment?

 

Why is the unconstitutional War on Drugs still raging?


 

Why was the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act got ratified, again?

 

Why was the Patriot Act got renewed again?


 

Why was there fairness doctrine?


 

Why did BART police kill a black man and try to confiscate cellphones afterwards, while the local government have been curbing right to keep and bear arms for decades?


 

All you need is another psycho get some guns and ammo, go to another victim disarmament zone to unload his grievance onto others, then you can kiss goodbye to Second Amendment. First Amendment will soon follow, just like how Fourth got trampled by various laws.



Yelli
 
 
We are in total agreement - see my post on the other Obama thread concerning Rush -  1st to fall is 2nd amendment, then they take away freedom of speech -
 
 
Time for V for Vendetta rallies
 
 
swhitebull
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       1/27/2009 1:10:07 PM
I often wonder if it's worth the trouble of saving the people from themselves?
 
The public got what they asked for here. They are eating it up eagerly. I figure maybe I'll just find a place to keep away from the mess, and just ignore it. I've got no kids, and hell they'd probably just get indoctrinated in the schools anyway if I did. Creeping socialism has pretty much taken over the rest of the world. What makes us so special that we're going to hold it off?
 
Kind of a depressing point of view, but honestly how much can you actually do?
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    Nothing to See Here   1/27/2009 3:19:47 PM

So . . . we're going to have a tax cheat in charge of the IRS, a man instrumental in the pardoning of terrorists as top terrorism watchdog, and a woman whose husband gets tens of millions from foreign governments in charge of implementing foreign policy.
Press reaction: Move along .
 
 
swhitebull -  above from National Review  -  change you can believe in -  it most certainly is
 
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus       1/27/2009 4:43:11 PM
don't forget, the guy nominated to head of budgeting and acquisitions for the defense dept. is a raytheon lobbyist....and Warren Buffet is comfortable with giving your money away.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



StrategyWorld.comゥ 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy