Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The fight over the Second Amendment
McCook Daily Gazette ^ | August 10, 2009 | U.S. Rep. Adrian Smith

Posted on 08/11/2009 7:34:48 AM PDT by neverdem

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. -- Amendment II

Those 14 words, perhaps more than any others in the U.S. Constitution, have inspired discussions, arguments and legal debates for years and years.

Now, legislation introduced in January by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) and lingering in the House Judiciary Committee has stirred up emotions on both sides of the gun control issue and once again brought these words into the spotlight.

Rush's bill, the Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act (H.R. 45), establishes a federal licensing and registration regime under the direction of the U.S. Attorney General and would make it a criminal act not to register as an owner of a firearm.

The bill will also:

· Establish a federal licensing requirement for ownership of handguns and semiautomatic weapons, not including antiques, with application requirements which include a photograph of the gun owner, fingerprinting of the gun owner, a current address, a completed, written firearms safety test, and private mental health records. These licenses must be renewed every five years;

· Create a federal registration database for handguns and semiautomatics to which every new sale or transfer -- including transfers among private individuals -- in America must be reported within 14 days;

· Require a background check to be performed in any transfer of guns and provides penalties of up to two years in jail for failure to comply with any licensing or background check requirements.

· Establish penalties of up to 10 years for parents whose children gain access to their firearms unless they meet certain federally-established requirements.

It should be noted there are already federally required background checks for purchasing weapons. A government database of all gun owners or longer waiting periods will not keep criminals from getting their hands on a gun.

Furthermore, this bill does nothing to curb the criminals who would use handguns to commit a crime. Just the opposite -- it would turn law-abiding citizens into lawbreakers for overlooking one of many forms or address verification.

Any bill which would require photographing and fingerprinting for simply possessing a firearm flies in the face of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees -- and as the U.S. Supreme Court definitively ruled in District of Columbia v Heller -- the American people have the right to keep and bear arms.

As a member of the National Rifle Association and the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I will work with my colleagues in the House of Representatives to promote legislation protecting our constitutional rights and oppose legislation, such as H.R. 45, which restricts such rights.

We need to work harder to ensure the safety of our citizens, but we must do so in a way which protects our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

Our country's founding fathers understood how important the principle of the Second Amendment is in ensuring our basic freedoms. They had faith in the citizens of America. We should have the same faith in our fellow countrymen today.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Front Page News; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; US: Nebraska
KEYWORDS: 111th; 2ndamendment; banglist; donttreadonme; hr45; secondamendment; shallnotbeinfringed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
IMHO, H.R. 45 stays in committee. I wish they would vote on it. The rats are not that stupid.
1 posted on 08/11/2009 7:34:48 AM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

‘and as the U.S. Supreme Court definitively ruled in District of Columbia v Heller — the American people have the right to keep and bear arms.’

Orwell.

Heller took away ‘rights’.


2 posted on 08/11/2009 7:36:57 AM PDT by BGHater (Insanity is voting for Republicans and expecting Conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

“Heller took away ‘rights’.”

how so


3 posted on 08/11/2009 7:45:19 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I strongly suggest all fellow freepers to learn this.

Easy to learn and you will be effective within weeks.

Use the website to find an instructor near you. Cost is very reasonable.

4 posted on 08/11/2009 7:50:12 AM PDT by bankwalker (In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
...introduced in January by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) and lingering in the House Judiciary Committee...

One reason for this is because "Bobby" Rush is the one and only sponsor of this piece fof crap.

Even Nancy Pelosi isn't stupid enough to have her name associated with it.

I think we should stay alert to make sure HR45 continues to go no where, but also not allow ourselves to be so distracted by it that some other draconian anti-gun measure is slipped into an otherwise unrelated bill and passed in the dead of night.

5 posted on 08/11/2009 7:50:30 AM PDT by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The founders would be SHOCKED to find that debates and legal arguments abound concerning the 2nd amendment. It was written to be read and understood by the simplest, least well-educated of citizens. The meaning of the amendment is crystal clear. That is what the founders intended. The left has prostituted that meaning over the past several decades because armed Americans pose the greatest threat to the leftest agenda. It is impossible to completely enslave an armed public. Dictators have recognized this fact for a very long time. So the Holy Grail of the left is the disarming of the American people. It is just that simple. And that is why the 2nd amendment must NEVER be overturned, either by direct or indirect means.


6 posted on 08/11/2009 7:55:45 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax (AGENDA OF THE LEFT EXPOSED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

I’d like to know how that is as well...

Please enumerate what “we” lost in that ruling???


7 posted on 08/11/2009 7:56:31 AM PDT by stevie_d_64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Although we can expect this sort of thing to resurface pretty regularly in State and Federal legislative bodies, at the moment it does not appear that we need to get our feathers all aruffle over it...
this time.

Even many of the more “progressive” Congresscritters are a little gun shy about stepping on the 2nd Amendment, after what happened to Clinton’s House majority back in ‘84 (i think it was).

According to SNOPES

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp

The bill has NO co-sponsors and is probably not going anywhere any time soon.

We still need to keep an eye on the rascals though; chances are the next anti gun attack will come as a secretive amendment or tucked into an unrelated mega-bill that is foisted on the Congress as some great “emergency” that no one has a chance to actually read before being coerced into signing into law.

That seems to be the M.O. du jour in this ruling organized criminal syndicate sometimes referred to as an “Administration”.


8 posted on 08/11/2009 7:57:52 AM PDT by George Varnum (Liberty, like our Forefather's Flintlock Musket, must be kept clean, oiled, and READY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Does this sound like you have a right?

‘”[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”’

-Thanks Gov’t. It’s not you to decide what a ‘right’ is to be used for. If I want to use a pistol as a pillow I should be able to. The same is to be said of ‘speech’; they can limit what I say on my property. Keep in mind Heller was on private property.

‘The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.’

-Joy. What is a ‘sensitive place’? Does that also limit speech and other rights? No more ‘birthers’ at Town Halls?

-It should not be against the law to have a weapon of any matter. The actual breaking of the law would be me using the weapon to harm someone, we already have laws against that.


9 posted on 08/11/2009 7:58:08 AM PDT by BGHater (Insanity is voting for Republicans and expecting Conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64

#9


10 posted on 08/11/2009 7:59:21 AM PDT by BGHater (Insanity is voting for Republicans and expecting Conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

The answer to your question in #9 is obvious...No we do not have a right according to the government...

An inalienable right is a right that is granted by a higher authority than any government instituted amoung men...

Therefore, it is going to be very difficult to enforce, or implement any draconian infringement (pick one, I know we all have a bunch of them up our sleeves) without serious widespread and individual dissagreements we WILL have if it ever came to that...

The question I ask everyone is what I already know I am prepared to do...

“What are you prepared to do about it, and what are you willing to sacrifice for it?”

It is the ultimate gut-check, and it is a personal one, and I do not want anyone to believe they need to publically reveal to anyone, anywhere...

Most of us already know what the answer is...

And I intend to not pull out the rest of my hair about it...

Yes, we do need to stay informed, and stay in the fight legislatively on this, and when the time comes, election day is the most powerful tool we have at our disposal right now to effect the adjustments we need to make happen at that point...


11 posted on 08/11/2009 8:16:18 AM PDT by stevie_d_64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
Even Nancy Pelosi isn't stupid enough to have her name associated with it.

Don't bet on that! She was told not to support gun bans by her handlers - its a losing issue right now.

What part of "shall not be infringed" does the loony left not understand?

12 posted on 08/11/2009 8:20:06 AM PDT by SpeedRacer (Where's your records, B-HO? What are you hiding?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Still in committee, no cosponsors. This bill has been languishing, waiting for the the right crisis.

I wish folks would do some research before sending out these alarmist emails and editorials. The Rats aren’t dumb enough to put this ball into play yet. They’re already fighting the health care debacle. If they put this out there, they would see riots on an order that make LA look like a day in the sandbox.


13 posted on 08/11/2009 8:25:34 AM PDT by rarestia ("One man with a gun can control 100 without one." - Lenin / MOLWN LABE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

HR 45, as well as a semi-auto firearm and sniper rifle ban, ammo stamping and taxes, and other gun control, will be amended to some other bill. Hmmm, I can’t think of a good one... Oh yea, they could amend it to the Healthcare bill! If the Dims feel that they are going to go down over it, they could amend the Healthcare bill to contain these gun restrictions and even alien amnesty!


14 posted on 08/11/2009 8:53:51 AM PDT by Thunder90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thunder90
Oh yea, they could amend it to the Healthcare bill! If the Dims feel that they are going to go down over it, they could amend the Healthcare bill to contain these gun restrictions and even alien amnesty!

You must be kidding.

15 posted on 08/11/2009 9:18:17 AM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Dead bill, introduced by someone who is arguably a certifiable psycho. It’s going nowhere, and everyone in congress who isn’t on thorazine knows it.


16 posted on 08/11/2009 1:53:20 PM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; Criminal Number 18F; Dan from Michigan; Eaker; Jeff Head; ...
MSNBC Freaks Out: Lawfully Armed Citizen Protesting Obama Outside Portsmouth Town Hall

Preliminary Injunction to Halt Mandatory Flu Vaccination in the U.S. Has Been Issued

H1N1 Pandemic - Government Conference Agenda (yikes)

Old-fashioned horse sense is the best swine flu defense Click for more info on immunization and vaccines.

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

17 posted on 08/11/2009 2:51:07 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thanks for the ping!


18 posted on 08/11/2009 7:32:50 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
IMHO, H.R. 45 stays in committee.

Until they are ready for it to come out. We've seen that sometimes they can bring things out of committee and final passage, very quickly.

Bears watching at least.

19 posted on 08/11/2009 8:14:42 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BGHater
The same is to be said of ‘speech’; they can limit what I say on my property. Keep in mind Heller was on private property.

It was, but the statement you quoted was in "dicta" and formed no part of the reasoning behind the ruling. They ruled, unabigously, that the second amendment protects an individual right, independent of membership in any militia, organized or not. That was a big step forward. They also ruled that DC's prohibitions on what you could do on your property with your own weapons were unconstitutional. Heller did not, unfortunately ask that their licensing/registration scheme be overturned, I think they would have done that if he had. The part you quoted was to sooth the feathers of the anti-gunners, but really didn't mean anything. No right is unlimited in it's exercise. "fire in the theater", libel/slander, and assault with a deadly weapon are all limits on the exercise of rights.

20 posted on 08/11/2009 8:20:32 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson