Posted on 03/21/2013 8:22:18 PM PDT by CyberAnt
This should stir the pot. Looks like Obama should have read the "Obamacare" law before he signed it, OR he was so eager to get "Obamacare" that he didn't care about the "gun owners" clause that was in it! So, Obama was either stupid for not reading the bill OR knew the clause was necessary to get his "Obamacare" passed, so that his ego could soar! Wednesday, it was discovered that hidden deep within the massive 2800-page bill called Obamacare, there is a Senate Amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms. It seems that in their haste to cram socialized medicine down the throats of the American people, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Barack Obama overlooked Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c. According to that amendment, the government cannot collect "any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition." This means that the government CANNOT mandate firearm registration. No registration, no confiscation. Poor ol' Joe Biden, he spent the last couple of weeks focusing on making a law requiring registration. Good thing is though, the amendment also states that not even an executive order can override the amendment. CNN is now referring to it as "a gift to the nation's powerful gun lobby." And according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), that's exactly right. He says he personally added the provision in order to keep the NRA from getting involved in the legislative fight over Obamacare, which was so ubiquitous in 2010. It looks like Harry Reid actually helped out firearm owners without even realizing it. Thanks Harry!!
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
thanks again NRA for selling us down the river. which we all knew you were doing. especially when you supported reid against our conservative champion sharon angle. too bad it’s not keeping them from backgrounding us and grabbing our guns, anyway.
BUMP!
The problem is that any subsequent law that allows gun owner registration supersedes whatever is in Obamacare. Ideally a new law explicitly states that the relevant, and contradictory, parts of the existing code are repealed, but that’s probably not necessary. I’m sure that a court would happily rule that the intent of Congress is that the new law, rather than the old one, is in force. (Hey, if Obamacare’s unconstitutional fine can become a constitutional tax at the hands of the Supreme Courts Chief Editor...)
I’ve read the bill. It doesn’t do that. What it does do is say that the Obamacare bill doesn’t authorize gathering information about firearms and ammo. It doesn’t affect any part of the federal government other than Health and Human Services when acting under the authority of the Obamacare bill.
Read the amendment. Here’s the link:
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/title/i-amendments.pdf
Go to the bottom of page 2037 and start reading.
Beginning at page 2037, line 17 (the format at the link is rather awkward so I reformatted it for readability)
(e) Section 2717 of the Public Health Service Act, as added by section 1001(5) of this Act, is amended—
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (d) and (e), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b), the following:
“(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.—
“(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—
A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to—
“(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or
“(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.
“(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—
None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to—
“(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;
“(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or
“(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.
“(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.—
None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.
“(4) LIMITATION ON DETERMINATION OF PREMIUM RATES OR ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.—
A premium rate may not be increased, health insurance coverage may not be denied, and a discount, rebate, or reward offered for participation in a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld under any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or in accordance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act on the basis of, or on reliance upon—
“(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or
“(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition.
“(5) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS.—
No individual shall be required to disclose any information under any data collection activity authorized under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act relating to—
“(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or
“(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition.”.
But...he can issue a "Signing Statement" that his "just us" dept. not prosecute any of these forbidden actions by his government agencies. So, his various agencies can simply order whatever violations or restrictions they, or he, wishes - like he has done with DOMA, illegal drugs, immigration, etc, etc.
Either way, I have drawn a line in the sand on this one and no more! This government has pushed way too far and I will be pushing back this time around!
Stay safe everyone!
It doesn’t matter what was in the obamacare law, they can change any law they want. Put in a provision to reverse or strike any previous law in a new law.
They do this all the time.
An law that Congress passed and the President signed can be reversed merely by passing a new law and the President signing it.
I’m thinking also that if those so-called signing statements of which Mr. Obama is so fond, were challenged in the USSC using the same arguments that resulted in getting the line-item veto declared un-constitutional, those signing statements might also be declared to be void. But I don’t think any of them have been challenged to that level yet.
CA do you have a working link? I’d like to forward it to the CCDL. :)
Thanks for this post
I hear ya.....PVC pipe sales are going to soar, the way things are going.
Eh.
Just add it to the list. The King is not constrained by serf's laws.
Besides - for a law to be meaningful, someone has to enforce it... and who's going to rein Barry in?
Media?
Attorney general?
GOP?
The Constitution forbids gun registration.
They can write laws on top of laws, tie themselves up in all kinds of legal snares, and it won’t make one bit of difference. If people want guns & ammo, they’ll get them. There’s still a thriving black market out there. Just look at how well Prohibition and the War On Drugs worked out for them.
True; and even if the Supreme Court strikes down a congressional law, the congress can re-write a portion of it and it can become law.
My question is about Executive Orders - can Congress override them .. I say they can.
Well, Reid is going to launch his gun control stuff anyway.
I wonder how many of his dems will go down in flames in the next election .. if we ever have one.
see post #18 for a link
check out post 18 - for a link
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.