New Gun Bill in Congress: More Unconstitutional Claptrap

The federal Observer ^ | 30 January 2003 | Dewy Kidd

[45Auto]

We all knew it was just a matter of time. Mandatory federal gun licensing. Gun owners: Now is the time to show your clout. Never mind if you belong to the NRA, GOA or none of the above: Now is the time to tell Congress No. Now is the time to tell your local Sheriff that you will not submit to yet another unconstitutional federal junk law.

For conservatives out there: Let me remind you - this is a Republican controlled Congress. In a perfect world, this type of legislation would never get out of committee with a GOP controlled Congress. However, we know that Congress is full of anti-Second Amendment Republicans. This particularly odious piece of legislation was introduced by Congressman Rush Holt, [D- N J], bud of Comrade Nancy Pelosi.

Holt has never met a welfare cause or politically correct issue he didn't like and wants you to fund. This man is quite obviously constitutionally challenged and despises the very freedoms we have been given by God. It's time for every gun owner in this country to tell these people and your local sheriff that We the People will not roll over and let our God-given rights be stripped from US.

The Bill - H.R. 124

You can search for bills in the House at: http://thomas.loc.gov

H.R. 124 hasn't come back from GPO yet, but has gone to the Committee on the Judiciary. Due to space restraint, here are a few highlights:

H.R. 124

To provide for the mandatory licensing and registration of handguns.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Handgun Licensing and Registration Act of 2003'.

Sec 2. Federal Handgun Licensing and Registration System to Apply in Any State That Does Not Have a Handgun Licensing and Registration System That Meets Certain Requirements

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

Sec. 931. Licensing and registration of handguns

(a)(1) The Attorney General shall establish a Federal system for the licensing and registration of all handguns owned, possessed, or controlled in the United States, which shall include a method for easily retrieving information sufficient to identify--

Constitutionality Since when does Congress, under Art. 1, Sec. 8, have the authority to dictate anything you read above? Never. They have only gotten away with it the past because The People have let them get away with it. No more. The original Bill of Rights as provided in the first Ten Amendment to the Constitution of these united States of America, effective December 15, 1791, contain this language:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

These few words have turned into 10,00 court decisions and made anti-gun attorneys fat cats. A million words have been put into court decisions by judges trying to figure out one of the most simple rights We the People were given by our Creator, not any government.

These critters in Congress seem to forget the order of things: The lawmakers of the colonies, realizing that some areas that affected everyone needed to be uniform: war, trade, commerce, copyright, patents, taxation, began the process of setting up a central government with limited areas of legislation well defined.

The prominent leaders and lawmakers of the time got together, hashed out the fine points and created the U.S. Constitution, which included those rights God-given to man that would not be violated, infringed, made into privileges or anything else.

The Courts While the circuit courts have been all over the place on this issue, there were two very important U.S. Supreme Court decisions within the last decade that have direct bearing on this junk bill: U.S. v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995)

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.

In the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, Congress made it a federal offense "for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)(A) (1988 ed., Supp. V).

The Act neither regulates a commercial activity nor contains a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce. We hold that the Act exceeds the authority of Congress "[to] regulate Commerce . . . among the several States . . . ." U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3. Printz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 98 (1997)

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act provisions require the Attorney General to establish a national system for instantly checking prospective handgun purchasers' backgrounds, note following 18 U.S.C. § 922 and command the "chief law enforcement officer" (CLEO) of each local jurisdiction to conduct such checks and perform related tasks on an interim basis until the national system becomes operative, §922(s).

Petitioners, the CLEOs for counties in Montana and Arizona, filed separate actions challenging the interim provisions' constitutionality. In each case, the District Court held that the background check provision was unconstitutional, but concluded that it was severable from the remainder of the Act, effectively leaving a voluntary background check system in place. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding none of the interim provisions unconstitutional.

Held: 1. The Brady Act's interim provision commanding CLEOs to conduct background checks, §922(s)(2), is unconstitutional. Extinguished with it is the duty implicit in the background check requirement that the CLEO accept completed handgun applicant statements (Brady Forms) from firearms dealers, §§922(s)(1)(A)(i)(III) and (IV). Pp. 4-34.

This current bug-a-boo H.R. 124 most definitely falls within both the above decisions. Congress, once again, is attempting to legislate in an area for which they have no constitutional authority. Most likely, these cretins in Congress know this to be true. However, it does keep real Americans fighting such anti-American legislation, using valuable time and financial resources that could be directed elsewhere. Not to mention, it continues to enrich despicable lawyers who continue to get rich off the gun issue.

Without our guns, we're toast. Without our guns, we will be another North Korea before you can blink. Freedom is for the bravehearts. I hope everyone will join me in sending Congress critter Holt a polite but pointed e-mail, along with your house member and your local Sheriff. The old way of doing things is over. Tell these people NO. Let them know what We the People will not compromise or bend another inch. Call their bluff. There's 70 million of us. Let them chew on that fact.

[45Auto]

More unconstitutional nonsense from the dimoCRAPS. Its clear that the demonRAT party has ceased to care about the well-being of the nation as a whole and only cares about its own party's unbridled power. The RATS want total control of an unarmed, helpless dependent citizenry. Are we one step closer to the unthinkable?

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

This is the one that comes with the fifteen year penalty for not registering?

I say go ahead and pass it. Let's see what they think they got. Given a choice of fifteen years for noncompliance and the usual less than ten for shooting the bastards, I say the choice is simple.

[philman_36]

In each case, the District Court held that the background check provision was unconstitutional, but concluded that it was severable from the remainder of the Act, effectively leaving a voluntary background check system in place.
Key words..."a part of". Get the point?

[Roscoe]

What does that have to do with you begging the existence of a "severable" issue in the CSA?

Can't you ever back up any of your assertions?

[harpseal]

nbag a typo spelling of bang

[philman_36]

Your contention is that the CSA is constitutional when the constitutionality of it, as a whole, has never been an issue at court. Parts of the CSA have been questioned as being unconstitutional.
I've been trying to show you that the cases you've been citing are not cases on the constitutionality of the Act as a whole. As in this case certain parts of an Act can be unconstitutional without affecting the whole thing.
The cases you continually cite never question the whole CSA, only parts of it.
Can't you ever back up any of your assertions?
I'm trying to. Can you?

[Roscoe]

Appellant John Wacker argues that the section of the Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 under which he was convicted, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) (the "Drug Act"), impermissibly regulates intrastate activities which do not substantially affect interstate commerce, in violation of the Tenth Amendment. Although he does not cite United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995), we assume that he asks us, in light of that recent decision, to reconsider our holding in United States v. King, 485 F.2d 353, 356 (10th Cir. 1973), that 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) is constitutional.

This argument was recently rejected by the Fourth Circuit, see United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (4th Cir. 1995), and we agree that it is without merit.

United States v. Wacker

Moreover, contrary to Leshuk's alternative contention, the Drug Act is not unconstitutional as applied if his possession and cultivation were for personal use and did not substantially affect interstate commerce. Although a conviction under the Drug Act does not require the government to show that the specific conduct at issue substantially affected interstate commerce, see Scales, 464 F.2d at 373, Lopez expressly reaffirmed the principle that "where a general regulatory statute bears a substantial relation to commerce, the de minimis character of individual instances arising under that statute is of no consequence." Lopez, 115 S. Ct. at 1629 (quoting Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183, 197 n.27 (1968)); see also United States v. Stillo, 57 F.3d 553, 558 n.2 (7th Cir. 1995); Scales, 464 F.2d at 374- 76. We thus reject Leshuk's Commerce Clause challenge to the constitutionality of the Drug Act.

United States v. Leshuk

It is therefore not surprising that every court that has considered the question, both before and after the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez, has concluded that section 841(a)(1) represents a valid exercise of the commerce power. See, e.g., United States v. Edwards, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 1996 WL 621913, at *5 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 29, 1996); United States v. Kim, 94 F.3d 1247, 1249-50 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bell, 90 F.3d 318, 321 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lerebours, 87 F.3d 582, 584-85 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453, 1475 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 136 (1996); United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Scales, 464 F.2d 371, 375 (6th Cir. 1972); Lopez, 459 F.2d at 953.

Proyect v. United States

So what's this severable issue you're begging?

[Roscoe]

Your contention is that the CSA is constitutional when the constitutionality of it, as a whole, has never been an issue at court.

So when the courts unanimously agree that the CSA is constitutional in every case where the question is visited, it doesn't count unless you have a case where a criminal is charged with violating every portion of the act?

Pipe logic.

[philman_36]

So when the courts unanimously agree that the CSA is constitutional...
Show me the case where the constitutionality of the CSA as a whole has been the issue before the court.
You seem to be failing to understand that only parts (some sections, or provisions if you prefer) of the CSA were questioned in your cited cases.

[philman_36]

To finish the thought...
Those sections, or provisions, under question were found to be constitutional under a strict presentation.

[Roscoe]

Give me a ping if you ever manage to figure out what your "severable" issue supposedly is.

[Roscoe]

Show me the case where the constitutionality of the CSA as a whole

A case where the criminal is charged which violating every single provision of the Act?

How Clintonian.

[Shooter 2.5]

"I say go ahead and pass it.

People who are too lazy to call a congressman are going to be the sheep who turn in their guns. What makes you think a person, who can't figure out how to make a phone call, can watch someone's back when the time comes?

[Eagle Eye]

If Congress passes a comprehensive federal handgun registration, would you support it?

Would you register your hanguns?

Would you turn in those you knew to be non-compliant?

[Roscoe]

If Congress passes a comprehensive federal handgun registration, would you support it?

I'm not a Libertarian. I don't equate the right to keep and bear arms with the "right" to smoke crack.

[Eagle Eye]

If Congress passes a comprehensive federal handgun registration, would you support it?

Would you register your hanguns?

Would you turn in those you knew to be non-compliant?

[LibTeeth]

This would be a good time to "deposit" el cheapo handguns in/on the property of one's favorite liberals, and then if the law passes turn 'em in for the reward money. It works in the war on drugs. Informants can make quite a bit of money. If nothing else, if you get popped in a traffic stop for keeping an off-the-books Python, you can roll over on somebody who would normally support this sort of policy. The best way to reduce the signal to noise ratio in any psyop war is to increase the noise. ;-)

[dd5339]

Let's break out the ink sticks and let our congress critters know how we feel about this type of activity.

Semper Fi

[Eagle Eye]

To hell with planting a Python!

That's what they made RG's for.

[Eagle Eye]

If Congress passes a comprehensive federal handgun registration, would you support it?

Would you register your hanguns?

Would you turn in those you knew to be non-compliant?

We're waiting...