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.

[Roscoe]

No court has delivered an opinion regarding the constitutionality of this proposed law.

[Eagle Eye]

No court has delivered an opinion regarding the constitutionality of this proposed law.

Duh. No sh!t, Sherlock.

So, for the ??th time, would you support this law? Why or why not?

[Roscoe]

Why would you not support a law Congress passes if the courts have not overruled it or has stayed silent on it?

No court has delivered an opinion regarding the constitutionality of this proposed law.

[Eagle Eye]

You only impress yourself by going in circles.

See # 63. It stands alone.

[Roscoe]

Why would you not support a law Congress passes if the courts have not overruled it or has stayed silent on it?

This proposal hasn't been passed, might not ever be passed, hasn't been signed into law, might not ever be signed into law, isn't in it's final form, has never been applied, has never been appealed, has never been before any court and has never had a decision issued regarding it constitutionality.

[Eagle Eye]

Get your ass out of reverse gear. Why the hell you are going back up thread to answer address questions that you should have answered addressed then is beyond me.

I played yor game and clarified the question extremely well. Now you are hiding and obfuscating.

"Why would you not support a law Congress passes if the courts have not overruled it or has stayed silent on it?"

This proposal hasn't been passed, might not ever be passed, hasn't been signed into law, might not ever be signed into law, isn't in it's final form, has never been applied, has never been appealed, has never been before any court and has never had a decision issued regarding it constitutionality.

Your answer isn't for that question. If you hadn't been so busy being such a jerk yesterday and actually answered the questions as they were asked you wouldn't look as stupid now as you do.

Your answer is to whether or not you would support the law propesed in the posted article.

Of course it hasn't been signed, ruled on etc. God bless America, how freaking dense can one person be?

Would you support this law? If not, why not. If so, why so?

[Roscoe]

Post #21:

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

No.

Short term memory loss?

[Eagle Eye]

But what about the OTHER questions that I asked in the same post?

But noooooo, you had to take some smarmy anti-libertarian swipes instead.

Even now, you are not anwering direct questions. Do you have some sort of HIDDEN disability of which we are not aware?

[Roscoe]

To review:

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

No.

Now a question for you:

Do you hold that there is a constitutional right to smoke dope equivalent to the right to keep and bear arms?

[Eagle Eye]

I'll have no problem answering your questions after you answer mine. However, I'll not allow a disruptor turn this gun control thread into a dope thread. There are plenty of dope threads, but this ain't one of them.

[Roscoe]

I'll have no problem answering your questions after you answer mine.

Good.

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

No.

Now my question for you:

Do you hold that there is a constitutional right to smoke dope equivalent to the right to keep and bear arms?

[Eagle Eye]

Would you support this law? And you say "no", correct?

What about

If not, why not. If so, why so?

And remember, this is not a dope thread.

[Roscoe]

Quid pro quo. Keep your word.

[Eagle Eye]

My qo for your quid.

(look ma, I'm speakin' Latin with NO HANDS!)

[Eagle Eye]

Post and I'll catch up later.

[Roscoe]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/832766/posts?page=71#71

[Dick Bachert]

CAMP GUNFREE.
A common sense and historically proven way to keep those dangerous and destructive GUNS out of YOUR life.
MEMBERSHIPS AVAILABLE NOW!
Details below

Concerned about the easy availability of guns in our society?

Alarmed about the "gun nuts" and other freedom wackos the government allows to run loose?

Wish the government would just repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate all the guns because you believe sensible people shouldn't suffer because of some idiotic notion about some antiquated “right?”

While we can't take the guns away from the people, we CAN take the people (or at least SOME of them) away from their guns.

At CAMP GUNFREE, we have created an atmosphere of near-total tranquility where you and your family will experience the benefits of a GUN FREE environment.

The unique main gate at Camp GunFree. Most arriving camp guests never see this view from their comfortable rail cars.

Each of our camps is a gated community designed to keep guns away from camp guests. Firmly enforced security measures ensure that these dangerous and destructive devices are kept outside. Each camp boasts 24 hour, 7 day a week sentries and state-of-the-art enclosure systems, guard dogs, trenches and surveillance equipment to absolutely GUARANTEE that no firearms enter the facility. Rigidly controlled access ensures that no guns can ever be smuggled in.

No cost has been spared to ensure that Camp GunFree remains gun free.

All camp members are given distinctive uniforms to distinguish them from any gun-toting barbarians who might attempt to evade our security measures. Each camp member is also assigned a distinctive ID number to ensure that only the right people are allowed within the camp.

Room and board are provided to each member in exchange for rewarding tasks designed to provide a sense of accomplishment and to demonstrate that large numbers of people CAN exist in a gun violence free community.

Camp members engaged in one of our many fun-filled organized work activities.

The current headlines prompt us to remind you that there has NEVER been a shooting by a student in any of the camp schools and we can GUARANTEE that there never will be!!

For more information, call 1-800-GUNFREE
OR visit our new website at
http://www.privategunsareabadthingandwe'llseethatyouare”safe”.batf.gov

(This idea from a pamphlet originally created by The Minnesota Center for Individual Liberty, PO Box 32170, Minneapolis, MN 55432-0170)

[supercat]

Do you hold that there is a constitutional right to smoke dope equivalent to the right to keep and bear arms?

Does the federal government have any jurisdiction over a plant which is grown, sold, and consumed all within a single state?

[sneakypete]

The reason I asked for a link is the reason so many others ask for one. I don't believe you.

Then you are a fool. Unlike your idol,I don't lie.

I don't believe Bush said the phrase, "...Any Gun Law...".

Of course not. He might not let you live up his ass anymore. Then again,you never believe anything that doesn't fit in with your preconceived notions. Didn't you also refuse to believe that Charlton Heston said as president of the NRA that he "hates AK-47's and sees no reason for anyone to be ALLOWED to own one."?

I still think you should find a link before posting something like that.

And I don't much give a damn what you claim to think,because it's obvious you are incapable of actual thought.

[Roscoe]

Does the federal government have any jurisdiction over a plant which is grown, sold, and consumed all within a single state?

You mean marijuana? Sure.