Posted on 01/30/2003 12:26:03 PM PST by 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.
How? Article I section 8's "Interstate commerce" explicitly refers to commerce among the several states, with Indian tribes, or with foreign countries. If it also applies to commerce that occurs entirely within a state, why would the Founders not have simply left out all of the descriptions of where such commerce may be regulated?
You missed an easy chance to prove it.
He might not let you live up his ass anymore.
I'm not going to hit the abuse button on that one so everyone can see what a pervert you are.
I don't have to prove anything to you. I've proved my honesty over and over the whole 4+ years I have been here,and have no intention of spending the time to find the quotes neccessary to correct your ignorance.
I'm not going to hit the abuse button on that one so everyone can see what a pervert you are.
How's the view? Is it everything you dreamed about?
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.United States v. WackerThis 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.
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.
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
Unfortunately, Prohibition II has been going on long enough that people are loath to do anything about it, and it's easier for the Court to allow the trampling of the Constitution to continue than for it to intervene.
This title may be cited as the 'Controlled Substances Act'.
§ 801. Congressional findings and declarations: controlled substances.
The Congress makes the following findings and declarations:
- (1) Many of the drugs included within this subchapter have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.
- (2) The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.
- (3) A major portion of the traffic in controlled substances flows through interstate and foreign commerce. Incidents of the traffic which are not an integral part of the interstate or foreign flow, such as manufacture, local distribution, and possession, nonetheless have a substantial and direct effect upon interstate commerce because -
- (A) after manufacture, many controlled substances are transported in interstate commerce,
- (B) controlled substances distributed locally usually have been transported in interstate commerce immediately before their distribution, and
- (C) controlled substances possessed commonly flow through interstate commerce immediately prior to such possession.
- (4) Local distribution and possession of controlled substances contribute to swelling the interstate traffic in such substances.
- (5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate. Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate.
- (6) Federal control of the intrastate incidents of the traffic in controlled substances is essential to the effective control of the interstate incidents of such traffic.
- (7) The United States is a party to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and other international conventions designed to establish effective control over international and domestic traffic in controlled substances.
No "pro quo" no quid.
I don't see how you can expect anyone to read anything you ever post again.
Roscoe: Super-defender of the Brady bill, NFA, and the Kalifornia assault weapons ban. I guess gun control is as American as pecan pie.
Really?
Maybe that's just the conclusion I drew because you cut and paste without supporting text.
Ah, the wonders of doublethink.
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.