Posted on 02/04/2003 1:40:49 AM PST by Richard-SIA
VERIFIED ON THOMAS, LOOKS LIKE GOODE MAY BE ONE OF THE GOOD GUYS!
This bill actually made pretty good progress last session, Lautenberg is so clearly unconstitutional and cost so many L.E. and military officers their jobs that it might actually be possible to repeal it.
Yes, it's author is back in office, but in the minority party, and he never would have got this "passed" in the first place if it had not been literally hidden in a huge spending bill.
Now it's out in the open, and only radical feminazi's irrational fantasies can still support it.
This bill needs our public support, it's passage would be a major victory for our RKBA.
---------------------------
States' Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
HR 276 IH
108th CONGRESS 1st Session
H. R. 276
To repeal section 658 of Public Law 104-208, commonly referred to as the Lautenberg amendment.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 8, 2003
Mr. GOODE (for himself, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, and Mr. PAUL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To repeal section 658 of Public Law 104-208, commonly referred to as the Lautenberg amendment.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `States' Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 2003'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS:
(1) Domestic Violence remains a very serious problem in the United States. It is a dangerous crime and should be punished as such, including, where appropriate, as a felony.
(2) Many States have classified Domestic Violence crimes as misdemeanors, others as felonies. States are the proper authority, rather than the Federal Government, to classify Domestic Violence offenses.
(3) Where appropriate, States should classify Domestic Violence offenses as a felony.
(4) Section 658 of Public Law 104-208, commonly referred to as the Lautenberg amendment, oversteps Federal authority, violating States' rights, because no nexus has been shown to exist between Domestic Violence and interstate commerce.
(5) The Lautenberg amendment does not deal with a subject delegated to Congress under article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States and is therefore unconstitutional under the tenth amendment to the Constitution, as interpreted by United States v. Lopez.
(6) The Lautenberg amendment oversteps Congress's power to regulate commerce as delineated by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
(7) Some of the strictest gun control laws are found in cities where the number of incidents of guns being used in violent crimes is the highest. Therefore, the Lautenberg amendment does not reduce incidents of domestic violence.
(8) State and Federal judges already have the power to deny persons convicted of misdemeanors the right to possess firearms as a condition of probation or parole.
(9) The Lautenberg amendment is an unfunded Federal mandate because States are liable for the costs of monitoring those citizens who have been banned for life from owning a firearm. Many times this lifetime ban is a result of a misdemeanor, not a felony.
(10) Section 658 of the Treasury-Postal portion of Public Law 104-208 violates all notions of constitutional due process and constitutes an ex post facto law because it imposes a criminal penalty on crimes which were not subject to that penalty at the time of the Act.
(11) Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year. Of these self-defense cases, as many as 200,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual assault.
(12) Section 658 of the Treasury-Postal portion of Public Law 104-208 will, if allowed to stand, result in the disarming of millions of citizens, including women, on account of misdemeanor offenses which, in many cases, were committed long before the effective date of that Act.
(13) Section 658 of the Treasury-Postal portion of Public Law 104-208 will, in many cases, disarm battered women who need access to firearms in order to protect themselves from their battering spouses as well as from common criminals.
(14) Section 658 of the Treasury-Postal portion of Public Law 104-208 will, if allowed to stand, impose a lifetime gun ban on persons who committed acts so minor that they were not even entitled to a jury trial prior to conviction.
(15) Section 658 of the Treasury-Postal portion of Public Law 104-208, will, if allowed to stand, result in the disarming and dismissal of a significant number of law enforcement officers and American servicemen, on account of misdemeanors, which in many cases, were committed long before the effective date of that Act.
(16) Section 658 of the Treasury-Postal portion of Public Law 104-208 ignores the real problem surrounding domestic violence in that truly violent offenders are allowed to plea-bargain down to misdemeanors.
(b) PURPOSE- It is the purpose of this Act to restore States' rights, the tenth amendment, and second amendment freedoms.
SEC. 3. REPEALER.
Section 658 of the Treasury-Postal portion of Public Law 104-208 is repealed and is null and void as if it had not been enacted, and all provisions of law amended by such section are restored as if section 658 had not been enacted.
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect as if included in the Treasury-Postal portion of Public Law 104-208. Any liability, penalty, or forfeiture incurred by any person by reason of the application of any amendment made by section 658 of the Treasury-Postal portion of Public Law 104-208 is hereby extinguished, and any action or prosecution for the enforcement of any such liability, penalty, or forfeiture shall not be sustained.
And it cannot be blamed on the lawyers by themselves, since the federal circuit courts have played such a large part in eviscerating at least the 2nd Amendment. (Go to a law library and read the federal digests to verify.)
A better title might be something along the lines of "The Ex Post Facto Law Removal Act". I don't think there is a congresscritter around who can stand up at a town hall meeting and explain why he or she would vote against something with that name. Just my dos centavos...
When this first became law, I wrote to then-Senator Spence Abraham (now GW's Secretary of Energy) to complain. I received a nicely-worded letter which informed me that, when people commit certain crimes, they LOSE THEIR PRIVILEGE TO OWN A FIREARM. Exact words.
And here I thought I was living in America. When this is repealed, it will not be one moment too soon. Legislators who voted for this should be ashamed.
Hmmm ....
Let's here it for Walter Jones, since Jesse's retirement, the undisputed, most conservative, Carolinian in the Congress!
The purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void and unconstitutional for the following reasons:
1. The Joint Resolution proposing said amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress per Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U. S. Constitution.
2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article I, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution.
3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one-fourth of all the States then in the Union, and it was never ratified by three-fourths of all the States in the Union as required by Article V of the U. S. Constitution.
Much as I would like to see the Lautenberg Abomination repealed, the above is a non-sequitur. I think it would be better to mention that many restraining orders are reciprocal and do not involve due process, and that this abomination is more likely to disarm victims of domestic violence than perpetrators (a man doesn't need a gun to kill a woman; a woman may need a gun to defend herself from a man).
Unfortunately, I believe that over 50 of the Senators who originally passed the Lautenberg Abomination are still in office. Anyone have a roll call?
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.