4um: H.R. 45: Here Comes Gun Control

I said it several times, it wasn’t Obama you had to worry about, but Nancy Pelosi’s House, when it came to gun control. Sure, Obama will easily sign it, unlike what Bush would have done, but, here we go!

H.R. 45: Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)

Say, where’s the ACLU when you need them to stand up and say “Nyet!” to a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment?

I found this while perusing the Democratic Underground, but, Say Uncle provides some great information

1. Require licensing for anybody that owns a gun.
2. Would require photographs and a thumbprint
3. Would require passage of a test that covers:
(A) the safe storage of firearms, particularly in the vicinity of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;

(B) the safe handling of firearms;
(C) the use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use;
(D) the legal responsibilities of firearms owners, including Federal, State, and local laws relating to requirements for the possession and storage of firearms, and relating to reporting requirements with respect to firearms; and
(E) any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate;

Say Uncle also points to Snowflakes In Hell, which has some great information. Sebastion states

Normally, I’d tell everyone not to worry too much, because it’s probably not going anywhere, but we can’t take anything for granted in this Congress. Right now the bill has no co-sponsors, and has not been scheduled for a committee hearing, so it is no threat right now. But we should keep an eye on it.

Some other interesting points of the Bill

Section 102 (a) (1) a current, passport-sized photograph of the applicant that provides a clear, accurate likeness of the applicant; (what is wrong with a DL?)

Section 102 (a) (8) an authorization by the applicant to release to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant; (that sounds rather intrusive)

Section 103 (c) looks to be creating a federal firearms card, with your picture and information. This from the Party that goes ballistic over a national ID card.

Section 104 makes it seem as if all renewals go through the AG of the USA. Does this mean that I have to go to a Federal office to reapply, rather then the Wake Country Sheriff’s office?

That’s all for now, a more in depth look if it manages to get farther in the House.

Another 'sign'. Fobama will get to do lots of things that Jorge wanted to do. (1 image)

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit

There is no convincing indication to the contrary here. The statute's language suggests no intent to reach beyond domestic convictions. To the contrary, if read to include foreign convictions, the statute's language creates anomalies. For example, in creating an exception allowing gun possession despite a conviction for an antitrust or business regulatory crime, §921(a)(20)(A) speaks of "Federal or State" antitrust or regulatory offenses. If the phrase "convicted in any court" generally refers only to domestic convictions, this language causes no problem. But if the phrase includes foreign convictions, the words "Federal or State" prevent the exception from applying where a foreign antitrust or regulatory conviction is at issue. Such illustrative examples suggest that Congress did not consider whether the generic phrase "convicted in any court" applies to foreign convictions. Moreover, the statute's legislative history indicates no intent to reach beyond domestic convictions. Although the statutory purpose of keeping guns from those likely to become a threat to society does offer some support for reading §922(g)(1) to include foreign convictions, the likelihood that Congress, at best, paid no attention to the matter is reinforced by the empirical fact that, according to the Government, since 1968, there have fewer than a dozen instances in which such a foreign conviction has served as a predicate for a felon-in-possession prosecution. Pp. 5-8.

Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined

Gary Small, having recently emerged from three years in Japanese prison for illegally importing weapons into that country, bought a gun in the United States. This violated 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(1), which makes it unlawful for any person "who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" to possess a firearm in or affecting commerce. Yet the majority decides that Small's gun possession did not violate the statute, because his prior convictions occurred in a Japanese court rather than an American court. In concluding that "any" means not what it says, but rather "a subset of any," the Court distorts the plain meaning of the statute and departs from established principles of statutory construction. I respectfully dissent.

Contrary to the majority's assertion, it makes sense to bar people convicted overseas from possessing guns in the United States. The Court casually dismisses this point with the observation that only " '10 to a dozen' " prosecutions under the statute have involved foreign convictions as predicate convictions. Ante, at 8 (quoting Tr. of Oral Arg. 32). The rarity of such prosecutions, however, only refutes the Court's simultaneous claim, ante, at 3-5, that a parade of horribles will result if foreign convictions count. Moreover, the Court does not claim that any of these few prosecutions has been based on a foreign conviction inconsistent with American law. As far as anyone is aware, the handful of prosecutions thus far rested on foreign convictions perfectly consonant with American law, like Small's conviction for international gunrunning. The Court has no answer for why including foreign convictions is unwise, let alone irrational.

On February 7, 2003, the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity released a draft of new "anti-terrorism" legislation being crafted by the Justice Department. The broad new powers conferred on government by the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (DSEA), labeled "CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION," are alarming.

Our analysis suggests that, rather than toughening our ability to capture and kill Osama bin Laden and his ilk, this bill would instead rely on cosmetic "solutions" which threaten the constitutional rights of Americans, without increasing our national security. In fact, this placebo will probably make our country considerably less secure.

A year ago, Gun Owners of America [GOA] -- together with a wide range of organizations on all sides of the ideological spectrum -- warned that the so-called "P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act's" overly broad definition of terrorism could allow the federal government to spy on -- and potentially shut down -- groups like GOA.

GOA and other groups negotiated with the Senate and the administration in removing some of the more noxious provisions, but was only partly successful in correcting the bill's inadequacies.

In particular, the Federal Bureau of Investigation -- which hardly shrouded itself in glory in connection the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents -- was given broad new powers to wiretap, monitor, search, and detain "suspects" without probable cause or due process and without giving them access to attorneys.

On February 7, the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity released a draft of follow-up legislation being crafted by the Justice Department. The broad new powers conferred on government by this follow-up bill, labeled "CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION," are alarming.

Given the inability of the administration to capture and kill Osama bin Laden and many other top al Qaeda leaders, the Justice Department appears to be poised to use a future terrorist tragedy to create the impetus for passage of this bill, dubbed the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 [DSEA]."

The importance of provisions waiving constitutional rights for non-citizens increases dramatically if the government can revoke the citizenship of native-born Americans for any reason -- much less, for potentially minor transgressions.

Although they may disagree with some overly broad interpretations crafted by the courts, Americans have no problem with constitutional rights for confessed serial killers, even though their admitted crimes are very serious. So the notion that bad people don't deserve the protections afforded by the rule of law is a relatively novel one -- and not a constitutional idea at all.

Rather than suspending the Constitution, concerned Americans believe the administration should honor it

Hopefully the war against Al Qaeda and other similar networks of radical Islamic terrorists will send them packing the way Thomas Jefferson successfully spanked the Barbary pirates.

May they pass from the scene come soon, before what's left of the freedoms we are supposed to be fighting for are completely shredded in the name of patriotic defense of the Fatherland.

Following on the heals of passage of the so-called USA Patriot Act, more properly known as the Government War on the Constitution Act, comes a measure for which we cannot even blame the Congress.

The talking heads and pundits are beginning to discuss the pros and cons of torture, secret trials, military tribunals and anonymous detentions. Now, all but torture has been declared by Presidential stroke of the pen to be the law the of the land.

President Bush has, by executive order, established military courts empowered to ignore important constitutional protections -- protections which apply to not just citizens, but to persons. That's the language of the Constitution.

We are only one step from extending such unconstitutional authority over citizens who are allegedly involved with a non-citizen accused of terrorism. Why not, to use the logic of the anti-gunners, invent a charge of conspiracy to aid terrorism by selling firearms -- something that once was a constitutionally protected act subject to no infringement whatsoever.

A sign that maybe the march toward a police state has gone too fast is the opposition to the military tribunals coming from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Democrat Patrick Leahy, along with Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah and NRA Board member, Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia.

President Bush recently signed into law the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. It should have been dubbed an addendum to the Patriot Act.

Congress' rush to meet the artificial deadline of the end of th[e] year for reorganizing the U.S. intelligence community has produced a 600-page, impossible-to-read statute that has clauses that significantly interfere with constitutionally guaranteed rights and were never the subject of any debate by members of Congress.

Sadly, there is precedent for Congress enacting bad legislation its members have not debated or even read.

The Patriot Act was cobbled together in secret after 9/11, and the final version contained language offensive to the Constitution that was not in the version distributed to members of the House and Senate. But Congress voted for it anyway.

7/04 Ron Paul on Guns, Money, And NWO Congressman Ron Paul On Guns, Money, And The New World Order