02 February 2009

WASHINGTON IS TAKING POT SHOTS AT STATES' RIGHTS AND YOURS

!!!!!!!!LEGISLATIVE ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, here we go again. Every time Congress convenes, we start losing rights. Unless we keep close tabs through such sites as GOVERNMENT TRACK or OPEN CONGRESS, we are unaware of it until it's too late. Carolyn, who writes NO APOLOGIES ROUND 2, sent me an e-mail about it. Carolyn's journal is a good read, so please stop by and visit.

Our Second Amendment rights are under fire again. There was a bill introduced in Congress on January 6, 2009,
H.R. 45 (clickable link to the actual bill)Photobucket which takes aim at not only your Second Amendment rights, but also at the rights of the individual states. REPRESENTATIVE BOBBY L. RUSH, D-IL, District 1, introduced the bill, and the bill has no co-sponsors with him.

Section 2, entitled Purposes and Findings, makes it very obvious that the intent is to take a substantial step towards disarming law abiding citizens. This bill will make criminals out of many law abiding citizens. It contains the same old rhetoric supposedly justifying it.

Section 2 (4): "because the intrastate and interstate trafficking of firearms are so commingled, full regulation of interstate commerce requires the incidental regulation of intrastate commerce;"

How convenient. In other words, individual States will have less rights to regulate it, and the Federal government, of course, more.

Section 2 (5): "gun violence in the United States is associated with the majority of homicides, over half the suicides, and two-thirds of non-fatal violent injuries; and

(6) on the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Blair Holt, a junior at Julian High School in Chicago, was killed on a public bus riding home from school when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire after a young man boarded the bus and started shooting."

The liberal playbook is so very limited. The same thing over and over again. First, guns are the problem. Not the moral breakdown of American society which includes the declining value of human life and respect for authority. Guns - outlaw them and murders, suicides, and violent injuries will just magically stop. Tugging at peoples' heartstrings using a tragic event to further their agenda. I don't know how Blair Holt's family feels about it, but I would be infuriated at the idea of using a teenage hero's sacrifice for another as a means to stir the emotions of members of Congress. What a political bunch of baloney!
Photobucket "This bill will stop this kind of violence". I really wonder if the shooter in the Blair Holt murder had actually obtained his gun legally? Common sense is really lacking on this by thinking that criminals actually get their weapons at gun shops. Here's a heads up: 99% of the perpetrators of crimes using guns, under CURRENT laws, CAN'T HAVE THEM! If you're a convicted felon, you can't have a firearm. If you on probation or parole, the answer is again no. Even if we talk about the first-timers out there, they do not get their guns legally. They're already going to break a lot of major laws with it already, so what's breaking a gun law? It doesn't matter. This can be seen in a number of studies that show the handgun murder rate is much higher in areas with strict gun control laws than in those areas that don't. The trend can be seen in other countries as well. There are many countries that have very strict gun control laws up to total prohibition, and their murder rates by firearm are much higher than ours. Some of these studies are cited in CAN GUN CONTROL REDUCE CRIME if you want to see for yourself.

Section 2 (b) (2): "it is in the national interest and within the role of the Federal Government to ensure that the regulation of firearms is uniform among the States". Here goes States rights out the window. This is a further centralization of power in Washington - whatever happened to a "limited government"?

This legislation keeps using the term "qualifying firearm" over and over again. Section 3 tells what a "qualifying firearm" is - in short, any handgun except an antique. It also requires everyone to have a license to have it. Period. Which means that the government would know that you had a handgun, what type, and where you lived. It's insane to even think that criminals wanting to, for example, rob a liquor store, would get a license to do so! This is a good place to repeat myself: most criminals can't obtain or possess them legally right now!

Now here's a real kicker: did you know that people who went out to buy firearms before President Obama took office are also covered? Here it is: Section 101 adds this to Section 922 of U.S. Code Title 18, (aa) (2) (A): " with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person before the date of the enactment of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 2 years after such date of enactment;". This means that all presently law-abiding citizens are included.

Since I've probably bored you enough already, let's take a quick look at the requirements for presently law-abiding citizens to get a license. Section 102 requires (1) a passport sized photograph (2) your name, address, date of birth, and place of birth (3) any other name you have used or been known by (4) a thumb print made in the presence of whoever your applying to (5) a statement from you that you can legally have one (6) a certification that you will keep your any firearm safely stored and out of the possession of those under eighteen years of age (which means that, the way it's worded, you can't keep it handy at night to defend yourself against intruders - this subsection has two parts: safely stored and out of the possession of anyone under 18.) (7) passing a written examination basically on firearms safety (8) a release signed by you authorizing the U. S. Attorney General's office to obtain your mental health records (it doesn't say HOW this information would be used nor does it establish just what would disqualify a person here). The last subparts just say you have to sign it.
Wonder what the punishment is for violating this law should it be passed? Depending on which section, TWO TO TEN YEARS IN PRISON. That's right - a law-abiding citizen can find themselves serving ten years in prison if they get caught with a "qualifying firearm" without a license.

There you have it. Your right to own firearms is in more jeopardy than it's ever been. This legislation, if passed, will make criminals out of law abiding citizens. It will make the general population easy prey for the criminals. It's not even remotely rational to believe that anyone with criminal intent will go through the proper procedures to get a gun. THEY DON'T NOW! And as I've said before, nearly all of them can't legally get them anyway, which makes this bill even more preposterous.

Since this bill is still stuck in the House Judiciary Committee, the time to act is now. We don't need to take a chance on it making it through committee and eventually being up for vote. E-mail your Congressmen and Congresswomen now telling them to vote no should it come to the floor. E-mail those on the House Judiciary Committee, whether or not they're in your district, to kill it. Click
HERE for a list of members and clickable links to their websites.

Photobucket Photobucket

8 comments:

Carolyn said...

Hi Dirk- This is why I aways forward stuff to you! I know you'll do an excellent job of investigating it and telling us how it is. God Bless you for this. I pray every citizen will jump on this NOW! This is crazy. Canada has very strict gun laws, and guess what? People still get murdered there by gun wielding idiots! Maybe not as many gun deaths, but you can bet your you know what that some of these people would still be alive if they could have protected themselves by firing back! God Bless and Thank you Dirk.

Heli gunner Tom said...

Dirk,
I take my hat off to you for posting such a fine, well worded article about the stupid, Liberal Dems' 'gun laws' that would take away the REST of our Freedoms once we lose our firearms!

Great Job!

Tom S
tschuckman@aol.com

lisa jo said...

I have never allowed either of my children to go to someone's home if they had a gun in the home. PERIOD.
I believe that everyone who wants to own a gun needs to be educated completely on fire arm safety. Something has to be done in the U.S. to stop innocent children dying for no reason whether an ex con has the gun or a law abiding citizen.

Gerry said...

I think you have pointed out very well the fallacies in assuming that criminals are going to have legal guns. I also tend to think that law enforcement officers are the best judges of whether the populace should be armed (legally). They are going to know whether that is a good idea or not better than anyone. I do think however that when alcohol is involved, usually responsible gun owners can turn crazy, so I have mixed emotions about people owning guns. If they all acted responsibly with them, it would be different, but they don't. My second husband who absolutely believed in gun rights acquired one and proceeded to terrorize us with it when he got drunk. He liked to be armed when he was on the road driving truck, but I just did not think he was stable enough to own a gun. Gerry

Carolyn said...

Hi Dirk, I just wanted to say one more thing. I grew up in Canada and Never saw a gun until I was in my late 20's after I lived in teh States for a while. While I agree that some people should not have a gun and people need to be educated, My husband got his training when he was in the navy. He keeps all, except the BB gun locked up, and we will NOT allow our son to touch one until he is responsible and has passed all tests on gun safety. I would not feel safe where we live without some form of protction. I'm not a good shot, but I have learned how to handle them, and know safety. Thanks Dirk

FrankandMary said...

I have some liberal friends I adore, and I am liberal, in certain small ways :-), but I respect the right to own a gun. In some ways I believe the laws should be more difficult as far as obtaining, but I only say that because of past performance and mental illness concerns.
All the wrong people know full well how to get a gun illegally already. When I dated a Special Agent, 90% of the guns he took possession of were illegal. People are killing your family, friends and relatives with illegal guns....so if you do away with the rights of a citizen to have a legal gun, all that does is keep innocent people defenseless. ~Mary

Missy said...

I think we should have the right as a public to have our own weapons. I personally will not allow any in my home but that's for personal reasons. I think regulations are needed but people have the right to their own defense as well.

*M*

machinepolitick said...

I'm not sure if this was the post you had in mind Dirk. I got an error on the link you sent.
Either way, good post. The 2nd Amendment definitely protects the individual's right to gun ownership. Otherwise, we are prisoners of our government. Therefore, it is no surprise the Democrat majority in Congress and Obama support gun control.
It's funny, I have a similar bumper sticker on my car to your 'The Experts Agree... image.
I'm proud to say my first political painting to sell was on the issue of the 2nd Amendment.