It has begun.
Despite assurances to the contrary, some democrats are champing at the bit to institute citizen disarmament, and like impulsive children, can't even wait for their guy to be inaugurated.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you H.R.45, Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, introduced in the House one week ago today by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL).
Per Jeff Knox of The Firearms Coalition:
If passed, this bill would require that anyone wishing to purchase, own, or possess a "qualifying firearm" - that's any handgun, and any long gun capable of accepting a detachable magazine - would have to be licensed by the state or the federal government in a licensing program managed by the Attorney General. To get a license you would have to prove you're you, provide a passport-style photo, a thumbprint, and take a written exam which includes questions about firearms safety, safe storage, the risks of firearms ownership, and anything else the Attorney General deems appropriate. All transfers would be required to go through a licensed dealer with the exception of occasional gifts or bequests between parents, children (18 or over), and grandparents, or loans of not more than 30 days between "persons who are personally known to one another." (It actually says that. I'm not making this up.) And all transfers would have to be recorded in a "Transfer Record" established and maintained by the Attorney General.
The bill also makes it a crime for a dealer to have shoddy records or fail to appropriately cooperate with any inspectors. It makes failure to report the loss or theft of a firearm within 72 hours a felony punishable by up to 2 years in prison. Failure to keep a firearm locked up in such a way as to keep it inaccessible to anyone under 18 becomes a federal felony too.
Read the bill for yourself .
As of now, it has no co-sponsors. Some will tell you that means there's no cause for alarm. Some may even tell us this has no chance of passing (now), and to expend effort opposing it will weaken future political efforts.
One mass shooting in a "no guns" zone from now, that could change, and this could come to the front burner. Along with the anticipated push to permanently ban (that means no "sunset clause" this time) all semiautomatics by both name and characteristic.
Here's the important part: It will make it illegal for you to possess guns you currently legally own unless you go jump through their hoops, register yourself and obtain a license. All under the watchful oversight of Eric Holder--another grave danger to gun rights our lobbyists see no need to expend "political capital" on.
This is what the gunhaters mean by "common sense gun control" and "reasonable restrictions." So much for "shall not be infringed."
This is nothing less than a declaration of war on American gun owners.
Naturally, I'll have more as things develop. Come to think of it, I'll have more over the coming days.
I intend to go through everything this tyrannical edict proposes, and expose it for the evil and ridiculous affront to Liberty that it is.
------------
Down the Hatch
It's not just the democrats we have to watch. The republicans have their share.
This time, it's from a guy who should know better.
Orrin Hatch supports Eric Holder.
What is wrong with these people?
------------
Speaking of Holder...
RedState.com has noticed a conspicuous absence of "gun lobby" opposition to his confirmation.
I like the way they characterize their post as "breaking."
Readers here and at The Firearms Coalition know better.
Welcome to the party, guys.
------------
Speaking of welcoming...
.jpg)
Say hello to my friends at Oregon Firearms Federation and Montana Shooting Sports Association. Those of you who live in those states need to bookmark those sites, join those groups and get involved with your support and response to alerts.
You can find recent OFF Alerts here. The latest MSSA Alert is here.
Make sure you get involved, and make sure you use whatever influence you have to persuade your friends to follow suit.
Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:
- Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner: Open carry of firearms is a legal activity in Ohio
- Los Angeles Gun Rights Examiner: The CPR corollary
Comments
I seem to be a day late and a dollar short in sending you a heads up on everything and miss a lot of stuff. maybe I just need some new glasses. Or a new rifle
David,
I own several guns and was brought up in a gun-loving family. I hunt every season. I see nothing wrong with this bill whatsoever.
We're not talking about banning firearms here. We're talking about regulation, firearm safety, an exam, and a thumbprint. These same criteria apply to getting a drvier's license. And can you really say with a straight face that you have a problem with this:
"It makes failure to report the loss or theft of a firearm within 72 hours a felony punishable by up to 2 years in prison. Failure to keep a firearm locked up in such a way as to keep it inaccessible to anyone under 18 becomes a federal felony too."
Gun-haters are irrational, but your post is irrational too, I'm sorry to say. This is hardly a war on liberty or gun ownership. This is about a common ground between us as gun owners and people wishing for common sense. And it is common sense.
Please, don't make yourself sound as loony as the far left. Every time an irresponsible gun owner leaves his weapon out for a kid to find and use, or every time he loses it and then fails to report it (and a crime is then committed by the thief) it makes all gun-owners look bad. It should be a felony to have your rifle out where a 6-year-old can get it. And if you lose your weapon, shame on you for not reporting it. It's a gun, not a slice of pizza. A certain amount of responsibility is required of us. Why give the far left ammunition (pun intended) by pretending we're not law-abiding, or willing to abide by law. Regulation is part of our Second Amendment.
Your post is full of unjustified alarmism. There is no such thing as unlimited freedom. Even free speech has its limits. This bill is important for gun ownership, beecause it holds us to a reasonable standard.
"We're not talking about banning firearms here. "
nope, we are asking the government for permission to own firearms. What could go wrong with that?
I like this part:
"(4) because the intrastate and interstate trafficking of firearms are so commingled, full regulation of interstate commerce requires the incidental regulation of intrastate commerce;"
In other words, "yeah, we know Congress is not empowered to regulate intrastate Congress (as if that has ever stopped them), but since it's so difficult for us to distinguish intrastate and interstate commerce, we're just gonna have to regulate 'em both, even without any Constitutional authority to do so."
To the Rifleman I have only this to say
Second Amendment.
The Rifleman. Every confiscation effort *ever* has begun with "common sense" regulations - like this registration scheme. This is unconstitutional (licensing a right guaranteed by the constitution), it's stupid (criminals will not register, they will not get their thumb print taken, and they will not use a gun registered to themself in the commission of a crime), and it's absolutely pointless.
What happens next year when they increase the exam requirement to yearly, and institute a fee of $500 to take it?
How about the year after that when they refuse to allow half of authorized exam proctors to re-up their authorization?
What about when they suddenly decide you don't "need" a handgun any more, and show up at the door of every registrant to take them with a SWAT team?
Hunters such as you, David, that refuse to see that just because a restriction doesn't affect your bolt-action hunting rifle or shotgun now, doesn't mean they won't call it a sniper rifle and demand it be turned in next year, are the one of the key factors in the erosion of our rights.
This is not about "safety", it is not about "security", it is not about stopping crime, it is the first step to full blown confiscation. Plain and simple. If you refuse to see that, if you refuse to step up and stand united with other gun owners against laws that will do nothing to improve safety, or reduce crime, and cost billions of dollars of your tax money for no real gain, you'll pay the price later when they come for *you*.
This *is* the line. It shall not be crossed.
Apologies - previous post was directed at The Rifleman.
@ The Rifleman:
Wow. You have totally confused the concept of licenses and fundamental rights. They are not equivalent in any sense. You are either intentionally misrepresenting these very different concepts as equivalent, or you are not competent to give an opinion. There are limits to free speech, ya know.
Also, it is true that there are limits to free speech, but there are already equivalent limits on weapons (including firearms). These limits center around the abuse of a fundamental right to deny another person his fundamental rights (i.e.; fundamental rights are not allowed to be contorted and wielded as a sword to deny another his fundamental rights). You might want to inspect the various statutes that make murder, assault, aggravated assault, etc. illegal acts. The equivalent restraints on free speech are the laws against defamation, libel, slander, breach of the peace, etc. However, to say that requiring permission to own or use firearms is equivalent is laughable. An equivalent restraint in the free speech world as the ones you advocate for weapons would be if the government forced us to be tested, fingerprinted, licensed, etc. before we could exercise our free speech rights. This is ludicrous and a very clear violation of our fundamental rights.
In fact, such absurd tests have existed in the past for the exercise of fundamental rights. They came in the form of voting tests that were administered to keep blacks from voting - a blatant refusal of the free exercise of fundamental rights.
Your arguments follow in the same bigoted path as the petty tyrants who have defiled this earth and country before. Neither your arguments nor your goals are reasonable. They are quite unreasonable.
To Rifleman:
You don't have the RIGHT to drive a car, so the gov can make any restrictions they want on it.
You do have a RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. And the Regulated clause means you know how to use them, not have a license.
Just give your guns to someone who won't role over to the new communist overlords.
Rifleman:
You're a fool. A well-intended one, a "reasonable" one, perhaps, but a fool nonetheless.
"We're not talking about banning firearms here." Really? Oh, Contraire!!
Yes, we are.
This is the first step, not the last. Tell me what the purpose of this registration is? Gun accidental deaths are at the lowest on record. The VAST majority of guns, and gun owners, are NEVER involved in ANY crime. If this is merely "reasonable" regulation, it a solution searching for a problem.
Heller tells us what the Constitution makes clear: that the possession of a firearm is a protected right. Your right to free speech need no regulation, no limitation, no examination before it can be exercised; you would justifiably be up in arms (pun intended) if same was to be imposed. But you accept same for the very right which ultimately protects that right to free speech, and the other rights we hold dear. And this for a clearly enumerated right, central to liberty. This is indeed a war on gun owners, and on liberty. This is the shot across the bow.
And if it is successful, it will not be the final shot, it will be merely the opening salvo. For this "reasonable" regulation will inevitably fail in its stated purpose; indeed, those who propose the law know that, and intend it. For they know what we know: those who would violate the law and commit crimes will continue to do so, and millions of gun owners will again be blamed for what they did not do. And then the next step will come. It will be confiscation of your "non-sporting" firearms, all in the name of "reasonable" regulation.
And thanks to your willingness to roll over and surrender to "reasonable" regulation, they will know exactly where they are.
When the left says "reasonable" regulation, they mean confiscation. Make no mistake about it. They'll merely sell confiscation one step at a time, with the road paved with willing fools who "reasonably" went along.
There is one other point here that must be made. Should this abomination pass, there will be massive resistance to any such law. Millions of Americans will, in my opinion, justifiably refuse to participate in any such registration program. I am a lawyer, a prosecutor, but I will not register my firearms. The guns will go underground, so to speak, and millions of otherwise lawful citizens, who never committed a crime, will become criminals by legislative fiat. Those "reasonable" legislators who propose this know this as well, and will use same to declare war against those millions of persons, using the threat of selective prosecution as leverage against your neighbors. When millions refuse to participate, they will use that as justification for stronger measures. Hopefully, as most law enforcement officers in my experience are strong supporters of the 2nd amendment (unlike the chiefs, who are merely politicians), the Constitution, and armed citizens, they will see this law for what it is, and refuse to enforce it, should it pass.
This law should be opposed at every level: at is proposal, in it's legislative progress, in court with legal challenges, and yes, should it come to that, in its implimentation. There is nothing less than the future of limited constitutional government at stake.
Rifleman, if indeed that is what you are, are a very poor excuse of a gun owner, but a prime example of what a slave-in-waiting sounds like. I submit it is you that is irrational, but the lack of a backbone can make you that way. The reason you have no problem with all the gun control headed our way is that you are PART of the problem. You, and a lot like you, are perfectly willing to dance to any tune coming out of DC. And taking off your clothes if the masters want that too, is right up your alley. If you were ever able to think for yourself, back in the dim past, before you became the lap dog of the masters, you may remember your father and grandfather had access to far more guns than you do, and they never hurt anyone, because they knew how to behave responsibly. But now that the wolves are circling, you and the rest of your sheep brethern are bleating loud and clear that you would like to be eaten last. I'm going to die on this hill, of no steps back, no registration, no licensing, no thumbprints, no dancing to any more federal tunes, and I do not give a damn. I'm going to die like a man, which is a lot more than I can say for you. I actually believe that being free is better than living like a slave, and I'm willing to back that up with my life. About the only thing you're ever going to be good at is obeying unjust and cruel laws that kill the innocent, and reward the monsters. Good luck with that. I reserve pity for the helpless, but for you, only scorn.
The Second Amendment is all or nothing, To call yourself a progunner and second Amendment supporter and support some piece of dung like this amounts to you being no more then one who supports elite gun ownership over the common low lifes in America. Take a Hike back to your AHSA and tell them I said they can go "F" thereselves
I would not be nearly as bothered by this if it were not for the federal registration aspects. I would still oppose this although not as intensely if all it wanted to do was to basically have firearm owners submit to a background check every 5 years or so and get a card for doing so. Then all I would have to do is show my card to buy a gun rather than doing the background check each time. That's not really any big deal except that it should be a state issue rather than a federal one. However, this bill also calls for a federal registration of firearms, and (listen right here Rifleman) too many of us gun owners see firearm registration for what it will become: an incremental step towards eliminating or drastically reducing individual firearms ownership by banning one category of firearms then another accompanied by confiscation of those firearms. We've already seen "assault rifles" banned nationally. Handgun bans exist locally, and I am sure can be promulgated nationally through 'reasonable' permitting schemes that with a liberal court could pass muster with the Heller decision, but still act as a de facto ban by applying terms such a 'good cause' as a qualification for handgun ownership. Then all it takes is one guy to go on a killing spree with a hunting rifle or shotgun before they are added to the ban. I know this sounds like the slippery slope and that term has become almost cliché, but just because it has doesn't mean it's not right. It has happened in other places (surely England is not so dissimilar to the US) so why not here.
States may or may not pass safe storage laws, which I have no objection to. States may or may not pass stolen gun reporting laws, which I do object to if they come with penalties much stiffer than a $100 fine. States may attempt to pass gun registration, and I say attempt because it would get crushed by public response in a lot of places, but not so much in others. However, the federal government definitely needs to stay the hell out of it.
Oh, one more note for the Rifleman because I just noticed it. Regulation is not part of the Second Amendment. The second amendment does not end in "is subject to reasonable regulation." It ends in "shall not be infringed." That seems pretty clear to me.
There seems to be some confusion with some people. We are not going to let our fundamental rights be turned into licenses where we have to crawl to the government and beg for permission to use the rights that belong to us as individuals.
This is the problem with a background check every few years in order to keep one's right to own firearms. Do you submit to a background check every few years to make sure you have not committed slander or libel in order to be able to continue to speak freely? Oh, puh-lease! There is no way to sneak around our fundamental rights.
It is very simple. No more backing up!
"The Rifleman" appears to be like the liberals who cheat and call in on the Republican line on C-SPAN and start out their left-wing diatribe with a comment such as, "I'm a life-long Republican, BUT...". Or like the demonRAT callers who try (it rarely works) to call in to Rush's show and fake him out with similar B.S. No serious supporter of the 2nd Amendment, hunting, and general firearms use uses terms like, "I was brought up in a GUN-LOVING family". WE (not the FAKES) love and support FREEDOM, NOT the firearms which are a big part of an American citizen's demonstrable RIGHT to defend themselves, their family, and their way of life from any and all EVIL, whether it be from foreign or DOMESTIC (most assuredly, from out-of-control, government USURPERS of our FREEDOMS) sources. "The Rifleman", if he was what he SAYS he is, should know that the 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting. He is partially correct in saying, "We're not talking about banning firearms here", at least where SOME of the "reasonable", "common sense" (a left-wing, gun-hating bureaucrat's idea of what is "reasonable" or "common sense", does NOT coincide with most freedom-loving Americans understanding of the same words) regulations are concerned. However, banning whole classes of firearms, such as semiautomatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns, IS most assuredly, EXTREMELY UNREASONABLE. History shows us that licensing always leads to registration, and registration ALWAYS leads to further curtailment of fundamental rights, or confiscation of legally (suddenly made illegal by goverment fiat)owned property. "The Rifleman" SOUNDS like big-time anti-gun demonRAT, Joe Biden, by stating that he owns several guns. My guess is that they are single or double barrel shotguns only useful for hunting birds, etc. If they were semi-automatic, like the 1927-made Browning Sweet Sixteen my great-grandfather once owned, and I now own, then "The Rifleman" would, or SHOULD, be concerned that his fellow demonRATS would call for their licensing and/or registration, and eventual confiscation. Even if he owns, as his name suggests, some hunting rifles, he should be concerned that some liberal gun-control freaks might want to classify his scoped bolt-action as a SNIPER rifle, and deny him the right to own it based on the trumped-up claim that it is a weapon only suitable for the MILITARY. It NEVER ends with these gun-control (heavy on the CONTROL) thugs. These jack-booted gun-grabbing government thugs will NEVER rest until our great country lives under the same "reasonable" and "common sense" gun control laws as the subjects (those with the right and the EFFECTIVE MEANS to defend themselves against government tyranny are citizens, not subjects) in many socialist euroweenie states do. Further evidence that "The Rifelman" is a fraud, is that he says that we should take a similar regulatory approach to guns, as we do driving regulations. driving is a PRIVELEGE which can be taken away, while our ability to keep and bear arms is a RIGHT which should only be taken away or infringed upon in extreme cases, like some of the TWENTY-THOUSAND-plus laws already on the books cover - convicted felons, etc. "The Rifleman" suggesting that owning and using guns should be dealt with like owning and driving vehicles is a nonsensical, apples and oranges claim, and is a standard TALKING-POINT for anti-gun demoRATS. I am for firearm owner education, such as done by the NRA, NOT government mandated education. And I am certainly NOT for more gun-control laws piled on top of the vast number of such laws we law-abiding citizens already have to deal with. My civil rights are NON-NEGOTIABLE. I seek common ground with The Founding Fathers, NOT the domestic enemies of our rights who lurk within the halls of our government buildings, or disingenuous, covert anti-gunners like "The Rifleman" appears to be. There are at least EIGHTY MILLION of us firearms owners (likely, MANY more law-abiding citizens since the anti-gun Obama admin has been elected and formed). We come from all walks of life, but we need to stand together against the jack-booted thugs that wish to demean and destroy our rights, whehter it be in piecmeal fashion, one step at a time - or in one fell swoop, such as after the next rare, but high-profile shooting incident (with anti-gun liberals running their countries, that is EXACTLY what happened in Mediocre, once Great, Britain, and Australia, to name two). Fight against any and all gun control, UNLESS it only has the desired and DEMONSTRABLE effect of ONLY negatively effecting the CRIMINAL use of guns (putting violent gun offenders away for a VERY long time or executing them is a better answer than new gun-control laws).
Why do we constantly let those we gave birth to, the federal government, dictate terms to us? Do you let you kids tell you what to do? This is insanity. The government isn't your friend, it's not your parent, or keeper, or anything but a crazed rabid animal that needs to be contained, examined, and either fixed or done away with.
Can you imagine what the left(ists) that inhabit government would say of this bill if it were for VOTING!? We've already seen that, they surround and attack on all sides from the first whiff of it. Well, why do we always wait until it's too late?
As for comments...good to see that the brady offshoot the AHSA is representing here with "the rifleman". Very nice to finally learn what "common sense" actually is, prior restraint and massive unconstitutional infringements of preexisting and supposedly constitutionally protected rights.
"The Rifleman" appears to be like the liberals who cheat and call in on the Republican line on C-SPAN and start out their left-wing diatribe with a comment such as, "I'm a life-long Republican, BUT...". Or like the demonRAT callers who try (it rarely works) to call in to Rush's show and fake him out with similar B.S. No serious supporter of the 2nd Amendment, hunting, and general firearms use uses terms like, "I was brought up in a GUN-LOVING family". WE (not the FAKES) love and support FREEDOM, NOT the firearms which are a big part of an American citizen's demonstrable RIGHT to defend themselves, their family, and their way of life from any and all EVIL, whether it be from foreign or DOMESTIC (most assuredly, from out-of-control, government USURPERS of our FREEDOMS) sources. "The Rifleman", if he was what he SAYS he is, should know that the 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting. He is partially correct in saying, "We're not talking about banning firearms here", at least where SOME of the "reasonable", "common sense" (a left-wing, gun-hating bureaucrat's idea of what is "reasonable" or "common sense", does NOT coincide with most freedom-loving Americans understanding of the same words) regulations are concerned. However, banning whole classes of firearms, such as semiautomatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns, IS most assuredly, EXTREMELY UNREASONABLE. History shows us that licensing always leads to registration, and registration ALWAYS leads to further curtailment of fundamental rights, or confiscation of legally (suddenly made illegal by goverment fiat)owned property. "The Rifleman" SOUNDS like big-time anti-gun demonRAT, Joe Biden, by stating that he owns several guns. My guess is that they are single or double barrel shotguns only useful for hunting birds, etc. If they were semi-automatic, like the 1927-made Browning Sweet Sixteen my great-grandfather once owned, and I now own, then "The Rifleman" would, or SHOULD, be concerned that his fellow demonRATS would call for their licensing and/or registration, and eventual confiscation. Even if he owns, as his name suggests, some hunting rifles, he should be concerned that some liberal gun-control freaks might want to classify his scoped bolt-action as a SNIPER rifle, and deny him the right to own it based on the trumped-up claim that it is a weapon only suitable for the MILITARY. It NEVER ends with these gun-control (heavy on the CONTROL) thugs. These jack-booted gun-grabbing government thugs will NEVER rest until our great country lives under the same "reasonable" and "common sense" gun control laws as the subjects (those with the right and the EFFECTIVE MEANS to defend themselves against government tyranny are citizens, not subjects) in many socialist euroweenie states do. Further evidence that "The Rifelman" is a fraud, is that he says that we should take a similar regulatory approach to guns, as we do driving regulations. driving is a PRIVELEGE which can be taken away, while our ability to keep and bear arms is a RIGHT which should only be taken away or infringed upon in extreme cases, like some of the TWENTY-THOUSAND-plus laws already on the books cover - convicted felons, etc. "The Rifleman" suggesting that owning and using guns should be dealt with like owning and driving vehicles is a nonsensical, apples and oranges claim, and is a standard TALKING-POINT for anti-gun demoRATS. I am for firearm owner education, such as done by the NRA, NOT government mandated education. And I am certainly NOT for more gun-control laws piled on top of the vast number of such laws we law-abiding citizens already have to deal with. My civil rights are NON-NEGOTIABLE. I seek common ground with The Founding Fathers, NOT the domestic enemies of our rights who lurk within the halls of our government buildings, or disingenuous, covert anti-gunners like "The Rifleman" appears to be. There are at least EIGHTY MILLION of us firearms owners (likely, MANY more law-abiding citizens since the anti-gun Obama admin has been elected and formed). We come from all walks of life, but we need to stand together against the jack-booted thugs that wish to demean and destroy our rights, whehter it be in piecmeal fashion, one step at a time - or in one fell swoop, such as after the next rare, but high-profile shooting incident (with anti-gun liberals running their countries, that is EXACTLY what happened in Mediocre, once Great, Britain, and Australia, to name two). Fight against any and all gun control, UNLESS it only has the desired and DEMONSTRABLE effect of ONLY negatively effecting the CRIMINAL use of guns (putting violent gun offenders away for a VERY long time or executing them is a better answer than new gun-control laws).
I've always felt that the .Gov would continue to change the game until they made us all criminals for non-compliance.
Well, so be it. I'm ready I guess.
I'm very curious:
If I return home from a 2-week vacation to find that my house has been burglarized, and that they've broken into my "safe storage" gun safe, does this proposed POS now automatically make me a felon, simply because more than 72 hours have passed?
If I'm 4 days into a backpacking trip, and drop my revolver into an inaccesible ravine and it takes me more than 72 hours to hike out, does this "law" automatically make me a felon?
These minor details aside, this is not a first step down a slippery slope, it is a gun-banner's dream.
with gun owners like "rifleman", who needs the brady bunch? Yep, let's register our guns, and get fingerprinted (just until they can bring the implanted RFID tags online). Then they'll add an annual license fee. Reasonable, of course. Maybe $10-20 per gun (for now). Then once their all registered, they can change their mind about what's OK, and come collect the ones that are no longer blessed. Or they could just raise the fee, maybe due to an economic meltdown. $100 per year? More? Of course, you could also make it a PITA to renew the registration, then collect those that aren't re-registered. Of course, this has all already happened IN THIS COUNTRY. No need to look to Nazi Germany, England, or Australia. It's already happened HERE.
Rifleman also doesn't see a problem with making it a felony for me to let my not-yet 18 year old children shoot or hunt.
I don't think this guy is for real. God help us if any real gun owners are this naive.
And so it ends, the grand experiment. With the country full of stupid, moronic fools like the rifleman, it was inevitable.
His argument is so idiotic, I wonder if he even has a 6th grade education. You DO NOT need to give a thumb print to get a driver's license. You DO NOT need a driver's license to buy or operate a motor vehicle if you do so on private property. There is NO prior restraint on free speech.
My family had firearms all over the house when I grew up and nothing happened, are children today of lower IQ than those days? Everything in your post proves to the world you are a drooling imbecile and are one of the few that shouldn't own firearms, so go turn yours in, Mr. Rifleman.
'Rifleman'? Chuck Connors must be turning in his grave.
Look guy, the answer here is very simple: "No".
No, I will not comply with this registration scheme.
No, I will not comply with any so-called "Ammunition Accountability" scheme.
No. Just plain No.
If it is war they want, than it is war we must give them. All members of gun rights groups need to contact those organizations and pressure them to start speaking out against Holder, because he will be the Attorney General and if you think we are going to get any approval from him, we are wrong. That means no approval, no guns, no self defense, and rising violent crime rates.
More importantly we must bombard the our reps with letters, phone calls, and emails. It is not hard to fire off an email every day, or to pick up the phone every day. It is also not hard to send a letter. Type one up print out a bunch of copies, hand sign them, yes hand sign them ALL, and mail one a day. If everyone mails one letter a day for a few days the offices will be flooded with mail, they will know that folks are paying attention.
Obviously if this bill passes it will be challenged as Unconstitutional, but the idea is to not let this get passed. The last thing we need is Eric Holder calling the shots and determining who will get guns, because it will not be us.
Just because someone is a "rifleman" doesn mean he isn't aiming his rifle at me. I KNOW what "shall not be infringed" means. I KNOW why the Second Amendment was written. I KNOW that people who had just defeated the most powerful military force on earth at the time would not have been so stupid as to give another government ANY say whatsoever on their right to own and to carry, everywhere they went, any type of weapon they chose, in any manner they saw fit, without asking permission of ANYONE, EVER.
And I know that those who support any type of infringement, no matter how "common-sense", are threatening MY life.
If you really think about it, driving - the right to travel and move around independently - is no more a "privilege" legitimately granted by government than is our right to self defense and bearing arms, or any other God given human right.
By what authority does government have any claim to restrict any of our rights, including travel? The exact same arguments for such restriction are used every day to destroy our right to self defense, freedom of religion, trial by jury and all the rest.
Government, for good or bad, only has such authority as individuals are willing to give them. There is no other source for that authority. States or nations do not HAVE "rights." Only individuals do.
If we give any government authority to act in any way, it does not reduce or change our basic individual responsibility for our lives and safety. It does not diminish in any way the absolute authority that remains with us to direct our own lives as we will, as long as we do not aggress against others who are not harming us.
Those who wish to be ruled like infants should certainly be free to appoint guardians and masters to suit themselves. The rest of us had better be careful we are not fooled into thinking that we can avoid the real responsibility for our lives and property while remaining free individuals.
It never has been, and never will be possible.
I've always felt that the .Gov would continue to change the game until they made us all criminals for non-compliance.
Well, so be it. I'm ready I guess.
Alright kids,
I wish to make a series of short, concise points.
1.) I will never submit to any of this, they want 'em, they better be packing class 3 body armor.
2.) STOP THE AD HOMINEM ATTACKS! I don't like Rifleman's perspective either. The solution, however, is logic and reason, not mounds of personal shots.
3.) This is yet another step to try and strangle the American gun owner. Don't even let them try.
-The_Chef
I'm trying to picture how the various law enforcement agencies in our very rural, very gun-owning area would ever raise enough LEOs willing to die at the hands of their neighbors in the name of enforcing this idiotic law.
What, I really wonder, do they put in the water of Washington DC?
These people will not be satisfied until ALL of our rights are removed. For years I have watched stupid laws passed to protect me from myself, NOT this time. This is the beginning of what may be a second civil war!
I will not submit to this law. Should it ever pass, I think that the pols voting for it should be tried as traitors and executed as a warning to those pieces of filth who would dare approach the jewel of liberty.
This is nothing less than a declaration of war on American gun owners.
I could not disagree more with the above statement. This is nothing less than a declaration of war against the American people by attacking the United States Constitution.
A government that will disarm its citizens will murder those very same citizens.
III
In case I wasn't clear before, I want to make sure I'm clear now. To "The Rifleman" (who, as a previous poster noted, is almost certainly not), and to the various government officials, both elected and appointed who seek to pass and/or enforce this wretched piece of unconstitutional crap:
Not only no, HELL no.
Not one part of the Bill of Rights is negotiable. Not now, not ever.
. . . and now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to the range (with credit and thanks to Kim Du Toit)
Any such law will be a "line in the sand".
This bill is redundant in some ways. "Gun control" has had no successes over the past 70 years while the records the government maintains are full of errors, and the Supreme Court verified that the Second Amendment codifies and individual right.
In light of this, to force registration and then leave the fate of millions of Americans in the hands of a single, unelected official IS INSANE. The only reasonable explanation (aside from misanthropy) is that the designer of the legislation knows full well that even the most well-intentioned DOJ head would create an artificial scarcity of "legal" transactions due to overwhelming demand.
Zach wrote: "I will not submit to this law. Should it ever pass, I think that the pols voting for it should be tried as traitors and executed as a warning to those pieces of filth who would dare approach the jewel of liberty."
I am an average person who doesn't own a gun but who is also trying to understand the passion of people who do. It is comments like yours that frighten me into thinking maybe the gun control advocates have a point.
After making my post, I talked to a colleague of mine and predicted exactly the kind of wild attacks that appeared here today. I wonder how many of you were this concerned with warrantless surveillance on Americans. I suspect, very strongly, that the majority of you were in support of it. Hypocrites.
But now you attack me (a libertarian, for the record) for pointing out that all freedoms are subject to some kind of regulation in society. Even the freedom of speech.
It's the degrees of regulation that we need to be wary of. You can't threaten the president, or shout fire in a crowded theater. Fine. The moment those restrictions start to expand into books and other areas, then we have a problem.
The same thing with guns. The problem is, too many gun-owners unlike me are as wild-eyed and irrational on the subject as those wanting to ban them outright. If you leave your gun out for a kid to get, it should be felony.
Hey, disagree if you want. But all societies have regulations. And regulation is part of the Second Amendment.
And as much as a lot of you would desperately like to think I don't own guns, I most certainly do. It's because of conversations like these that I consider the political left and the political right to be largely made up of shrieking children.
"I own several guns and was brought up in a gun-loving family. I hunt every season. I see nothing wrong with this bill whatsoever."
This is the racist's equivalent of, "I'm not a racist, because I have some black friends."
"We're not talking about banning firearms here. We're talking about regulation, firearm safety, an exam, and a thumbprint. These same criteria apply to getting a drvier's license. And can you really say with a straight face that you have a problem with this:
"It makes failure to report the loss or theft of a firearm within 72 hours a felony punishable by up to 2 years in prison. Failure to keep a firearm locked up in such a way as to keep it inaccessible to anyone under 18 becomes a federal felony too.""
I have a problem with all of it.
1 - If your home gets robbed, your life turned upside down, your property destroyed, and you happen to fail to report the loss, you get prosecuted by the government. You're punished twice.
2 - Does a 13 year old child, schooled and trained in firearms safety and use not deserve a chance to defend herself if she happens to be home alone and there happens to be a home invasion?
3 - The right to drive a car on a PUBLIC road requires a driver's license. The right to OWN a car and drive it on your own property does not. We don't treat people like potential drunk drivers or criminals for merely purchasing a vehicle. Why treat gun owners as such?
4 - I have no problem with training. I train my kids all the time. They know and understand firearms safety better than some police officers do. Why is it that the government needs to make money from mandating it?
"Gun-haters are irrational, but your post is irrational too, I'm sorry to say. This is hardly a war on liberty or gun ownership. This is about a common ground between us as gun owners and people wishing for common sense. And it is common sense."
Licensing a RIGHT is not common sense. It's tyranny. When you have to ask the nanny state permission to exercise a right, it is no longer a right, but a government-granted privilege. When you are treated like a criminal merely for possessing a piece of property that it is your constitutionally protected right to possess it's not common sense, it's statism. Who is irrational, the man who looks at a government's attempt to force him to ask bureaucrats permission to exercise a right protected by the law of the land as an infringement on his right, or the man who advocates the paranoid treatment of every gun owner like a criminal, just in case a criminal uses the gun in the possession of a crime?
"Please, don't make yourself sound as loony as the far left. Every time an irresponsible gun owner leaves his weapon out for a kid to find and use, or every time he loses it and then fails to report it (and a crime is then committed by the thief) it makes all gun-owners look bad. It should be a felony to have your rifle out where a 6-year-old can get it. And if you lose your weapon, shame on you for not reporting it. It's a gun, not a slice of pizza. A certain amount of responsibility is required of us. Why give the far left ammunition (pun intended) by pretending we're not law-abiding, or willing to abide by law. Regulation is part of our Second Amendment."
Maybe it's time for you to learn some English. "Regulated" as it was written in the Second Amendment means "well trained."
Regulating personal responsibility is foolish and ineffectual.
And since when is REPORTING a gun stolen a way to prevent a crime? All it would do is perhaps absolve the gun owner of liability if the stolen gun is misused, and punish him TWICE - once when he is robbed and a second time when the nanny state punishes him for maybe being too frightened or traumatized by the incident to immediately notice that the gun is gone.
And by the way, my son could shoot a rifle when he was six, as well as a pistol - probably better than you.
"Your post is full of unjustified alarmism. There is no such thing as unlimited freedom. Even free speech has its limits. This bill is important for gun ownership, beecause it holds us to a reasonable standard."
Free speech doesn't have its limits. The ABUSE of free speech is what is limited. Much like the ownership of firearms shouldn't have limits, but their abuse has consequences already.
"I wonder how many of you were this concerned with warrantless surveillance on Americans. I suspect, very strongly, that the majority of you were in support of it. Hypocrites."
Nice assumption. Too bad you know nothing about the people who refuted your foolishness that warrants you to make said assumption.
To Rifleman, Most here are very, very worried about warrentless surveillance of Americans. Because it can so easily be turned to do something like this Bill is allowing. And to allow a Bill to dictate what I do with my property in my home is just as wrong as allowing the law to prohibit what people do in their bedroom and with who. And the REGULATION that is reffered to in the 2A isn't regarding to laws about guns, (otherwise there would have been gun control laws from the start) its about those citizens who possess guns being trained in Infantry fighting tactics of the time.
To Karen: Heres a thought. What if those who were against Hitler's Jewish Registration laws got together and killed him before he started loading them on to trains and then into ovens? Maybe that will help you realize that the scary black rifles that citizens possess are to be used for just that type of scenario. What if you have to take a class or pass a test so that you could speak freely or believe your own ideas about religion?
The idea of the Bill of Rights isn't to establish things that citizens are allowed to do, its to establish where the government has no effing Right to be. Its not permission from the gov, its restriction of the gov.
You should look up the Kates-Mauser study from Harvard Law. In it they find correlation that countries with lax gun laws have less crime over all, and in countries where there are strict gun laws, crime is rampant. Also, realize that most anti-gun organizations are lying to and decieving you. They will tell you that every year 12,000 people are killed by guns, what they don't tell you is that nearly 6,000 of those deaths are suicides. And they are even more diabolical when it comes to children killed by guns, often including people aged to as high as 24 in those statistics on "child gun deaths."
The one thing our culture lacks the most right now is for people to stand up for what is right. If this Bill passes, we will see who is willing to put their actions where their mouth is now.
Hello Karen, and thanks for taking the time to comment.
Put as simply as possible, the Second Amendment is the one that guarantees the rest. It is the ultimate safety net for our way of life. The folks who wrote the Constitution understood this, which is why the 2A exists. If Congress and the courts take away this Right, there isn't anything besides us 'rabid gun nuts' that will stand between us and an overreaching government.
Part, perhaps most of the reason we get so impassioned about this is that we're the ones who will have swat teams try to invade our homes, because we're the ones who are saying 'no'. Nobody else seems to be paying attention. Going after criminals is reasonable; going after Constitutionally protected property will never be reasonable.
Rifleman:
You chose to "kick the hornet's nest," as it were, expecting the result. You see the result as irrational.
On the contrary; I see your acceptance of the licensing of your fundamental rights - any fundamental right - as irrational.
The legislation proposed is faulty on many levels. First, it is beyond the authority of the federal government. If a state wants to make failure to properly secure your firearms, that is within their authority, but it is not within the authority of the federal government.
More problematic, however, is making the exercise of a fundamental right, and one designed and intended to serve as the ultimate check on the authority of government, subject to the whims of an arbitrary licensing authority. That is especially aggregious when it is without doubt that the regulations required for this "licensing" have little if any chance of accomplishing the stated aims of the legislation; one cannot legislate responsible behavior. As noted before, if it is intended to make gun ownership safer, it is a solution in search of a problem.
The fact of the matter is that many believe, and rightly so, that the proposed legislation is only the first salvo in a agenda to disarm Americans. There simply is no other rational purpose. And such an agenda is simply not acceptable. Ever. Under any circumstances. And no matter how it's disguised.
You note that no rights are absolute; I agree. And there are literally tens of thousands of gun laws, many of them equally irrational, on the books to prove same. Manyt, frankly, I have no objection to. I do not mind the background check on purchase, for example, as a felon has surrendered his right to a firearm by his behavior. This legislation, however, is not targeted at those who commmit crimes with firearms. It is specifically targeted at those who do not, intending to make them criminals. For those who propose this legislation knew exactly the "hornet's nest" it would stir up; indeed, they are counting on it, so they can demonize the "extremists" on the NRA and drive a wedge between the NRA and its supporters and fools like you who not only do not see the train bearing down on you, you are complicit in fueling the destruction of your own rights.
As a lawyer and an officer of court, I can tell you that I will oppose such legislation, bitterly, and if passed, will NOT submit to any licensing regimine. I will not use violence unless violence is used against me, but I will not simply roll over and surrender.
As noted earlier, you, sir, are a fool. Well intentioned, and I'm sure right now feeling smugly superior. But a fool nonetheless.
"Who is irrational, the man who looks at a government's attempt to force him to ask bureaucrats permission to exercise a right protected by the law of the land as an infringement on his right, or the man who advocates the paranoid treatment of every gun owner like a criminal, just in case a criminal uses the gun in the possession of a crime?"
- Nicki Fellenzer
Touche, and well said. I may have to steal that.
@ The Rifleman:
Right. Pretend to take the middle ground when you are actually advocating extremist views.
On what basis do you presume to know whether or not we were in support of warrantless surveillance? You made a wild assumption, and then, you used that assumption as a faulty base from which to falsely accuse us as being hypocrites. You really should apologize for that. A true libertarian would never make such a fundamental error. That, alone, speaks volumes of your tactics. Good try, but that is not going to work.
"But now you attack me (a libertarian, for the record) for pointing out that all freedoms are subject to some kind of regulation in society. Even the freedom of speech."
You are misrepresenting the arguments that were made. Fundamental rights are only limited to the extent that they are being misused to deny another person his fundamental rights. You are trying to play a game of "equivalence." Feel free to read my prior posts on this topic. Your arguments comparing limitations on freedoms are NOT equivalent to the proposed infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. You are trying to argue that prior restraints on the right to keep and bear arms are equivalent to limitations on the ability to misuse rights. THESE ARE NOT EQUIVALENT. Outlawing slander in the free speech realm is NOT the same as requiring a license or a background check to exercise a fundamental right (THIS IS NOT A REGULATION. THIS IS A TYPE OF PRIOR RESTRAINT!).
I guess everyone is not clear on their definitions.
"...regulation is part of the Second Amendment."
NO, it is not! This is a blatant contradiction with the wording of the amendment itself. The words, "shall not be infringed" are supremely clear, and no amount of spin will change this simple fact.
Despite your claims of fact, I have yet to see any facts or logical analysis in your arguments. I see lots of vague, undefined references to "regulation", but I do not see any logical analysis that deals with the real issues. Feel free to clarify the contradictory stand you have taken with regard to the distinction between prior restraints on fundamental rights and the prevention of actual harm through regulation (NOTE: this says "prevention of actual harm." This is very different from the imposition of one's political ideology on others under the guise of "regulation." Some people seem to confuse these concepts....)
GMC70 - that should have been "commission of a crime." I'm a little sleepy-headed.
Nicki
Wow, I think Hitler would love this fine translation of one of his policies. How do people totally ignore that this insanity went on in germany, russia and plenty of other places time and time again? People that slept through history class are going to get everyone hurt.
Again: we have come to this sad pass because the disarmers know precisely how to exploit the well-intentioned but naiive, against the principled. This strategy is brilliant: pragmatists are created through the disarmers' prodigious talents at misdirection, false promises and an appeal to "reason", and these new minions march forth, blissfully unaware of their own useful idiocy, to occupy the attentions of the principled, while the disarmers, who give up nothing--NOTHING--in their inexorable march toward complete disarmament, gain the dual benefits of an occupied opponent and, thanks to the new segment of pragmatist acolytes, an opponent that can now be neatly dismissed as the "extreme" fringe. That is pretty close to airtight; if I put myself in my enemy's position, this is EXACTLY the sort of thing I would do.
So, "Rifleman"*, if you are anywise bewildered by the volume and vituperation of the comments accosting you, understand this first: you have been had. You have been persuaded by a modern-day Iago to work against your fellow countrymen, those who understand history for what it is. You might forgive us for not being too happy about this.
I have been in your position before, years ago. I bought into the fictions of "safety" and "crime control", and brother, let me tell you, when I took a step back and looked at history--RKBA history principally but importantly all history in general--and saw how it really works, it became as clear as a bell. (If this makes a difference, nobody told me to do this, either. I just looked.) Disarmers exploit the good will of others, and they are very, very good at it. Good enough to get to me, and good enough to get to you.
The good news is that this condition is not irreversible. You may have been trained from birth (I was) to have an automatic and implicit faith in government's legitimacy and ability to solve any problem it decides to meddle in, but you CAN look at the world in a different way. One in which tyrants do not have an automatic claim to prior restraint on people who have hurt no one.
If you do, you quickly arrive at history's singular, inviolable lesson: government always trends toward tyranny (implementable, by the way, only with a willingly disarmed populace) and it only stops when it is forced to. FORCED to. (Consider the Declaration of Independence. That was not a "pretty please" document.) Nothing else will stay its march, and if you look at our recent history with this alternate perspective in mind, you might understand why some of us view the legislation under discussion here, as tantamount to an act of war. Pay attention for a while and you will see that these people are NOT asking. (Ironically, they aim to enforce their will over you and me by...wait for it...force of arms. As has been said many times by better men than I: think government is not all about threat of force? Just try not paying your taxes.)
Gun control, in any form, is not about crime control, nor is it about safety, nor "balancing" something that is absolute (if you have to ask anyone permission, I'm sorry to say, it ain't a right). It is about disarming the peaceable public, whether all at once or one little control-step at a time. Strip the fancy weasel words aside, and you will notice that history is not ambiguous on this. The disarmers will accept nothing less than total personal disarmament from people who just want to be left alone, and they seem hellbent on closing off every remaining peaceful recourse that we have available. Every one. And these people will have no qualms about acting surprised if and when their tireless effort to provoke conflict actually works.
Please, stop playing into one of the oldest tricks in the book, and help III become IV.
____________
*By the way, I take the word "rifleman" very seriously, as it appears others here do as well. For me, the measure of a rifleman is best described in "The Art of the Rifle" by Jeff Cooper. Can you live up to the billing? (And I'm not being flip here, either. If you turn your mind toward liberty and become a Jeff Cooper rifleman, I really do want you in my corner.)
@ Rifleman
Haven't looked at much history have you. When the amendment was written Regulated did not mean what it does to us today. Here's something to ponder.
Well Regulated
The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:
1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order.
[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.
1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.
@Karen
You said "I am an average person who doesn't own a gun but who is also trying to understand the passion of people who do. It is comments like yours that frighten me into thinking maybe the gun control advocates have a point"
I'll let a much greater patriot than I speak:
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.
I will not comply with any unconstitutional law, and as a veteran I still take my oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states from all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC very seriously.
I don't like to cuss but F$#% THEM! stupid bastard commie scum. Someone will put a few rounds in their heads and see what they think then. I don't think that we would loose a thing short of about 5 good politicians if the entire district was NUKED!
If they kill em all we'll start over.
I now see "Rifleman"'s retort. (Must have missed it while writing.) Disappointing.
Libertarian? Sorry, mister, not even close. A libertarian (take special note of the lowercase "l", it is important) believes in the Zero Aggression Principle (you may need to look that up), and the legislation under discussion here violates that six ways to Sunday. EVERY government edict that imposes prior restraint on peaceable citizens (as always with threat of force) violates the ZAP. It is easy to vet out who is a real libertarian by testing him on this principle; it is very trendy to claim the name, but there are far more pretenders than practitioners.
----------------
To Karen's concern about people appearing hysterical: understood. Certainly the Brady Bunch is extremely eager to exploit that image, and they are good at it. Despite their considerable efforts, please remember: we are people--and a demonstrably peaceable people as well, compared to disarmers. (Look it up, if it matters to you.)
What is it that drives us to such passions? Aside from the historical references to genocide (always, always preceded by public disarmament, without which it is impossible) and almost hourly "Only One" horror stories, remember that almost any cornered animal will eventually fight back. How would you feel if you had tried for years to peaceably engage someone who simply was not interested in what you had to say, and who increasingly demanded control over your possessions, your privacy, your words, even your thoughts? By your "questionable" interests, you are assumed to be a hazard to yourself and others (and certainly to the state), subject to any intrusion on your life that can be dreamt up. Drug War parallels, anyone? Now kick it up even a notch more--how about when the ultimate goal of all the demands is recognized for what it is: your total relinquishment of the very means of resisting further incursions on your thoughts and actions? And you've never lifted a finger against anyone in anger your entire life. (In fact, you just want to be left alone. It's not you who has gone knocking on someone else's door demanding to stick your nose in their business.)
You've tried reasoning. You've tried speaking. You've tried voting. You've tried "compromising", which in the historical sense looks more like "appeasement" than my definition of "compromise". You've tried them all again, but the demanders are not interested. It's all or nothing. (Actually, it's not that, either. It's just "all". There is no other option.) And it is backed up, as all government actions are, by threat of armed force. (That, after all, is why those Only Ones carry weapons themselves--and lest we harbor any doubt that those are for use against US*, note that they always demand to be at least a step ahead of anything we peaceable peon subjects are "permitted" to have.)
And, for the final insult, how would you feel when after all this you do get your belly full of it, and show a little passion in your resistance, and these selfsame, self-anointed Protectors Of What Is Right And Good point to you with pious finger wagging in the sky, and say, "see, you're a hothead!"
If this is not an indication that these people are my enemy, I have been using the wrong dictionary. And they want me totally disarmed, whether all at once or bit at a time. Why?
Which gets us back to history. History demonstrates a very good answer to "why".
Some of us really do feel that this is a fight for our lives. Hopefully, that is sufficient reason to cut the cornered animals some slack. If nothing else, please take care to separate the truly hysterical from plain, hard language. We didn't ask for this, but "NO" really does mean "NO".
_____________
*Double entendre intended.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!