(AP Photo/Harry Hamburg)
Falling in lockstep with Speaker Pelosi's "Are you serious?" dismissal of a legitimate Constitutional question, 220 oath-breaking representatives voted to impose yet another authority-usurping federal mandate, and take over yet another huge chunk of the economy under cover of a shallow "power to regulate interstate commerce" sound bite.
So what does this have to do with gun rights?
Gun Owners of America has been warning us:
This bill will...most likely result in all of your gun-related health data being dumped into a government database that was created in the stimulus bill. This includes any firearms-related information your doctor has gleaned... or any determination of PTSD, or something similar, that can preclude you from owning firearms."
The bill will also create special "wellness" programs in section 112 which would allow the government to offer lower premiums to employers who bribe their employees to live healthier lifestyles -- and nothing within the bill would prohibit rabidly anti-gun HHS Secretary Sebelius from decreeing that "no guns" is somehow healthier.
Critics dismiss this, calling it "overheated rhetoric."
While my natural sympathies lie with GOA, I'm not weighing in on that debate here. I'm raising another potential, with the caveat that it depends on whether or not the Committee on Ways & Means Republicans are also engaging in "overheated rhetoric." Because if they're not, this bill as passed poses a more immediate and direct threat.
JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats’ Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail...Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”
If that's true, we need to look at U.S. Code, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 44, § 922, where we find:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year...to...possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
Ah, back to the old Commerce Clause again, are we? You know, the one where "Neither trade with the Indians nor interstate commerce shows up as a significant issue in the original debates."
So defying Nancy Pelosi's "health care" mandate could result in a lifetime prohibition on possessing the means of defense, trumping the clear "shall not be infringed" proscription articulated in the Bill of Rights? And this will somehow make society safer?
To quote Madam Speaker, "Are you serious?"
And if this is true, is there any reason why any of the "pro-gun Democrats" who voted for the bill should not automatically have their ratings downgraded by the gun groups?
And can this be used to help derail things in the Senate?
*Clarification addendum: The JCT release, as written, is causing a bit of confusion. §7201 is a section from US Code dealing with taxes. So the House version of the health care bill establishes new requirements under which existing §7201 penalties will affect us. And there is a bit of dot-connecting to do.
------------
About that "pro-health care" Republican
I did a quick check on Joseph Cao, the Louisiana RINO turncoat who cast his lot with the Democrats.
NRA rated him "?" (You need to enter a valid membership number on the Political Victory Fund site to access past races):
Refused to answer the NRA-PVF candidate questionnaire, often an indication of indifference, if not outright hostility, to gun owners’ and sportsmen’s rights.
GOA gave him an "NR" (Not Rated), presumably for the same reason.
And On the Issues says there is "No stance on record."
It doesn't surprise me that we're hardly dealing with a champion of liberty here.
Comments
Congress has NO constitutional authority to regulate health care. The fact that I believe health care reform has nothing to do with health care and has everything to do with addressing the federal governments' revenue crisis and shrinking tax revenue base due to the 17.5% unemployment rate is another story.
However, I have to believe that if Congress even attempts to imprison a law abiding U.S. Citizen for not complying with a law which is unconstitutional on it's face is going to set up a conflict between feds and The People which the government cannot ultimately win.
If any federal law on this scale is passed that sabotages American's ability to FREELY choose under threat of prison time or massive monetary penalties, it will turn millions of otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals overnight and then things will get very interesting very quickly.
Fact checking is an incredibly patriot thing. Whenever you hear something so politically charge that your blood boils, please check the facts. Don't just get used as a tool to propagate someone else's lies.
It's for the betterment of the nation that people check facts.
It seems to me that California has already adopted adequate state weapons laws to make most honest citizens either criminals or victims. Pelosi, Feinstein and Boxer will continue this trend unless voted-out. Only the concerned citizen with each individual ballot can make changes to put government back into the hands of the population, and laws that protect the constitutional rights of the individual.
KellarW states, "Fact checking is an incredibly patriot thing. Whenever you hear something so politically charge that your blood boils, please check the facts. Don't just get used as a tool to propagate someone else's lies."
Before I comment further, can you be more specific about your fact checking assertion and "propagating someone else's lies"?
Who needs to perform fact checking?
What specifc facts need checking?
What lies are being propagated?
I believe that I made the observation on some earlier posts to David’s The War on Guns blog as well as to this column that a felony conviction shouldn’t be a life sentence and received less than spirited agreement. The consensus seems to be, “The guy shouldn’t have committed a felony and he would still have his rights.” Folks, if you can’t or won’t comply with the new health care package and you don’t die when the BATFE comes for your guns, you just may end up with a federal felony conviction. Kiss your rights, all of them, goodbye. Your world is gonna change.
Pelosi and her ilk can do this without passing any additional registration laws. It makes one wonder if loyal-to-the-party democrats and the RINOs realize or even care what they’re doing, or that they're being used to rape us.
W W Woodward said, "Pelosi and her ilk can do this without passing any additional registration laws. It makes one wonder if loyal-to-the-party democrats and the RINOs realize or even care what they’re doing, or that they're being used to rape us."
You are 100%. IMO, it looks like one of George Washington's most dire warnings to us in his Farewell Address of 1796 has come to pass.
KellarW--so you're saying the bill does not create a new tax liability for which tax code penalties for willful noncompliance will come into play? I'd love to see your fact-checked source for that.
From Washington's 1796 Farewell Address:
20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
(cont.)
Continued from Washington's Farewell Address 1796
22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
Sorry about the lengthy posts David. I'll get back on topic now.
The bill passed by the house will never survive the Senate.
"The bill passed by the house will never survive the Senate."
I sure hope you're right, but I have no--zero--nunca--zip--diddly--bupkus--confidence in that bet. After all, most of what the Congress has done for generations now is in no way authorized by their charter document. Why on earth would they start now?
Maybe this bill won't survive this Senate, this time. But I guarantee--certainty of one hundred percent or greater--that even if this bill gets defeated, the core concept behind it will be back again, shortly, with a new coat of paint and a shiny star.
Forcing people is what the state does. ("That's what he does. That's ALL he does!")
No doubt, New Media, there will be changes. But what makes you think there will be no enforcement provisions with penalties for whatever it is they do pass? You can't be saying there will be no teeth.
Are you certain the concerns raised here will not apply to whatever monster *does* manage to stagger out of the laboratory?
I don't think the mandate provision will survive. It will be challenge in a court and will never stand the Constitutional challenge.
IF they can mandate the purchase of a product the mandating entity sells, will we be forced to buy a GM or Chrysler car next?
Did you actually read the JCT's letter? In it, they make it absolutely clear that the criminal penalty is far fetched, because the standard of proof required in criminal cases is much, much tighter
<blockquote>
"... a prosecution for willful failure to pay under section 7203 requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that both the taxpayer intentionally violated a known legal duty and that the taxpayer had the ability to pay. In contrast, in applying the civil penalty for failure to pay under section 6651, the burden is on the taxpayer: the penalty applies unless the taxpayer can establish reasonable cause and lack of willful neglect with respect to his failure to pay." </blockquote>
This is a thinly rebranded talking point of the Republican leadership: google "PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail" to find the link. As fighters for liberty, we must stop giving one party a free pass; they are both just as equally after our guns and liberty.
Yep, elgee--pg 4, investigations through incarcerations. Point being, it CAN be used, and the other point being, there are plenty of people making noises now about defying this, which, if they do, will up the numbers--and govt has a habit of making an example out of those who would publicly defy it. And yeah, I[m equal opportunity and go after Repubs all the time.
new media--I hope you're right. But there is no denying mandating stuff is what govt does "best," and also there are plenty who would love to force this on us--including at least 220 members of the House of Representatives.
Why does Pelosi look like she is holding an imaginary joint and is exhaling? Come on, they had to be smoking something this weekend, it is either that, or they are intentionality trying to destroy the Republic.
I've said it elsewhere. If this passes all legitimacy they have, all of their laws, become a thing of the past. That means every option is back on the table and the only thing holding back my "criminal" options is my morality and technical skills or monetary resources.
III
As I've read and passed on before, to paraquote,
"The laws that you pass, that fail to protect me, will at the same time, fail to protect you."
new media says:
I don't think the mandate provision will survive. It will be challenge in a court and will never stand the Constitutional challenge.
You mean, like the Gun Free School Zones Act? It was challenged and declared unconstitutional on two counts by the Supreme Court. The congress repaired ONE count (but not the other) and re-passed it. The law is clearly unconstitutional, but is still being enforced.
Anyway, in the five or so years it will take the Supreme Court to get around to hearing anything on this law, everybody will already have their Goobermint Approved health care policies in place and the free market insurers will already be out of business. Yes, wonderful chance of redress and remedy by that point.
Henry Bowman says: You mean, like the Gun Free School Zones Act?
Gotta realize those zones effect the underclass and not the majority of the people who pay the bills. They are primarily in city boundaries. This effects the government ATM machine. Us.
Felony. Schmelony. According to a recent news article, we all unknowingly commit about 5 felonies a day. What's one more?
"[Gun-free school] zones effect the underclass and not the majority of the people who pay the bills. They are primarily in city boundaries."
You think so?
Check out the entire state of California:
www.0xdecafbad.com/gfsz/
Everywhere one of those circles touches a road you're traveling, you lose.
Takes a little while to load, but is well worth it for the shock value. You have to zoom in to a little closer than mid-range before the dots show up.
All that for a law that was ALREADY declared unconstitutional.
All who voted for....Shall be voted OUT OF OFFICE next year..Remember who voted for what !!!!!
So if you served in a "conflict") Vietnam, Korea, Gulf Wars" and you have PTSD, will the military turn over your health records to Nancy so she can take away your guns? Doesn't this violate HIPPA? Or does that matter to the dems?
elgee,
Maybe the criminal penalty won't be often used to actually convict people, but they can still take you to court and bankrupt you in the process of defending yourself and still ruin your life even without a conviction. I really like that in applying the civil penalty, we citizens are guilty and have the burden of proving our innocence. That's a nice touch. Just because it's a Republican talking point doesn't mean it's untrue. I read that article, and while it's obviously political grandstanding to rile up their base I didn't read anything that I could tell as being false. How likely is that outcome? I don't know, but our public masters still felt the need to allow for it. We all know both parties suck, but that's no reason to allow them to get away with anything. If any politician tries to subvert our rights, they will be rightly vilified for it. Your last sentence sounds like BO saying "Well, Bush did it so I can too and that makes it alright."
Ignorance is the enemy.
Many of the younger generation and people belonging to some special interest groups are ignorant as to how our government works. It's easy to be used when you are ignorant and gullible.
There are too many ill informed self centered citizens, illegal alien, and dead people voting (sometimes often), to keep our Republic.
Ed in Occupied Communist lead Sacramento...we've been "Terminated"
Pelosi is a communist; I can assure you there is gun control in this health bill.
Disqualifiers will be found just give them time.
The NRA concession and support for the 68GCA is going to bite gun owners once again!
Our health care system has a lot of problems and they need to be addressed but this bill is eugenics and rationing; plus they want us to pay for ALL of the health care of illegal immigrants.
Right now the illegal immigrants have to pay for a small amount of their care but if this bill is passed they get a free ride.
The future of our country will be decided in the streets, I just hope someone shows up
So scary and @ Joshua---thanks for the reminder.
Anytime Diamond Girl. I wish I could post Washington's entire speech, but it would be a huge post.
Paste this into your browser window.
avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
Awesome! Great link. Thank once again David.
Laws laws laws...........Its all I hear about these days. The 10 commandments seem pretty reasonable to me so I try to abide by them. As for the government laws, well I think in this day and age people who try to obey them all regardless are chumps. Especially the ones prohibiting the carrying of an effective self defense tool. Yeah thats right chumps. Being a law abiding citizen in todays 'can't have this', can't do that society is no virtue but indeed is for weak minded fools that apparently think it better to be a good little subject and obey every damn directive that is levied even if doing so leaves them essentially with no means of self protection. They willingly go along with this 'obey everylaw at all costs' mindset. It just amazes me no end. The spinelessness of our modern society is truly an epidemic.
"Denns Murphy" deleted--I don't allow insulting trolls here. If you have substantiating arguments to refute what's written, you can present them. But mind your manners or get lost.
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!