Will House health care bill create new class of 'prohibited persons'?

November 9, 9:01 AMGun Rights ExaminerDavid Codrea

Previous Next

33 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

  (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.

Here's what they claim*:

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.