Second Amendment Always Under Attack

In my post about McDonald v. Chicago there was some good discussion about what it means and about the 2nd Amendment in general. One of the questions was about the constant attack on our right to bear arms. Here is a list of legislation and the people behind it. Our rights are never safe from those that would control us. It's always the same ones introducing this legislation. Our own wonderful Senator Harkin said he woulod ban every handgun in the country. Yet he claims to support Hunters. Excuse me Tommy, I've read the constitution and the word hunting is not in there. He's never seen a antigun bill he didn't like.








U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, who calls himself "a strong supporter of the war against international terrorism, both at home and abroad," introduced H.R. 2159, calling it the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009."



Given the bill's title, one might think that it's intended to affect terrorists. However, King and the bill's co-sponsors—Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), Mike Castle (R-Del.), Jim Moran (D-Va.), Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), Mark Kirk (D-Ill.), and Chris Smith (R-N.J.)—are extreme gun control supporters. Rather than being aimed at terrorists, H.R. 2159 is intended to give the executive branch arbitrary, unaccountable power to stop loyal Americans from acquiring firearms. Here's how:



H.R. 2159 would give the attorney general "the authority to deny the sale, delivery, or transfer of a firearm or the issuance of a firearms or explosives license or permit to dangerous terrorists. . . . if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism."



H.R. 2159 would not, however, impose requirements or limits on the kind of information an attorney general could use to make such a determination, nor establish a standard for "appropriate suspicion." It instead proposes that "any information which the Attorney General relied on for this determination may be withheld from the applicant if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security."

The scheme that H.R. 2159 proposes is unprecedented. Since 1968, federal law has established guidelines for all categories of persons prohibited from receiving and possessing firearms, and since 1994 has expressly protected a prohibited person's right to be told why he is prohibited. H.R. 2159 would establish no such standards, would provide no such protection, and would allow an attorney general to deny gun purchases based upon secret information, or no information whatsoever.



H.R. 2159's potential for abuse should be apparent. A recent Department of Justice report1 states that the FBI's terrorist watchlist doesn't include certain known terrorists, yet includes people who are not terrorists, the latter an on-going problem widely reported upon by the media and the American Civil Liberties Union.2 Even Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), perhaps the most widely recognized member of Congress, was placed on the list several years ago. Also, H.R. 2159 follows a disturbing Department of Homeland Security report characterizing gun owners and military veterans as "rightwing extremists,"3 and Attorney General Eric Holder's statements advocating new gun prohibitions and other restrictions.



H.R. 2159 isn't about making America safe from terrorists; it's about giving the federal government new, arbitrary authority to prohibit loyal Americans from exercising their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. Cloaking it in terms of "national security" doesn't change that fact.







Imagine that, constitutional guarantees stripped on suspicion. Being debated in our statehouse today.





And this real winner from the convicted felon Bobby Rush of Chicago.



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45:



HR 45 introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Fiirearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009.





Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:



-It is registered -You are fingerprinted -You supply a current Driver's License -You supply your Social Security # -You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing -Each update - change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.. -There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a&nb sp;child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18.



-They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.





H.R. 1022, Going Beyond The Infamous Clinton Gun Ban



Introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), H.R. 1022 would revive the discredited Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that studies by the Congressional Research Service, congressionally-mandated studies, and studies by state and local law enforcement agencies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a minute percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.



Reauthorizing the Clinton ban would be bad enough. The guns that it temporarily banned--very widely used for target shooting, hunting and home protection--are still used in only a small percentage of crime. But McCarthy`s "other purposes" would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns.







H.R. 96, Aiming At Registering Gun Owners And Putting Gun Shows Out Of Business



Introduced by Rep. Michael Castle (R-Del.), the "Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007"imposes bureaucratic restrictions aimed at shutting down gun shows--without fixing real problems of the National Instant Check System (NICS). Despite changes from the Lautenberg juvenile justice amendment of 1999 that it is based on, this bill fails to address gun owners` most significant concerns--and in several areas is even more restrictive than past attempts to regulate gun shows. H.R. 96 makes no real improvements to the NICS system while creating gun owner registration, massive new government red tape and allows harassment of gun show organizers vendors and attendees





S. 77, The Firearms Dealer Harassment Act



Sen. Charles Schumer, (D-N.Y.) has introduced S. 77, the "Anti-Gun Trafficking Penalties Enhancement Act of 2007." A more accurate title would be the "Firearms Dealer Harassment Act." Here`s why:



First, S.77 would require that confidential Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) records on firearms traces be turned over--on demand--to any government entity, for any purpose. (Currently, information from firearms traces can only be used in bona fide criminal investigations by law enforcement agencies.)

S. 77 would require that these records be made available to any government agency for any reason, or for no stated reason whatsoever, without any justification or respect for the privacy rights of law-abiding gun owners.

S. 77 would also unleash the federal government to harass FFL holders at will, for any reason, as often as it chooses.

Finally--and perhaps most ominously--S. 77 would define certain firearm violations as "racketeering activity" under the "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act" (RICO), allowing massive criminal penalties and civil suits.

H.R. 256, Banning Gun Possession By Law-Abiding Young Adults



Introduced by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, (D-Texas), H.R. 256 seeks to ban handgun possession by those under the age of 21. This, of course, would include thousands of young people who are currently serving in our armed forces. The bill would also ban the possession of a semi-automatic firearm described as an "assault weapon," but it fails to provide any definition of what firearms would be covered under that section of the legislation. Additionally, it bans possession of "large capacity feeding devices" by those under 21.



In addition to these restrictions of the rights of young Americans, the bill also imposes new regulations on firearms importers, manufacturers and dealers, requiring that a gun storage device be included with each sale, regardless of the appropriateness or need for such a device by the buyer. It provides penalties of up to a $10,000 fine for each infraction.











H.R. 203, Allowing Arbitrary Seizure of Firearms



Introduced by Rep. Steven Rothman, (D-N.J.) H.R. 203 will involve the federal government in gun confiscations and override state law regulating gun possession when misdemeanor charges are filed in domestic abuse cases. The legislation will block federal grant money, money vital for law enforcement operations, to any jurisdiction that does not adopt the firearms seizure standards set in H.R. 203.



Under those standards, H.R. 203 grants police authority to confiscate firearms, without conviction of even misdemeanor charges, based solely on their belief that domestic abuse has occurred. This authority is extended to "any weapon," which could allow police to seize anything that could be so used. This broad expansion of police powers, without the action of a court or the opportunity for the accused to defend him-self or her-self in court, is unprecedented and unnecessary. The bill also provides federal authority for a court to order seizure of "any weapon" as a part of an order of protection, also granting broad search authority.



The expansion of government confiscation powers provided by H.R. 203, in the absence of any conviction, is an improper abuse of government power. That those confiscations can be made based on a simple allegation, without any judicial action, is appallingly excessive.









H.R. 1168, Giving Foreign Courts Authority Over The Rights Of Americans



Introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) H.R. 1168 seeks to extend the firearm and ammunition prohibitions applicable to convicted felons to those convicted in a foreign court. This would allow deprivation of Second Amendment rights based on convictions in foreign courts, where defendants often do not have the same protections against abuse and intimidation that the accused do in the U.S. These would include convictions for conduct domestic law punishes far less severely or not at all. For instance, convictions for religious proselytizing under Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, or for speaking out politically against repressive regimes, would prohibit firearms ownership. Under this bill, people "convicted" for exercising their religion, or undertaking entrepreneurial activities, would be disarmed in America.







Many thanks to the NRA and Iowa Carry Inc. This is also posted on http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckPersona&U=3f34b79ab36e473b90b73f230ce4f950&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=3f34b79ab36e473b90b73f230ce4f950&plckPostId=Blog%3a3f34b79ab36e473b90b73f230ce4f950Post%3ad0baa313-65d9-4594-99f3-a4571908891f&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest

McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago

Looks like the SCOTUS is finally going to rule on Chicago's unconstitutional ban on self defense.







Docket: 08-1521

Title: McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago

Issue: Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home.



Opinion below (7th Circuit)

Petition for certiorari (08-1521)

Brief in opposition

Petitioner’s reply (08-1521)

Brief amicus curiae of Arms Keepers

Brief amici curiae of Texas, et al

Brief amicus curiae of National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.

Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union

Brief amici curiae of Institute for Justice, and Cato Institute

Brief amicus curiae of California

Brief amici curiae of Gun Owners of America, Inc.,et al.

Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Professors

Maybe eventually, the law abiding citizens will be able to walk down the street without being afraid of the criminals. One could hope. It's time somebody put "King Dick" and the rest of the Chicago thugs in their place. The common people aren't allowed to defend themselves, yet the thuggery in charge has platoons of armed body guards. It's time to make the criminals afraid for a change. They refuse to put them in jail, so maybe it's time to put a few in the ground.

Czar Wars

Posted 09/25/2009 07:16 PM ET




Politics: In yet another vote against transparency, the Senate killed an amendment imposing legislative oversight on unconfirmed White House officials. Shouldn't we know who they are and what they're doing?



Green czar Van Jones is gone, forced to leave the administration after Fox News and the conservative blogosphere revealed his past as a self-avowed communist. Jones had issues that some argue should have been discussed in confirmation hearings that never occurred before he assumed his position.



Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, would have liked to have learned of Jones' communist links and more before this man, who believes that white America deliberately pours its pollution into minority communities and who seeks redistribution of wealth in the name of environmental justice, assumed a position of some power.



So Collins on Thursday submitted an amendment to an Interior Department bill that would withhold funding for the creation of any new, unconfirmed czar positions until the administration allows nominees to be questioned by Congress. Once confirmed, all czars would be required to produce every two years a detailed "public, written report" of their actions and involvement in the creation of policy, rules and regulations.



Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois was not amused by the threat of sunlight, calling it an attack by "czar watchers." He noted that George W. Bush and other presidents had czars, too, and used a legislative move to kill the measure in committee.



In unprecedented fashion, these unaccountable czars have been given enormous power to steer policy in directions that the American people did not vote for. They threaten our basic freedoms.



Case in point: Diversity czar Mark Lloyd admires Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez and his pursuit of a Marxist redistributive agenda. Lloyd has praised Chavez's "incredible revolution" and the way he has taken "very seriously the media in his country" by imposing limits on cable TV and revoking the licenses of more than 200 radio stations that insufficiently toed the party line.



Lloyd says that "unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays and other people in those positions, we will not change the problem. But we're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power."



Lloyd would impose the Fairness Doctrine by stealth, using concepts such as "ownership diversity" and "localism" to destroy talk radio and cable news, which he sees as obstructions to the radical agenda he supports.



Americans elect presidents and congressmen to represent them, not czars to run their lives. Presidential appointees should be required to come before the Senate. The people have a right to know.







I couldn't agree more. Why are we allowing people with no accountability have that much power. It seems like everyone Obama knows is some king of left wingnut wack job. One of them did go before the Senate, And was put through with flying colors. This is the wacko that thinks Bambi should be able to sue deer hunters. Look at Van Jones, avowed communist and criminal. Given a position of power until people found our what he was. Who started all of this car crap anyway. We need to demand that these people be accountable to We The People. Without that, more of our rights could dissapear.