Your guns in the Age of Obama

 

I want you to meet H.R. 45, the Blair Holt Licensing and Record Act of 2009, introduced on the first day of the 111th Congress and sponsored by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL).

Bobby Rush represents primarily the South Side of Chicago. He is a former member and founder of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party, and a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. In 1969 Rush served six months in prison for illegal possession of firearms.

The bill was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on Jan. 6th.

Committees are like "mini Congresses". Most bills begin by being considered by one or several congressional committees which may "report" the bill favorably or unfavorably to the Senate or House as a whole allowing it to receive consideration by the full body and move forward, or may fail to consider a bill at all preventing the bill from moving forward....

Information on committee proceedings is notoriously opaque: committees vary in what information they make public and often do not provide basic public information such as the results of votes electronically or in an understandable format. Furthermore, if your Member of Congress does not sit on any committee relevant to this bill, you generally have no opportunity to voice your opinion on the bill while the bill is receiving its most important consideration.

 

You may want to examine this recent (Jan. 13th) piece of work by the House Judiciary Committee: "Reining in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the Presidency of George W. Bush" (487 pages).

[See more about the Committee under the fold.]

 

At the risk of boring some of you in the first place, and repeating myself to the rest, I'll give you everything I know. First, I received this information by email:

.... It will make it illegal to own a firearm unless it is registered with the database in Washington D.C. As a gun owner you will have to be finger printed, you will be required to provide your DL#, SS#, you must maintain a valid address at all times, submit to mental and physical health records being put on file, you will also be required to file any address changes and any ownership changes even if private sale. Each update will cost $25 and if you fail to comply you will lose your right to own firearms.

 

This bill and its language mirror almost completely one defeated last year in the House of Representatives by soon to be Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Will the citizenry be as lucky this time?

Pass this on to everyone who believes in strict Constitutionalism and remember that laws only apply to those who obey them. Criminals by definition and nature do not abide by laws. New laws and restrictions only apply to the law abiding citizen and are not written with the criminal in mind. With guns, it is not about having laws on the books to prosecute individuals, it is about taking guns away from the people so that no one has them in the first place.

 

I checked with the NRA.

The bill is, at its core and as its name implies, a licensing and registration scheme. The measure calls for all handgun owners to submit to the federal government an application that shall include, among many other things:  a photo; an address; a thumbprint; a completed, written firearm safety test; private mental health records; and a fee.  And those are only some of the requirements to be licensed! 

The bill would further require the attorney general to establish a database of every handgun sale, transfer, and owner's address in America.  Moreover, the bill would make it illegal to own or possess a "qualifying firearm" -- defined as "any handgun; or any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device…" [emphasis added] without one of the proposed licenses. 

Additionally, the bill would make it illegal to transfer ownership of a "qualifying firearm" to anyone who is not a licensed gun dealer or collector (with very few exceptions), and would require "qualifying firearm" owners to report all transfers to the attorney general's database. It would also be illegal for a licensed gun owner to fail to record a gun loss or theft within 72 hours, or fail to report a change of address within 60 days.  Further, if a minor obtains a firearm and injures someone with it, the owner of the firearm may face a multiple-year jail sentence. 

H.R. 45 is essentially a reintroduction of H.R. 2666, which Rush introduced in 2007.  H.R. 2666 contained much of the same language as H.R. 45, and was co-sponsored by several well-known anti-gun legislators--including Barack Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.  H.R. 45 currently has no co-sponsors.

 

I found the most user-friendly explanation here: 

The bill starts with a statement of purpose that says: " because the intrastate and interstate trafficking of firearms are so commingled, full regulation of interstate commerce requires the incidental regulation of intrastate commerce."

Basically, this eliminates the Tenth Amendment and the Interstate Commerce Clause. The Constitution can't legally be amended by statute. Is that enough to seek Mr. Rush's removal from office? I won't bore you with the other "purposes" which are as bad or worse.

Only "qualifying firearms" are affected. That means any handgun, or any semi-auto firearm that has a removable magazine (what they call a " detachable ammunition feeding device").

After the bill becomes law (IF it becomes law), it's illegal for you to have or get those firearms, even if you already own them, without a special federal license. There are grace periods up to two years to register yourself once the law is passed.

Do you see how clever this is? You cold-dead-fingers guys ["You'll take my guns when you pry them from my cold dark fingers!"] can keep your guns if you like, refuse to register yourselves, and then you're subject to arrest on the spot. If you go anywhere with your guns -- to the range, a store, a gunsmith, a friend's house, hunting, competition -- and you're spotted, you go straight to jail. If you're already on a list (can anyone say "carry permit" or "hunting license"?) and you don't sign up, well, just connect those dots. Where does the cold-dead-fingers part come into play? I'll bet the ranges will start requiring you to show your papers before you can hit the line.

To get the license you must "submit to the Attorney General" (they chose that phrase right by golly): a passport-type photo, identifying info, any name you have ever used or ever been known by (I have nicknames, pen names, stage names, omitting any presumably violates the statute) a thumbprint, certification that any firearms will be "safely" stored and out of possession of people under 18, authorization to give up any mental health records, and a certificate that you passed a government-run test.

The test must include knowledge of: safe storage, safe handling, use of firearms at home, the risks of firearms at home, local state and federal legal requirements for firearms, reporting requirements for firearms, and ANY other subjects the AG decides are appropriate. You date and sign the submission, making it perjury if your info is inaccurate.

I'm skipping some details on who can accept the form, time periods for filing it and similar red tape on this 4,600 word bill. The AG "shall" issue the license if you pass the test and do everything else, and also "shall" charge you a tax for the privilege of getting your rights licensed, up to $25 at present. This gets you a tamper-resistant photo ID card with your official number, address, date of birth, signature and the expiration date of your "rights" (about five years, it's complicated). There's a renewal procedure (it's complicated) and no apparent limit on the renewal tax you will be charged (the AG gets power to control the details).

The license can be revoked for cause of course, and the AG "shall" make sure you give it up if it's revoked.

Once this thing is in place, it's illegal to transfer or receive any affected firearm (all handguns and any semi-auto with a magazine) without the license. Transfers can only be made to or from a licensed dealer, who has to jump through hoops and file papers, and has 14 days to get that done (a waiting period on the dealer's shoulders), to get government approvals and authorization numbers.

The dealer must send the feds the gun name and/or model number, maker, serial number, your license number, name, address and transfer date, which the feds must store in a "Federal Record of Sale System," a permanent national gun registry.

This needs to be said verbatim: "(c) Elimination of Prohibition on Establishment of System of Registration -- Section 926(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the second sentence." That sentence says the feds can't register the firearms Americans own:

"No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act [1986] may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established."

The Bobby Rush bill says kiss that sentence and its extremely crucial protections goodbye.

There are a few small exceptions for an undefined "infrequent" firearm gift, bequest or intestate succession among parents, their kids and grandparents and grandkids, and also for lending a firearm " for any lawful purpose for not more than 30 days between persons who are personally known to each other."

Sloppy language in this part of the bill bans the transfer of any firearm (not just "qualifying" firearms) between anyone without going through the hoops.

If you lose a handgun or magazine-fed semi-auto, or if one is stolen from you -- you've broken the law if you don't report that to the AG within 72 hours.

If you own such guns, change your address and don't notify the AG within 60 days -- you've committed a crime. In other words, they track you non-stop or you're subject to arrest. No victim, no harm, no foul, no evil, just government placing you in jail for failure to comply. Bobby Rush thinks this is good law, a legitimate use of government.

If you keep in your home a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammo for it, and a person under 18 gets it and harms someone with it -- you've committed a crime. There are some flimsy exceptions (like you know or should reasonably know federal and state gun law for kids) and of course, all the "proper" authorities -- federal, state, local, military, elected, appointed, even employees of government on the job are exempted -- twice. Bobby Rush says OK for thee but not for me, tee hee.

Lengthy penalty sections include two-, five- and ten-year sentences and fines for paperwork violations, possession violations, transfer violations, child-access violations, safe-storage violations and of course, failure to pass the test if you still keep your guns.

The bill ends with sweeping powers for the Attorney General that could be interpreted to mean almost anything, so the details I've described might be little more than a smokescreen! For instance: "The Attorney General may issue an order prohibiting the sale or transfer of any firearm that the Attorney General finds has been transferred or distributed in violation of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or a regulation issued under this Act."

There's plenty of that in here, plus endless inspection powers, injunctive powers and even, "shall issue regulations... as the Attorney General determines to be reasonably necessary to reduce or prevent deaths or injuries resulting from qualifying firearms..."

Is the AG someone we can trust? Or is it someone with utter contempt for the right to keep and bear arms? If it's Eric Holder, Obama's nominee, we get a guy who told the Supreme Court that a total gun ban in your own home is just fine and doesn't violate the Bill of Rights.

Oh, and one final kick in the ribs. Federalism, the idea that states have powers the feds don't, could get in the way. So the bill makes it clear that "...this Act may not be construed to preempt any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision of that State... except to the extent that the provision of law is inconsistent with any provision of this Act or an amendment made by this Act..."

I am not making this up. The hubris and audacity of this bill's author is monumental. My lawyer friends will tell me that legal mumbo-jumbo has become SOP, as the feds usurp any remaining crumbs of your state's legitimate powers.

Maybe you've noticed that virtually none of this addresses criminals or crimes. Innocent gun owners are the target. This is about controlling the public and its private constitutionally protected property. Criminals are guaranteed to ignore the entire plan, and in fact, criminals CANNOT apply, since they can't possess firearms in the first place. Even if criminals could apply, they're protected from incriminating themselves by the Fifth Amendment, so they never would apply.

The bill of course makes no mention of this....

John Conyers - of SubpoenaRove fame - chairs the House Judiciary Committee (and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform). He is one of the co-founders of the Congressional Black Caucus. According to the National Journal, he is considered one of the most liberal members of Congress for many years (re-elected 22 times). His wife is Monica Conyers, President of the Detroit City Council and subject of an ongoing FBI investigation into political corruption in that city.

Interesting side bit on Conyers from Wikipedia

 Conyers proposed House Resolution 288 in 2005, which condemns “religious intolerance” but emphasizes ... Islam as needing special protection from acts of violence and intolerance. It states that “it should never be official policy of the United States Government to disparage the Quran, Islam, or any religion in any way, shape, or form” .... The bill was referred to the House subcommittee on the Constitution in June 2005, but Conyers, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, could revive it.

Other Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee are:

Howard Berman, Zoe Lofgren, Brad Sherman, Adam Schiff, Linda Sanchez and Maxine Waters of CA;

Rick Boucher and Bobby Scott from VA;

Jerry Nadler, Dan Maffei and Anthony Weiner from NY;

Mel Watt from NC;

Sheila Jackson Lee and Charlie Gonzalez from TX;

Bill Delahunt from MA;

Robert Wexler and Debbie Wasserman Schultz from FL;

Steve Cohen from TN;

Hank Johnson from GA;

Pedro Pierlusi of Puerto Rico;

Luis Gutierrez from Chicago [chairs the "powerful Financial Services Subcommitte"];

and Tammy Baldwin of WI.

 

Another tangent, of possible interest:

On the first day of this 111th Congress, Conyers also introduced H.R. 40 [co-sponsored by Nadler, Scott, Gutierrez and Cohen] to establish a Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans and HR 200, which would amend the Bankruptcy Code to allow a judge to modify the terms of a home mortgage in foreclosure [coincidentally also co-sponsored by Nadler, Scott, Gutierrez and Cohen -- plus Linda Sanchez, Delahunt, and Waters].

 

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee include

Lamar Smith, Ted Poe and Louie Gohmert of TX;

Jim Sensenbrenner of WI;

Howard Coble of NC;

Elton Gallegly of CA;

Bob Goodlatte and Randy Forbes of VA;

Dan Lungren and Darrell Issa of CA;

Steve King of IA;

Trent Franks of AZ;

Jim Jordan of OH;

Jason Chaffetz of UT;

Tom Rooney of FL and Gregg Harper of MS.

 

 

Comments

[SEO COMPANY]

Comfortably, the post is really the freshest on this deserving topic.

[solar training]

It is good to see your clarity on this important subject can be easily observed. Thanks

[freight broker training]

Substantially, the article is really the greatest on this deserving topic. I have read what you wrote over and over and it all makes so much sense. I appreciate it from the bottom of my heart!

[TRANSCRIPTION COMPANY]

thanks for shearing.

[sukrut]

I am not making this up. The hubris and audacity of this bill's author is monumental. My lawyer friends will tell me that legal mumbo-jumbo has become SOP well It is good to see your clarity on this important subject can be easily observed. Thank