Another Anti-Gun Move in D.C.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Arts

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
48
Location
San Antonio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gun violence folly
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published August 7, 2003


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the latest display of how far gun control advocates will go to devise new methods to limit law-abiding Americans' ability to purchase guns, Sen. Jon Corzine, New Jersey Democrat (and chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee), and Rep. Patrick Kennedy, Rhode Island Democrat, have come up with a bill giving federal bureaucrats far-reaching authority to regulate gun "safety." The recently introduced Corzine-Kennedy bill would give the Justice Department the authority "to set minimum safety standards for the manufacture, design and distribution of firearms, issue recalls and warnings, collect data on gun-related death and injury, and limit the sale of products when no other remedy is sufficient," Mr. Corzine's Web site says.
The legislation is backed by a coalition of gun control supporters and liberal groups, including the Brady Campaign, the Violence Policy Center, the NAACP, the American Bar Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Consumer Federation of America. As Messrs. Kennedy and Corzine put it, it is simply indefensible that toy guns and teddy bears are subject to safety regulation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), while guns are not really subject to any serious government regulation. The premise is simply absurd.
Children's toys, like teddy bears, of course, come with eyes, noses and other tiny parts that can be bitten off and swallowed by very small children. That's why the CPSC sets standards governing what toys are appropriate for children of a given age and what sort of warning information should be made available to parents. That sort of regulation makes sense to us.
As for guns, they are already subject to plenty of regulation. At present, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is responsible for enforcing page after page of regulations governing the manufacture and use of firearms. (California and some other states enforce yet another layer of regulations on guns and their owners.) Each gun, for example, must be identified by a unique serial number. Gun dealers can be convicted of a felony and sent to jail for failing to keep accurate purchase records, and their businesses are subject to surprise federal inspections. So much for the notion that guns aren't currently subject to any serious regulation.
A careful reading of the Corzine-Kennedy bill, however, suggests that it would give sweeping powers to an attorney general (particularly if someone like Janet Reno were to assume that position) to make life miserable for anyone involved in the sale or manufacturing of firearms. Title I of the bill would give the attorney general the authority to put forward any regulation he or she deems "reasonably necessary to reduce or prevent unreasonable risk of injury" from a particular gun. Moreover, "any person" would be allowed to petition the attorney general to "require the recall, repair, or replacement of a firearm product, or issuance of refunds with respect to a firearm product." If there are any limits on such powers, they certainly aren't apparent from reading the bill.
It speaks volumes that Mr. Corzine, in particular, a rising star among Senate Democrats, has seen fit to lend his name to legislation that would give virtually limitless authority to the federal government to harass law-abiding gun dealers.




Copyright © 2003 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
 
It speaks volumes that Mr. Corzine, in particular, a rising star among Senate Democrats, has seen fit to lend his name to legislation that would give virtually limitless authority to the federal government to harass law-abiding gun dealers.

I'll bet his heavily armed bodyguards aren't too worried about it.
 
... and limit the sale of products when no other remedy is sufficient,"
:confused: :confused:

What the Hell does that mean????

Let's see ... carte blanche ... carte blanche ... carte blanche

Oh, yeah, here it is:

( P ) Pronunciation Key (kärt bläsh, blänch, blnch)
n. pl. cartes blanches (kärt bläsh, kärts blänch, blnch)
Unrestricted power to act at one's own discretion; unconditional authority.

:eek: Oooooohhhhh!:eek:
 
Title I of the bill would give the attorney general the authority to put forward any regulation he or she deems "reasonably necessary to reduce or prevent unreasonable risk of injury" from a particular gun. Moreover, "any person" would be allowed to petition the attorney general to "require the recall, repair, or replacement of a firearm product, or issuance of refunds with respect to a firearm product." If there are any limits on such powers, they certainly aren't apparent from reading the bill.
When is someone going to sue the government over the issue of the Congress allowing unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to formulate law extra-constitutionally? Where in the Constitution is there any allowance for the Congress to assign their powers to outside third parties?
 
seems they have some of the toughest restrictions while criminals blaze away in the night,peddling their dope an disease.what they otta do is give each and every homeowner a pistol and teach them to use it wisly and safly- offer a bounty for each thug caught(thugs for food program..nice ring?)kinda like a safari.i suppose its easier to generate more money through new laws and more arrests than to actually give the victim citizens control over their own lives.the problems may take care of themselves.they just dont "get it."
 
One definition of insanity is doing teh same thing over and over, expecting a different outcome.

If gun control laws worked, DC woiuld be a safe place, ergo, the anti-gun/more gun control laws crew is insane.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top