JFPO: Congress Shafts Second Amendment ... Again

[Zedicus]

http://jpfo.org/alert20070122.htm

January 22, 2007
Congress Shafts Second Amendment ... Again

Well, they certainly didn't wait long, did they?

Alan Korwin, author of "Gun Laws of America" ( www.gunlaws.com ), recently alerted us to some ominous activity taking place in Congress. Less than three weeks after the 110th Congress convened, the Democrats have already proposed four -- yes, FOUR -- new gun laws!

"The Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2007," H.R.256 ( http://tinyurl.com/3brx43 ) would raise the minimum age for the ownership of a semi-automatic rifle from 18 to 21. In addition, children under 18 attending a gun show must be accompanied by an adult at all times. Worse, it calls for fines and jailtime if a child gets a hold of your firearm and uses it to cause death or serious bodily injury, if you "recklessly disregarded the risk" that a child could access your firearm.

More ludricrous is H.R. 428 ( http://tinyurl.com/38k7mk ), entitled "To require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban toys which in size, shape, or overall appearance resemble real handguns." Yes, you read that right. The Democrats are pushing the banning of _toy_ guns, if they resemble real guns in size, shape OR overall appearance.

There's also "The NICS Improvement Act," H.R. 297 ( http://tinyurl.com/2q88lf ). NICS, of course, is the national firearms background checks for the public required by the Brady law. We'd like to tell you more about the bill, but weirdly, no information on it has been posted on the Thomas Locator site for Congressional legislation.

The most Draconian bill thus far, though, is "The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007," H.R. 96 ( http://tinyurl.com/2m8vmr ). This misleadingly-named bill -- a gun-hater's dream come true -- systematically destroys not just the Second Amendment but a number of your other rights as well.

Says Alan Korwin of HR 96:

"Under the original draft, currently legal gun shows are outlawed without prior federal permission. Gun show promoters must agree to warrantless searches in order to operate, and may be arrested if private citizens talk at the show about gun sales they wish to complete away from the show. The right to assemble peaceably at a gun show or even plan for one, carries stiff prison terms unless federal licenses are issued in advance. I am not making this up.

"Massive new bureaucracy is created because all shows and their exhibitors must be registered 30 days before the show, then again 72 hours before the show, and again five days after the show. That's in addition to registering anyone who walks in, plus "any other information" the Secretary of the Treasury decides, by regulation, is necessary on vendors, attendees, and the show itself."

This is just the beginning, folks. And we're in this alone. You may recall that President Bush has declared his willingness to sign any "assault weapons" bill that comes across his desk, so we probably shouldn't expect too much opposition to legislation of this type.

All of these laws, of course, will be enforced by our "friends" at the BATFE. This begs the question: How many wake-up calls, and how many knocks at the door do we need? IF YOU HAVEN'T SUPPORTED THE MAKING OF OUR FILM _THE GANG_, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?

_The Gang_ ( www.jpfo.org/thegang.htm or www.thegangmovie.com ) focuses on the arbitrary, capricious, and yes, malicious activities of the BATFE. Our goal is not to "reform" or "reprimand" the BATFE: we want them OUT OF BUSINESS. We want to abolish ALL federal control and regulations of firearms. _The Gang_ will help us do that ... but we need you to help _The Gang_.

Please consider donating to this worthy cause. The Democrats in Congress are not going to stop their assault on our Second Amendment rights, and the Republicans don't appear to be able or willing to fight them.

It's up to us.

- The Liberty Crew

Here we go again....:banghead:

 

[hso]

We didn't expect the gun grabbers to just stop trying to chip away at gunownership did we? This sort of crap has been going on from before Nov '06 and can be expected to continue. The thing to worry about is whether there are enough anti's to allow these stupid things to get further than they have in the past. Consider these to be probes of the dtermination of the RKBA movement to keep fighting. If we give up pressuring the old and new politicians we'll see insane bills like these make it to the floor and then the president's desk.

 

[Zundfolge]

CLEARLY the boys at JPFO are wrong ... we all know Republicans are worse gun grabbers than Democrats, Tellner said so.

 

[ServiceSoon]

On the contrary I quote the following from THR, "The Democrats wont try anything this year because they would be shooting themselves in the foot for the 2008 election."

 

[Robert Hairless]

On the contrary I quote the following from THR, "The Democrats wont try anything this year because they would be shooting themselves in the foot for the 2008 election."

Absolutely right.

We sent them a message in the 2006 elections. Unfortunately they got the message: gun owners are too highly principled to vote on the basis of Second Amendment rights.

And, unfortunately, pro-gun people just aren't as smart as anti-gun people. The anti-gun people know two simple things that most pro-gun people have never figured out and never will:

1. Once the guns are confiscated, they go bye-bye forever and ever--for real, no kidding, and they never come back.
   
2. Once the guns are confiscated, there are no gun owners--for real, no kidding, and they never are again.

So all the muttering about the 2008 elections is nothing more than a bad joke. There will be no "gun issues" to rally around by then, even if pro-gun people could ever figure out how to rally around anything except their own shoelaces.

When there are no guns, there are no gun owners, and no gun issues. Get the joke?

 

[johnster999]

New Dems same as dem old Dems.

 

[jlbraun]

Hello.

I voted for you this year based in part on your support of the Second Amendment. Some bills are coming up which I ask you to be aware of and take action if necessary:

HR428 "To require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban toys which in size, shape, or overall appearance resemble real handguns" - OPPOSE

"The Consumer Product Safety Commission shall promulgate a rule in accordance with section 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2058) to declare as a banned hazardous product under section 8 any toy which in size, shape, or overall appearance resembles a real handgun."

Is Rep. Towns kidding? He wants to ban *toy guns*?

HR256 "To prevent children's access to firearms" - OPPOSE

While this bill has some good points - K-12 firearms education being one, the rest simply promulgates the "assault weapon" boogeyman without actually trying to solve anything. Toss this one.

HR297 "NICS Improvement Act of 2007" - OPPOSE

Allocating tens of millions of dollars to create and maintain a massive federal computer system to track... misdemeanors? Please. Toss it.

HR96 "To require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at events that provide a venue for the sale, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange of firearms, and for other purposes. " - VERY STRONGLY OPPOSE

This bill will have unintended consequences - it creates a capricious regulatory environment in which gun show attendees, promoters, and vendors must *all* have hundreds if not thousands of pages of forms filled out with all the "i"s dotted and "t"s crossed - every time they enter a firearms event - or *presto!* 10 years in federal prison for everybody! It creates an environment ripe for an AG with an agenda, promulgates an environment of fear where "no one really knows what the law means, but it's 10 years in the federal pen if you miss a form filing deadline", allows random house inspections of any promoter or vendor, and *really* abuses the "interstate commerce" clause. This bill is abusive, capricious, bureaucratic, badly defined, and wrong. Get rid of it.

Thanks from your constituent,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

[Autolycus]

Its not like their arent any anti-gun Republicans.

So far Bloomberg, Guiliani, and McCain are names that are coming up for nomination as potential presidential candidates. Check their records.

Sorry but both the parties are responsible for the loss of our rights.

 

[Zundfolge]

Sorry but both the parties are responsible for the loss of our rights.

I agree, however the crap we keep hearing in these forums lately from "pro-gun progressives" (especially leading up to the election) is that;

• The GOP is just as bad if not worse about pushing gun control as the DNC.
• The 2000 election proved to the DNC that gun control was a losing idea so they have abandoned it.
• The DNC wouldn't push gun control right after their takeover of the legislature because it will harm them for 2008.
• Lots of Democrats are pro gun.
• Bush is more interested in banning guns than Hillary or [insert your favorite Democrat here]

The truth is that while there are a few anti-gun Republicans and a lot who don't care about the issue enough to fight for us, the lion's share of Democrats in power (even these so-called moderates that were just elected) are rabidly anti gun.


Don't mistake my comments as being "Pro-GOP" ... I'm merely being "Anti-DNC"

 

[cosine]

So if this were to pass:

"The Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2007," H.R.256 ( http://tinyurl.com/3brx43 ) would raise the minimum age for the ownership of a semi-automatic rifle from 18 to 21.

would semi-auto rifles already owned by those 18 or older but under 21 still be legally owned?

I'm not up to par on legal speak to understand and figure it out myself.

 

[Robert Hairless]

H.R. 96 is entitled the "Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007" and its stated purpose is "To require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at events that provide a venue for the sale, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange of firearms, and for other purposes."

This bill is especially dangerous. If it becomes law it will criminalize a lot of ordinary, law-abiding people--including you, if you let down your guard while at a gun show. It also is likely to kill gun shows and, probably, make gun collecting a thing of the past.

Look carefully at this provision:

`(38) Special Firearms Event Vendor- The term `special firearms event vendor' means any person who is not required to be licensed under section 923 and who exhibits, sells, offers for sale, transfers, or exchanges 1 or more firearms at a special firearms event, regardless of whether or not the person arranges with the special firearms event promoter for a fixed location from which to exhibit, sell, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange 1 or more firearms.'.

You become a Special Firearms Event Vendor if, while you are attending a gun show, you even mention to someone that you have a gun you are willing to sell. If you do sell that gun to that person, you are in violation of the law and subject to prosecution if you fail to comply with every other provision of the law--even if the sale is made outside the gunshow, and even if it takes place after the gunshow has ended. You have assumed the responsibilities of an FFL and you can be prosecuted if you don't meet them.

The law's language is such that you seem to violate the law even if you sell that gun--or any other--to someone other than the person you initially offered it to, no matter where or when the sale takes place.

There is nothing in the law that sets a time or event that would terminate your status as a vendor once you become one by offering even one gun for sale at any gun show.

If this bill becomes law, everyone needs to be careful never to say anything at a gun show that could be construed as an offer to sell a gun. Don't look at an overpriced gun, for example, and say "If I could get that kind of money for mine I'd sell it in a minute!" Don't be one of those people we see walking around with a rifle that has a "For Sale" sign on it. Don't ask a dealer how much he would pay for any gun you own. Don't tell your buddy that he can buy the gun of yours he always admired.

Don't think you can dodge the vendor status by denying that you were at the gun show. The bill requires that the gun show operator log every person who attends.

In short, if this bill passes it might be prudent not to attend gun shows or, if you decide to take the risk, you would be wise to keep your mouth shut and remain silent from the time you enter until the time you leave.

Although the bill is aimed at "closing the gunshow loophole," there is no gunshow loophole. Dealers are required to have an FFL. FFL holders are required to do NICS checks, prepare Form 4473, and obey all other laws that apply to dealers and FFL holders. They must do those things at gunshows already, without this law. Individuals are not required to comply with the laws that pertain exlusively to dealers. This bill forces individuals to do so regardless of state law. The bill circumvents existing laws and will criminalize ordinary people.

This is a bad bill that is likely to become a very bad law. In addition to its obvious defects it provides a great many opportunities for entrapment. Write and telephone your Senators immediately to urge them not to vote for this bill and to do all in their power to defeat it.

 

[Manedwolf]

When looking at these bills, keep an eye on how many sponsors they have, if any. These sorts have been tossed up for years by nuts on all sides. ANY representative can spit up a bill, but if they don't have a lot of sponsors, they're DOA.

All of these were put up by NY Democrats which are, of course, a lost cause...NY state is just insane. The first has no cosponsors, the second two have...one.

They're dead.

That said, yes, you SHOULD bang pots and pans and shout about these, contact your local representatives and tell them that this is Not Acceptable. Especially Democrats. Warn them to keep their fellow party members to the agenda they were elected to, that the 06 elections were a rejection of the neocon failures and NOT an endorsement of a leftist agenda.

And that if they do not keep their fellow party members in line, that they should expect 08 to make this one of the shortest majorities ever.

 

[QuestionEverything]

Many people are unaware of this peculiarity of the US Congress--many strange laws get proposed in a given legislative season, but most don't pass. It's like the draft bill that Charles Rangel proposed a while back. He's done the same thing since the start of the Iraq war, and every time he does it attracts a bit of notice and then sinks like a stone. If you're a senator or representative you can propose whatever bills you want but you need a lot of co-sponsorship and support to make them law.

 

[vito]

Writing to a congressman who is not your representative is a total waste of time. My experience is that when you give your address and the staffer realizes you are not from the district represented by their boss, they admit that your call will be ignored. I have a very pro-gun Congressman who does not need reminders to support pro 2nd Amendment bills, so I feel like I can't do much at all. Both the U.S. Senators from my state are strongly anti-gun, and clearly could not care less about the ideas of the pro-gun constituents in their state. Maybe we are the dinosaurs of our age; all of my adult children are either anti-gun rights (one out of four) or apathetic (three out of four), so probably by the time I am in my grave, gun ownership, or at least handgun ownership will be as outdated as the day of the cowboy with a six-gun on his hip. I truly envision a day when we will have to risk our freedom and fortune to retain our rights under the 2nd Amendment. For now, I am supporting, with what I can afford, Congressman Tancredo in his bid for the GOP nomination so I can at least feel that someone out there supports my rights.

 

[El Tejon]

Good grief, I thought that the notion that proposals are automatically law was confined to Glock Talk and now I discover it has spread to THR.

Didn't anyone watch Saturday cartoons? The mere introduction of a bill does not make something law. http://www.school-house-rock.com/Bill.html

Every year we face being disarmed. Every year we must fight. Call, write and get your friends to get off the sofa and do so as well.

 

[benEzra]

Wasn't it a republican (Chafee) that introduced a bill ever year to ban handguns and repeal the Second Amendment? It went nowhere. Just like these bills will.

Most of the gun-control zealots in Congress are still there, but at least for the moment, the leadership is ignoring them. Call/write your representatives to make sure it stays that way.

 

[Dravur]

Linc Chafee

is a Republican like Rosie Odonnel is a female... in name only.

 

[xd9fan]

It too bad we dont have real conservative in Congress to fight this crap.

 

[LAR-15]

This stuff never passed when the Republicans were in control.

 

[Robert Hairless]

ManedWolf:

All of these were put up by NY Democrats which are, of course, a lost cause...NY state is just insane. The first has no cosponsors, the second two have...one.

They're dead.

None of what you've said is true. Everything you've said is wrong.

H.R. 96 was "put up" by four Congressmen not quite three weeks ago, on January 4, 2007. On its first day it had three co-sponsors, not one or two. It is at the start of the process. As the process continues, additional co-sponsors may attach their names to the bill, as usual.

Three of the four sponsors for H.R. 96 are from states other than New York: Michael Castle (the sponsor) is from Delaware, Mark Kirk is from Illinois, and Christopher Shays is from Connecticut. Only Carolyn McCarthy is from New York.

And three of the four sponsors for H.R. 96 are Republicans, not Democrats: Michael Castle (the sponsor), Mark Kirk, and Christopher Shays. Only Carolyn McCarthy is a Democrat.

H.R. 96 is not dead and neither are any of its sponsors. It is alive, it is real, it is dangerous, and it is likely to be enacted into law by this new Congress unless more of us get into gear and start working together effectively.

Don't you even look at the bills before telling people not to worry about them?

It's not my intention to embarrass you, or anyone else, but before the 2006 elections a few months ago many of the same people were spreading exactly the same message you're spreading now: "The sky is not falling. We've sent them a message so they won't be anti-gun if they want to be re-elected. Don't worry. Be happy." Many people believed your message, didn't worry, and were happy.

But you were wrong then too: the 2006 elections were a disaster for the gun owners. They were a disaster because gun owners did not read the warning signs and did not unite to vote as a block to protect their Second Amendment rights.

When the 2006 election results were released and the magnitude of the disaster became undeniable, I and others tried to unite gun owners to find some way to avert the introduction and passage of anti-Second Amendment bills by the new Congress. You discouraged that attempt by spreading your message again: "The sky is not falling. We've sent them a message so they won't be anti-gun if they want to be re-elected. Don't worry. Be happy."

But on the very first day of the new Congress, H.R. 96 and several other anti-Second Amendment bills were introduced and are at the start of the legislative process towards becoming law. The Democratic leadership in both houses of the new Congress is anti-Second Amendment and has stated its anti-gun intentions. Mayors of all major cities are lobbying the new Congress for stricter gun laws. Nancy Pelosi has already promised that there would be tougher gun laws before the end of this year. The Brady Campaign is lobbying the new Congress for tougher gun laws with renewed vigor, telling them that there's no need to fear election defeat by Second Amendment voters. And, to make such defeat more difficult if not impossible, the new Senate majority leader Harry S. Reid personally introduced S. 1 (the first Senate bill of the new Congress) with provisions to prevent grassroots lobbying.

As an aside, S. 1 was passed within two weeks of its introduction. Despite the cute Schoolhouse Rock song, it did not "sit in committee." It moved, fast, and zoomed through the committee. And despite assurances here that the new leadership in the new Congress is ignoring the anti-gun zealots, S. 1 with its anti-grassroots provision was introduced by the Senate majority leader himself. The anti-grassroots provision was amended, thanks to last minute action by Senator Bennett and many of us who wrote and called our Senators urging support of the Bennett amendment. Your message undoubtedly discouraged many others from doing so.

In the face of such undeniable evidence that Second Amendment rights will be further restricted and, sooner rather than later, legislated out of existence, I and others are trying once again to unite gun owners. The NRA and other gun rights organizations share the same sense of a clear and present danger that must energize us now at last. But you still spread the same tired old message: "The sky is not falling. We've sent them a message so they won't be anti-gun if they want to be re-elected. Don't worry. Be happy."

Why? We are not naive enough to believe that introduction of a bill equates with its enactment into law. We know that this forum is not GlockTalk. But we also know that the situation now is not the same as when the Republican Party controlled both houses of the Congress and its major committees. Anti-gun bills introduced in this new Congress are not almost guaranteed death in committee. We have a small window of time remaining in which we stand at least some chance of preventing a few of those bills from being enacted into law by extremely powerful anti-gun forces. We need to take this last opportunity to unite and work as an effective block. You spread the wrong message on every significant occasion that might have prevented this calamity. But still you spread the same message: "The sky is not falling. We've sent them a message so they won't be anti-gun if they want to be re-elected. Don't worry. Be happy."

Why are you doing it?

 

[LAR-15]

None of this stuff will pass the Senate even if Pelosi tries to ram it through the House.

Senator Johnson is still in the hospital and Reid doesn't want to touch gun control for awhile (he was supported by the NRA)

The Dems won't touch gun control for quite awhile except in approprations bills where they tried to enact a rider to ban the exportation of ALL 50 caliber rifles for any non governmental purpose.

That means no US 50 caliber centefire rifles for shooters in Europe, NZ, South Africa, Canada ect.

James Moran will try it again to be sure. He tried last session

All under the guise of 'stopping terrorists'

 

[Mr.V.]

it calls for fines and jailtime if a child gets a hold of your firearm and uses it to cause death or serious bodily injury, if you "recklessly disregarded the risk" that a child could access your firearm.

Yeah? So? Provided that this child didn't burglarize your home to obtain the firearm access...you should be held accountable if you let your kid have access to your gun and he or she does something stupid with it. You're responsible for your kids and kids whom you invite into your house. When they cease being kids then you aren't.

All the other stuff mentioned by them, however, I'm in agreement with hating. I also hate when they include "children" who burglarized your house and had "easy" access with a "just" a crowbar and acetylene torch...because those ain't kids.

 

[Beagle-zebub]

I'm willing to bet that HR 256 passes. That's exactly the kind of "compromise" garbage that passes through legislatures.

 

[fourays2]

I don't know why you guys are woried, surely bush the great 2A advocate will veto any anti gun legislation?

 

[Phetro]

Its not like their arent any anti-gun Republicans.

So far Bloomberg, Guiliani, and McCain are names that are coming up for nomination as potential presidential candidates. Check their records.

Sorry but both the parties are responsible for the loss of our rights.

Is that so? Huh. I must have missed all those anti-gun bills Congress passed last year, and the year before that, and the...oh wait a second. Who are we kidding? Your post was really just a joke, or a social engineering experiment, right?

Two evils. Ds are the worse of the two evils. Rs are evil, but not as bad as Ds.

(Note: this is not to say the Rs are worth voting for in their current state--but that's only because they've recently come to resemble the Ds!)