What guns, officer? I sure won’t turn them in voluntarily like the Brits and Aussies.
I don’t understand. How is requiring licensing and recording sales being after your firearms?
-Brian
It is well known that many of the firearms handed in as part of our amnesty, after the Port Arthur massacre, found their way back on the streets. Guns in legal ownership were handed into local police stations, to somehow find their way back to the streets and in the hands of criminals.
Brian, I didn’t think that you would understand. It must be a genetic thing. Or, perhaps, you did not take the time to read the d*mn thing.
Violation of unreasonable search and ceasure:
[b]SEC. 403. INSPECTIONS.
In order to ascertain compliance with this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the regulations and orders issued under this Act, the Attorney General may, during regular business hours, enter any place in which firearms or firearm products are manufactured, stored, or held, for distribution in commerce, and inspect those areas where the products are so manufactured, stored, or held.[/b]
That means that the Feds can enter your home, during business hours, of course, without a warrant, if you have ever sold a firearm. That is all it takes to participate in commerce.
[b]SEC. 601. EFFECT ON STATE LAW.
(a) In General- This Act and the amendments made by this Act may not be construed to preempt any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision of that State, or prevent a State or political subdivision of that State from enacting any provision of law regulating or prohibiting conduct with respect to firearms, except to the extent that the provision of law is inconsistent with any provision of this Act or an amendment made by this Act, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency.
(b) Rule of Interpretation- A provision of State law is not inconsistent with this Act or an amendment made by this Act if the provision imposes a regulation or prohibition of greater scope or a penalty of greater severity than a corresponding prohibition or penalty imposed by this Act or an amendment made by this Act.[/b]
In other words, a state may enact laws with stiffer penalties, but not lesser penalties.
[b]SEC. 801. INAPPLICABILITY TO GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not apply to any department or agency of the United States, of a State, or of a political subdivision of a State, or to any official conduct of any officer or employee of such a department or agency.[/b]
Of course, it doesn’t apply to the Feds, state, or local agencies.
Brian, please tell me what good will come from this?
Bobby Rush is the only sponsor of this bill. Isn’t he a Black Panther?
Only criminals will have unregistered firearms.
Oh oh, gun control…this could get interesting.
Worked as lead cook in a bar ages ago. The health inspector could walk in with no warrant needed, if we declined we were shut down. I read “commerce” as licensed dealers and manufacturers, not your average Joe…we shall see. Personally I do not support your average gun owner subjected to search. If this law was taken to allow authorities to enter any home (I highly doubt) then I too would be fighting it. I believe in a persons right to own a gun, I also believe it should be regulated. No more, and no less than my current license to drive, but regulated.
Steve, your comment “Of course, it doesn’t apply to the Feds, state, or local agencies” is one of my favorites. The politicians in my state passed a “carry act”, told us how much safer it would be with an armed populace…Of course their arguments were pure B.S. as they made one exception…yep, no guns allowed on state property. Seems they themselves don’t trust an armed public to act responsibly.
M. Verbrugge said:Well, it looked like the War on Evolution was winding down, so I had to stir the pot. We need something to disagree on or our nightly sessions around the virtual pot-bellied stove down at the station, waiting for the 10:27 to arrive (is it true that she is late again?) can get mighty dull.
Oh oh, gun control...this could get interesting.
I do hope that all y’all don’t mind. :lol:
Steve Featherkile said:Boy, you accuse me of living in the past complaining about Bush/Cheney who have been out of office for a total of one month when the Black Panthers haven't been active for over 30 years? C'mon Steve, what's it gonna be?
Bobby Rush is the only sponsor of this bill. Isn't he a Black Panther?
-Brian
Answer the question, perp, is he or isn’t he? Stop ducking. :lol:
Black Panthers Inactive…since when? They are very active in the other murder capital of the US…Philadelphia. At least they were during the voting. They are still out there you just don’t see them, but they are there just waiting…like some other groups.
N
They never quit do they? I think they hope we will give in it they keep hammering away at the rights of US citizens to bear arms.
Brian. Automobiles are not covered by the 2nd amendment therefore can be registered, regulated etc. and they kill more people than guns so why not ban them? If the dodo who shot Regan had, instead, rammed him with a car and injured Mr. Brady, would Mrs Brady be screaming to ban cars?
N.
Quote:
... Violation of unreasonable search and ceasure(sic):"SEC. 403. INSPECTIONS.
In order to ascertain compliance with this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the regulations and orders issued under this Act, the Attorney General may, during regular business hours, enter any place in which firearms or firearm products are manufactured, stored, or held, for distribution in commerce, and inspect those areas where the products are so manufactured, stored, or held."That means that the Feds can enter your home, during business hours, of course, without a warrant, if you have ever sold a firearm. That is all it takes to participate in commerce.
That’s a bit of a stretch to say that applies to anyone who privately sells a gun. The phrase “during business hours” implies that they can search any place that operates as a regular–presumably licensed–business, yes. But a private individual? Fodder for a court challenge the minute it happens. Heck, the ACLU will probably supply the lawyer for you. Note the phrase “for distribution in commerce.” In drug parlance, there’s a difference between simple possession and possession with intent to distribute. The difference is quantity. If you’re a private individual who sells the occasional firearm from your collection, you’re not a distributor. It is similar to selling cars. An individual can sell a car without fear of the state getting involved until he buys and sells enough cars over a period of time. Then the state will require him to register as a dealer.
“Unreasonable search and seizure?” (note spelling) Not going to stand up. The government can already inspect any operating business for this, that, or the other without a warrant, consent, or advance notice. Operate a day care? The health department can waltz in whenever you’re open–even if your day care is in your private residence. If you’re licensed, you’re subject to inspection. If you’re a bar owner, the last person you want to upset is the liquor inspector. You so much as look at him cross-eyed, and your license is in the trash can.
The 2nd amendment says we have the right to own firearms. That was confirmed by the Supreme Court last year. It does NOT say we are exempt from regulations regarding ownership.
Besides, with all the red tape and documentation that goes with buying and selling a gun these days, who’d want to sell one individually? A co-worker’s friend is being investigated because a gun that he sold privately was later used in a murder. He’s got to go back and prove when he sold it, to whom, and for how much. If he can’t, he faces possible charges as an accomplice! Yes, the burden is on him to prove he sold it. Right? Wrong? Who’s to say. Avoidable? Absolutely. Take the gun to a consignment shop and let them take the liability.
Later,
K
Try applying the same restrictions on any other citizen Right that is being illegally foisted on the states’ citizens regarding the 2nd Amendment.
No hi capacity, hi speed presses. Only presses similar to those in use at the signing of the Constitution.
No Freedom of Speech in government buildings or schools.
You must have a registration number to print, broadcast or post on the internet.
No powerful or inflammatory words may be spoken.
The government will decide what is powerful or inflammatory.
This act may not target (excuse the pun) the individual, but has the potential to put gun shops out of business, one by one.
David Hill said:
Try applying the same restrictions on any other citizen Right that is being illegally foisted on the states' citizens regarding the 2nd Amendment.No hi capacity, hi speed presses. Only presses similar to those in use at the signing of the Constitution.
No Freedom of Speech in government buildings or schools.
You must have a registration number to print, broadcast or post on the internet.
No powerful or inflammatory words may be spoken.
The government will decide what is powerful or inflammatory.This act may not target (excuse the pun) the individual, but has the potential to put gun shops out of business, one by one.
Hey David…do you support registering to vote??? Not saying you, but most with your mind-set do cry out for tough voter registration standards. So where in the constitution does it say I need to show my drivers license to vote??? As a SUPPORTER of the right to bear arms I don’t think it’s asking a lot to register the danged thing. I’ll even go one step further and say you ought to prove minimum competency to use it like driving a car.
So do you support voter registration requiring photo ID or not? Rights are given in the US, but too many expect their rights granted and refuse to take the responcibility that goes with it.
M. Verbrugge said:
Hey David...do you support registering to vote??? Not saying you, but most with your mind-set do cry out for tough voter registration standards. So where in the constitution does it say I need to show my drivers license to vote??? As a SUPPORTER of the right to bear arms I don't think it's asking a lot to register the danged thing. I'll even go one step further and say you ought to prove minimum competency to use it like driving a car.So do you support voter registration requiring photo ID or not? Rights are given in the US, but too many expect their rights granted and refuse to take the responcibility that goes with it.
The original requirement to voter in the united States was one had to be a white male land-owner. The white male part was wrong-headed, but property-owners do have a greater stake in our government than welfare recipients.
Obviously you understand the proof of citizenship and preventing multiple ballots is necessary to a free and honest election.
Registering an automobile is not addressed in the US Constitution, that is a state issue (possibly unconstitutional as well). Your analogy would be more accurate if you asked if registering your computer keyboard and proving you have the intelligence to write cogent sentences with no misspellings, i.e. “responcibility” ;-), before you are allowed to own one.
David Hill said:M. Verbrugge said:
Hey David...do you support registering to vote??? Not saying you, but most with your mind-set do cry out for tough voter registration standards. So where in the constitution does it say I need to show my drivers license to vote??? As a SUPPORTER of the right to bear arms I don't think it's asking a lot to register the danged thing. I'll even go one step further and say you ought to prove minimum competency to use it like driving a car.So do you support voter registration requiring photo ID or not? Rights are given in the US, but too many expect their rights granted and refuse to take the responcibility that goes with it.
The original requirement to voter in the united States was one had to be a white male land-owner. The white male part was wrong-headed, but property-owners do have a greater stake in our government than welfare recipients.Obviously you understand the proof of citizenship and preventing multiple ballots is necessary to a free and honest election.
Registering an automobile is not addressed in the US Constitution, that is a state issue (possibly unconstitutional as well). Your analogy would be more accurate if you asked if registering your computer keyboard and proving you have the intelligence to write cogent sentences with no misspellings, i.e. “responcibility” ;-), before you are allowed to own one.
Actually David what it shows to me is the framers of the constitution were not Gods and could not account for every possible future occurrence…up to and including the advancement in firearms. As far as the misspellings go I have seen DOZENS of typo’s in your posts too. Of course it’s much easier to avoid misspellings if you copy direct from internet sources rather than form your own opinions eh?
David Hill said:That would be "high" as in lofty, not "hi" as in hello.
No hi capacity, hi speed presses.
M.
You said - “Rights are given in the US, but too many expect their rights granted and refuse to take the responcibility that goes with it.”
I believe it is the other way around. The “Bill Of Rights” was established to restrict government, not GIVE rights to the people. Restrictions, registrations and lists are all established to control. With registration for voting or the showing of ID is for the abiltiy to keep non-citizens and people from Chicago from voting when they shouldn’t or more than once.
Your statement - “I’ll even go one step further and say you ought to prove minimum competency to use it like driving a car.”
Using your logic would mean that the courts should prove people sane and competent, instead of insane and incompetent.
I’m a bit at a loss to see how regulation (i.e., proving we are who we say we are when registering our car/boat/house/gun/prescription/etc.) in any way infringes on our ability to actually possess any of those items. (Yes, the same holds true for voting.) Handguns already have to be registered, and background checks performed in all 50 states (and DC, now that the court has affirmed their legality), so “Big Brother” already knows you have a gun. But this is done on a state level, and databases are notoriously ineffective when it comes to sharing information with other states. The primary intent of this law seems–to me–to be to nationalize that process to reduce the cracks in the system.
The language of the law requires all gun sales to be handled by licensed dealers, so “commerce” as this bill is written can only apply to those businesses, not private individuals. The government still couldn’t knock on your door demanding to inspect your private firearms collection. The only administrative requirement on the private owner is to make sure his/her records are kept up to date within the system.
Where this bill will not pass muster is where it requires a competency examination before an individual ownership license is issued. The 2nd Amendment isn’t limited to “proficient” citizens. The right to possess a firearm (and other rights) can only be limited by the courts for very specific reasons. It cannot be abridged by an arbitrary test. It would be akin to requiring an IQ test in order to vote. In both cases, such a test might arguably make sense, but given the law of the land, it cannot be enacted. The government can require you to prove who you are, but they can’t tell you that you have to be able to aim. The difference between that and a driver’s test is that the ability to drive is not guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, so the government can impose proficiency requirements in order to be licensed.
So fear not, gun owners. No one’s going to take your guns away from you. Even if this legislation were to pass (and it died last time it was introduced), the licensing would be immediately challenged in court and the law either set aside or have that provision stricken from it. Otherwise, the law’s intent is aimed much more at the dealer end of the spectrum, and making sure they all comply with record keeping requirements that are mostly already in place, if a bit piecemeal.
Later,
K