Archive for July, 2009

Single Payer Health Care: An example

July 18, 2009

The pure socialism that is Obamacare is not an experiment at all. In fact, there has been a model available for all to see, and no, I’m not talking about the Veterans Administration. The current administration, all too obviously failed to grasp economics and recent world history while in school. So, they plow on. Sewing the seeds of disaster across this once wonderful place.

Around the Nation: Massachusetts Health Care

With the debate over health care raging on Capitol Hill, one need only look to Massachusetts to see how ObamaCare would play out. A study conducted by Harvard-Pilgrim, a private insurer, has exposed the Bay State’s insurance plan — similar to Democrats’ proposal — for the disaster that it is. The plan, which was favored by former Governor Mitt Romney, requires residents (except those covered by the state) either to buy health insurance or to face penalties. In addition, for the past 15 years, under the “guaranteed issue” and “community rating” system, insurers must cover anyone who applies with no regard to his or her health or pre-existing condition. The result: people are waiting until they are sick or about to go into surgery to buy coverage. Many are buying coverage for a few months, running up astronomical bills, and then canceling it, leaving others to foot the bill.

Speaking of leaving others with the bill, The New York Times reports, “A hospital that serves thousands of indigent Massachusetts residents sued the state on Wednesday, charging that its costly universal health care law is forcing the hospital to cover too much of the expense of caring for the poor.” The state is also dropping coverage for 30,000 legal immigrants to close a growing budget deficit. The question is, why is any of this shocking? How many socialist experiments have to fail before people realize that it just doesn’t work?

SOURCE

While Congress Argues, Producers Work

July 18, 2009

When I first read this I almost burst out laughing! As a matter of fact one of the first posts here was about this very thing. That being that most often liberty and freedom offer solutions, while government, for the most part only creates problems. Read on…

One of the problems with Congress is that they think they’re experts on everything. This, of course, causes the real experts to be affected by the legislation produced. For example, while arguments raged in the halls of the Capitol building on the merits of pie-in-the-sky renewable energy methods and how much it would cost taxpayers to implement energy created from these “free” sources (like sunshine and wind), there were private businesses that actually know what they are doing finding the energy we need.

One such business is a favorite whipping boy of the left, ExxonMobil. The company just announced a “world-class” find of shale gas on 250,000 acres in the Horn River Basin, in British Columbia — a source that could easily supplement the plentiful natural gas we already have locked away within our continent. “[R]esults from the first four wells lead the company to conclude that each well will produce between 16 million and 18 million cubic feet of gas a day,” reports The Wall Street Journal. “That’s five times the size of average wells in Texas’s Barnett shale and comparable to big wells in Louisiana’s Haynesville shale, two major shale-gas fields that already have moved the U.S. natural-gas market from scarcity to abundance.” All this without a huge infusion of federal funding. Now if only ExxonMobil could draw useful energy from the hot air emitted by Beltway commissars who think they know better. Indeed, that source would seem to be in limitless supply.

SOURCE

Climate Change This Week: Where Has Summer Gone?

July 18, 2009

In June this year, New York temperatures never made it past 85° F; Chicago saw 12 days of 70° F and below, and Western Pennsylvania nights have dipped into the mid-50s. Temps in Calgary, Canada, have been below average since November, with Environment Canada Senior Climatologist David Phillips saying, “For seven months, it’s really been a long bout of cold weather.” Across the Great Lakes and Northeast in general, the “hot” months haven’t been this cold in more than a decade, prompting some to label 2009 “The Year Without True Summer.”

AccuWeather.com Chief Meteorologist and Expert Long Range Forecaster Joe Bastardi attributes the cold spell in part to “the combination of El Niño and worldwide volcanic activity over the past six to nine months.” But going back even further, global temperatures have dropped by 0.74° F since the 2006 release of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” How … inconvenient.

There is still hope for global warming alarmists, though, as Bastardi predicts a whopping five to 10 days of “more typical summer weather” in the Northeast and Great Lakes in late July and early August — that is, before the eastern U.S. plunges into a colder- and snowier-than-normal winter.

SOURCE

Income Redistribution: ObamaCare Advances

July 18, 2009

Make no mistake: The health care debate going on in Washington is about one thing, and it is not the millions of uninsured Americans. It’s about the Obama administration’s goal of turning this country into a socialist nation.

President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) are pushing Congress to pass the health care overhaul before the August recess, riding roughshod over the protests not only of Republicans, but of some Democrats, many business interests and hospitals. Obama has made clear that, as White House advisor David Axelrod put it, “Ultimately, this is not about a process, it’s about results. … We’d like to do it with the votes of members of both parties, but the worst result would be to not get health-care reform done.”

Wednesday, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee passed the “Quality, Affordable Health Coverage for All Americans” bill, otherwise known as QAHCAA (pronounce it as it looks — CACA). The House Ways and Means Committee followed suit Thursday. No Republicans have voted for it so far, and several Democrats have voted against it.

During the presidential campaign, Republicans, including candidates Fred Thompson and John McCain, warned about the tax implications of electing Obama president. They were right. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) announced late last Friday that Congress would pay for health care by hiking taxes on the households earning more than $350,000 per year and individuals earning $280,000. The hike would put New York’s top bracket at nearly 60 percent. Rangel predicts revenue of $540 billion over 10 years. Democrats’ ultimate goal is to have the highest income earners pay for health care for everyone else. But even the liberal Washington Post editorialized, “There is simply no way to close the [funding] gap by taxing a handful of high earners.”

To cover part of this deficiency, Democrats propose cutting tax breaks for hospitals because they don’t provide enough charitable care to earn them any longer. According to the American Hospital Directory, fewer than half of the 5,482 hospitals in the country actually pay federal, state or local taxes. That will change. Furthermore, the hospital industry agreed this week to take $155 billion less in payments from the government, leaving the money to cover the uninsured.

Beyond the money, the regulations are mind-boggling. In the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section on page 16 of 1,018, under the Orwellian heading “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the bill states: “Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.

In other words, according to Investor’s Business Daily, “[W]e can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.” Private individual coverage will be outlawed by attrition.

Meanwhile, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) added an amendment to the bill that would require all health insurance companies to provide unspecified “preventive care and screenings” for “pregnant women and individuals of child-bearing age.” Asked if this would include abortion, Mikulski sidestepped: “It would provide for any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate.”

More “highlights”: CNS News editor in chief Terence Jeffrey also reports that “the legal use of tobacco products is the only vice for which insurance companies will be able to charge their customers higher premiums,” adding, “a person could have been admitted to hospitals three times for heroin overdoses, or been pregnant five times out of wedlock, or been treated for venereal diseases at least once per year for the past five years, but none of these factors could be used to charge that person a higher insurance premium.” Jeffrey further notes that the bill calls for improved immunization coverage, including the use of “reminders or recalls for patients or providers, or home visits” to accomplish it. Yes, home visits.

Ronald Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'” Little did the Gipper know just how terrifying those nine words could be.

SOURCE

National Concealed Carry Bill

July 18, 2009

Someday I will figure out why a permit is needed for an unalienable right. But? This is certainly a step in the right direction.

Vote on Right to Carry Coming Soon
-- Please urge your Senators to vote YES!

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Friday, July 17, 2009

A vote to protect your right to travel out-of-state with a firearm could
come to a vote next week -- even as early as Monday!

Senators John Thune and David Vitter are the sponsors of S. 845 -- a
bill that will establish concealed carry reciprocity amongst the several
states.

Senators Thune and Vitter offered the bill as an amendment (#1618) to
the Department of Defense authorization bill (H.R. 2647).

This provision will use the constitutional authority allowing Congress
to enforce "full faith and credit" across the country, so that each
state respects the "public acts, records, and judicial 
proceedings" of
every other state (Article IV).

The benefit of the Thune/Vitter legislation is that -- unlike other,
competing measures -- it would protect the right of any U.S. citizen to
carry out of state (regardless of whether he possesses a permit), as
long as he is authorized to carry in his home state.  This is important
because of states like Vermont and Alaska, where residents can carry
concealed without prior approval or permission from the state... in
other words, without a permit!

ACTION:  Please urge your Senators to vote YES on the Thune/Vitter
concealed carry reciprocity amendment that will be offered to the
Department of Defense authorization bill and NO on any modifying
amendments.  This vote could come as early as Monday, so please act on
this right away!

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the
pre-written e-mail message below.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

Please support the Thune/Vitter amendment to the Department of Defense
authorization bill. This amendment will protect the right of citizens to
carry firearms outside of their home state without violating the rights
of the other states. Thus, the reciprocity language masterfully protects
the principle of federalism while also promoting Second Amendment
rights.

A person's right to defend himself and his family should not end at the
border of his state.

I urge you to vote for the Thune/Vitter concealed carry amendment and to
oppose any modifying actions that seek to weaken their amendment.

Sincerely,

****************************

Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will
bounce back as undeliverable.

To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to
http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail
address may also be made at that location.

 

Joint Statement On Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Nomination To The United States Supreme Court

July 17, 2009

Can you say “holding back again?” Judge Sotomayor should fit right in on the Supreme Court. After all, she, like so many others appears to be a master of deception…
WAYNE LAPIERRE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION

AND

CHRIS W. COX, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION – INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION
Other than declaring war, neither house of Congress has a more solemn responsibility than the Senate’s role in confirming justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Americans have been watching to see whether this nominee – if confirmed – would respect the Second Amendment or side with those who have declared war on the rights of America’s 80 million gun owners.

From the outset, the National Rifle Association has respected the confirmation process and hoped for mainstream answers to bedrock questions.  Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor’s judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

It is only by ignoring history that any judge can say that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states. The one part of the Bill of Rights that Congress clearly intended to apply to all Americans in passing the Fourteenth Amendment was the Second Amendment.  History and congressional debate are clear on this point.

Yet Judge Sotomayor seems to believe that the Second Amendment is limited only to the residents of federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. and does not protect all Americans living in every corner of this nation.  In her Maloney opinion and during the confirmation hearings, she deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view.

In last year’s historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual’s right to own firearms and recognizes the inherent right of self-defense.  In addition, the Court required lower courts to apply the Twentieth Century cases it has used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights to the States.  Yet in her Maloney opinion, Judge Sotomayor dismissed that requirement, mistakenly relying instead on Nineteenth Century jurisprudence to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.

This nation was founded on a set of fundamental freedoms. Our Constitution does not give us those freedoms – it guarantees and protects them. The right to defend ourselves and our loved ones is one of those. The individual right to keep and bear arms is another. These truths are what define us as Americans. Yet, Judge Sotomayor takes an opposite view, contrary to the views of our Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of the American people.

We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land. Therefore, the National Rifle Association of America opposes the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Time to put the heat on your Senators as Sotomayor hearings begin.‏

July 13, 2009
Should We be Surprised by Sotomayor's Radical Views?
-- Time to put the heat on your Senators as hearings begin

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

"I will be talking [to Judge Sotomayor] about the question of 
foreign law and the question of [her] commitment to the Second 
Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms....  President Obama, who 
nominated Judge Sotomayor, has a rather limited view of what the Second 
Amendment guarantees." -- Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), June 2009

Monday, July 13, 2009

Today, the U.S. Senate commences hearings on Justice Sonia Sotomayor, 
who was nominated by President Obama to replace the retiring Judge 
David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court.

In many ways, Sotomayor's views are out-of-step with our American 
heritage and with the views of Americans in general.  For example, 
Sotomayor believes that our fundamental law is constantly evolving and 
that rights are constantly changing with the times.

But should we be surprised?  The President who nominated her holds some 
of the most radical views ever held by a resident of the White House.  
His take on the Constitution -- and the Second Amendment in particular 
-- has stationed him to the far left on the political spectrum.

Consider just a small snapshot of his record over the years:

* As President, Obama has nationalized much of the car and banking 
industry and is now looking to do the same with health care.  Even the 
Marxist President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, joked on live television 
last month that he and Fidel Castro need to be careful or else "we 
are going to end up to [Obama's] right."

* As a U.S. Senator, Obama was ranked by the National Journal in 2007 
as the most liberal legislator in that chamber.  Realize that such a 
ranking put Obama to the left of 99 other Senators -- including an 
open, self-avowed socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

* Like many socialists, Obama has supported some of the most extreme 
positions on gun control:  supporting a ban on handguns, opposing the 
repeal of the draconian DC gun ban, opposing the right of self-defense 
for residents in the Chicago suburbs, and much more.

Obama's brand of far-left politics sees the Constitution as moldable as 
a ball of wax.  In a 2001 interview, he criticized earlier Supreme 
Courts for "never ventur[ing] into the issues of redistribution of 
wealth....  It didn't break free from the essential constraints that 
were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution."

Sotomayor appears to have the same view of our highest document, as she 
stated in 1996 that law is not "static and predictable," but 
"constantly overhaul[ed] and adapt[ed] [by lawyers and courts] to 
the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political 
conditions."

ACTION:  Please urge your two Senators to vote AGAINST the Sotomayor 
nomination.  Tell them to cast a pro-gun vote on EVERY vote related to 
Judge Sonia Sotomayor (whether it's a vote on sustaining a filibuster 
or a vote on final passage).

Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your legislators the 
pre-written e-mail message below.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

Judge Sonia Sotomayor's views are out-of-step with our American 
heritage and with the views of Americans in general.  Not surprisingly, 
the Rasmussen polling firm reported on July 1 that more Americans 
oppose her nomination than support her.

Sotomayor believes that our fundamental law is constantly evolving and 
that rights are constantly changing with the times.  But a majority of 
Americans disagree.  Multiple polls have found that almost 
three-fourths of all Americans believe that the Second Amendment of the 
U.S. Constitution protects the rights of "individuals" to own 
guns.  Not so for Judge Sotomayor:

* She ruled in United States v. Sanchez-Villar (2004) that "the 
right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

* And earlier this year, Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel 
which ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does not 
apply to the states.  This makes her more liberal than the Ninth 
Circuit, which stated in the Nordyke case in April that the Second 
Amendment does apply to the states.

Please cast a pro-gun vote on EVERY vote related to Judge Sonia 
Sotomayor (whether it's a vote on sustaining a filibuster or a vote on 
final passage).

I would like to hear back from you on this.  Although rest assured, Gun 
Owners of America will keep me up to date on any further developments.

Sincerely,
---

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: A wake up call?

July 12, 2009

For several years I have posted on various forums, and blogs about the domestic violence law, and the abuse of that law. We were first informed of just how evil all men are, and were by Patricia Schroeder from Colorado. Men were / are Al Bundy’s at best and at worst, well, what ever could be dreamed up.

Then, as always, there have to be Supermen! They had to please, and be praised no matter the cost of dignity and honor. The two most famous have to be Frank Lautenberg, and Charles Schumer. Both men of power, and as ruthless in their search for praise and recognition as any gunfighter in a fiction movie about the “wild west.” Both men have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Yet, Lautenberg sneaked through a law that bans people from exercising rights that are defined as unalienable for less than felonious acts, and Schumer keeps blocking the funding so that rights could be restored. That’s bad enough, but the original act of treason, by Lautenberg, was to implement ex post facto law. For those that don’t know what that means, the short version is changing the rules after the game is played.

Here’s one example of how this has played out that I have personal knowledge of. Around 1957, at Von’s Market in Oceanside California, my stepfather and mother got into an argument. No hitting or anything, just some pretty loud yelling about whether they were going to buy Olympia beer, or Lucky Lager… A policeman happened to be in the store, and cited them both for disturbing the peace. Not really a big deal? Well, they both paid a ten dollar fine, and? Other than the Marine Corps dishing out a punitive tour at Adak, Alaska, all was well. Or so we thought…

Comes the year 2002, and mom wanted to go bird shooting with the grand-kids and some friends. She goes to the local store, and buys a shotgun, a regular old used Remington 870. But? The sale gets blocked. Based upon domestic violence (that wasn’t) from 1957! Years before the law was enacted! That friends, is how the domestic violence ban works. It is immoral, and goes beyond the Constitution all the way back to the Magna Carta, and The Rights of Englishmen. Remember those? Those little things that led to the “shot that was heard around the world?”

Now folks, I’m just a dumb old retired Paramedic but even I was able to see just how these laws were applied in a sexist manner. Not to mention in an un-Constitutional manner on a day to day basis. Now it seems that after all these years a few other folks have figured out what I have been talking my head off about for years.

$4 billion abuse industry rooted in deceptions and lies

By Carey Roberts
web posted July 6, 2009

Erin Pizzey is a genial woman with snow-white hair, cherubic cheeks, and an easy smile. It wasn’t always that way. The daughter of an English diplomat, she founded the world’s first shelter for battered women in 1971. To her surprise, she discovered that most of the women in her shelter were as violent as the men they had left.

When Pizzey wrote a book revealing this sordid truth, she encountered a firestorm of protest. “Abusive telephone calls to my home, death threats, and bomb scares, became a way of living for me and for my family. Finally, the bomb squad asked me to have all my mail delivered to their head quarters,” she would later reveal.

According a recent report, the domestic violence industry continues to engage in information control tactics, spewing a dizzying series of half-truths, white lies, and outright  prevarications. The report, “Fifty Domestic Violence Myths,” is published by RADAR, Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting: http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-50-DV-Myths.pdf

How often have you heard the mantra-like claim, “domestic violence is all about power and control”? That’s code for the feminist dogma that domestic violence is rooted in men’s insatiable need to dominate and oppress the women in their lives.

And the obvious solution to partner abuse? Eliminate the patriarchy!

I know it all sounds far-fetched, but that’s what the gender ideologues who get their funding from the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) believe. And no surprise these programs have been an abject failure. As Dr. Angela Parmley of the Department of Justice once admitted, “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.”

Once you blame the whole problem of partner abuse on patriarchal dominance, the women who proudly call themselves the “VAWA Mafia” find themselves compelled to dress up the fable with a series of corollary myths.

Here are some examples: When a woman attacks her boyfriend, claim she was only acting in self-defense. Shrug off her assault with the “He had it coming” line. Aver her short stature prevents her from ever hurting her man. Or assert she grew up in an abusive household, as if that somehow lets her off the hook.

Above all, the ideologues will never admit that partner violence is more common among lesbians than heterosexual couples. Just consider the case of Jessica Kalish, the 56-year-old Florida woman who was stabbed 222 times last October with a Phillips screwdriver wielded by ex-girlfriend Carol Anne Burger. But no one dared call it “domestic violence.”

Once you begin to play tricks with the truth, you need to invent ever grander prevarications.  So sit back and get ready for a good chuckle, because there’s not a shred of truth to any of these claims regularly put forth by the domestic abuse industry:

1. A marriage license is a hitting license. (Truth is, an intact marriage is the safest place for men and women alike.)

2. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women. (The leading causes of female injury are unintentional falls, motor vehicle accidents, and over-exertion. Domestic violence is not even on the list.)

3. The March of Dimes reports that battering is the leading cause of birth defects. (The March of Dimes has never done such a study.)

4. Women never make false allegations of domestic violence. (That’s the biggest whopper  of all.)

5. Super Bowl Sunday is the biggest day of the year for violence against women. (Will the abuse industry never tire of its demagoguery?)

These are just five of the 50 domestic violence myths documented in the RADAR report.  As former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once deadpanned, “You’re entitled to your own opinions; you’re not entitled to your own facts.” Hopefully the $4 billion partner abuse industry will begin to pay attention. ESR

Carey Roberts is a Staff Writer for The New Media Alliance. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

SOURCE

Firearms Legislation In The 111th Congress

July 12, 2009

Seems like there is an awful lot of misinformation going around the Internet lately concerning new gun laws that are, or are not on the table. This is a synopsis as of today from Gun Owners of America.

Firearms Legislation In The 111th Congress

Gun Owners of America Analysis of Current Gun Bills


House:H.R. 17 (Bartlett): This bill would reaffirm the right to use firearms for self-defense and for defense of one’s home and family.

H.R. 45 (Rush):  This bill would require a license for handguns and semiautomatics, including those currently possessed.  The applicant must be thumbprinted and sign a certification that, effectively, the firearm will not be kept in a place where it would be available for the defense of the gun owner’s family.  The applicant must also make available ALL of his psychiatric records, pass an exam, and pay a fee of up to $25.  The license may be renewed after five years and may be revoked.  Private sales would be outlawed, and reports to the attorney general of all transactions would be required, even when, as the bill allows, the AG determines that a state licensing system is sufficiently draconian to substitute for the federal license.  With virtually no exceptions, ALL firearms transactions (involving semiautos, handguns, long guns, etc.) would be subject to a Brady check.  In addition, the bill would make it unlawful in nearly all cases to keep any loaded firearm for self-defense.  A variety of “crimes by omission” (such as failure to report certain things) would be created.  Criminal penalties of up to ten years and almost unlimited regulatory and inspection authority would be established.

H.R. 197 (Stearns):  This bill would establish national standards for concealed carry reciprocity, but would not protect residents of pro-gun states like Vermont and Alaska which do not require paper permits.

H.R. 256 (Jackson-Lee):  This bill would, among other things, impose a ten-year prison sentence (a life sentence if death or kidnapping results) for using a firearm to cause bodily injury on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.

H.R. 257 (Jackson Lee):  This bill would take the already Byzantine restrictions on teaching your kids the responsible use of firearms and extend them from handguns to semi-autos; increase the age of applicability from 18 to 21; and increase potential penalties to up to 10 years in prison.

In addition, the bill prohibits unaccompanied minors from gun shows, and subjects parents to up to 3 years in prison for keeping an unloaded gun (with ammunition in the vicinity) if a jury finds that they disregarded a risk, that a kid (including a burglar) would get a hold of the gun and the unauthorized user causes injury.  This provision effectively eliminates having guns available for self defense.

H.R. 265 (Jackson-Lee):  This bill is intended to remove the disparity between sentencing for crack cocaine (perceived as a drug used more frequently by blacks) and powder cocaine (perceived as a drug used more frequently by whites).  The bill is, among other things, intended to relieve sentencing on the basis of the fact that crack cocaine was the drug involved, but increase sentencing on the basis of the fact that a weapon was “brandished.”

H.R. 442 (Rehberg):  This bill would provide amnesty for a veteran who acquired a “souvenir” (such as a machine gun) while serving overseas, so long as it is registered during a 90-day grace period.

H.R. 455 (Welch):  This bill would add the Missiquoi and Trout Rivers in Vermont to the Wild and Scenic Rivers system, and commission a study on, among other things, the possession of weapons on lands adjacent to the area.

H.R. 495 (Rodriguez, Teague, Engel, Reyes): This bill would authorize $15,000,000 for two years to the BATFE for the purpose of enhancing its project to thwart the transportation of firearms across the Mexican border.

H.R. 510 (Kind et al.):  This bill would provide that the manufacturer’s excise tax on recreational equipment be paid quarterly.

H.R. 623 (Reyes):  This bill would suspend minimum sentencing requirements in the case of a person who was authorized to carry a firearm in connection with his employment and committed the crime during and in relation to his employment.  (See, also, H.R. 834 and H.R. 866.)

H.R. 642 (Flake):  This bill would provide that, except for overriding reasons such as national security or safety, public lands should be open to recreational shooting.  It would generally require that withdrawal of lands from recreational shooting be offset, and would require congressional committees to be notified in writing before such a withdrawal.

H.R. 673 (Filner, McHugh):  This bill would make changes in the federal employee retirement system with respect to certain law enforcement personnel.

H.R. 675 (Filner):  This bill would provide police, criminal investigators, and game law enforcement personnel in the Department of Defense with the authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.

H.R. 808:  This bill would create a Department of Peace, which would be tasked with, among other things, analyzing policies with respect to “tools of violence, including handguns.”

H.R. 834 (Poe):  This bill would suspend minimum sentencing requirements in the case of a person who was authorized to carry a firearm in connection with his employment and committed the crime during and in relation to his employment.  (See, also, H.R. 623 and H.R. 866.)

H.R. 866 (Brady et al.):  This bill would suspend minimum sentencing requirements in the case of a person who was authorized to carry a firearm in connection with his employment and committed the crime during and in relation to his employment.  (See, also, H.R. 623 and H.R. 834.)

H.R. 1022 (Schiff and Bono Mack):  This is the 111th Congress’ incarnation of the “gang bill.”  It would, among other things, define a “criminal street gang” to include an informal group of five or more people (such as a family or business), each of whom has committed one or more “gang crimes” (such driving by a school with a gun in the car under 18 U.S.C. 922(q)), including a violent felony (such as defending your family against a criminal under circumstances in which a prosecutor feels you should have retreated).

H.R. 1048 (Sires, Hare, Wilson, Frank, Meek):  This bill would prohibit the HUD secretary from accepting any fees for enforcing any provision of a dwelling lease agreement that requires registration of firearms or prohibits their possession for sport or self-defense.

H.R. 1074 (Scalise): This bill would allow for the interstate sale of firearms, provided that the laws of the State in which the transfer is conducted and the State of residence of the transferee are complied with, in addition to federal law.

H.R. 1448 (Rodriguez et al.):  Like H.R. 495, this bill would authorize $15,000,000 a year to send BATF agents to the Mexican border and to Mexico in connection with “Project Gunrunner.”  In addition, it would provide $9,500,000 a year to do things like trace firearms recovered in Mexico, presumably for the purpose of building a case for anti-gun legislation in the U.S.  It also contains $150,000,000 a year for other border security operations and $15,000,000 for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

H.R. 1620 (Boozman):  This “Vermont-friendly” bill would authorize a person who can lawfully carry concealed in his state of residence — or has a concealed carry permit from any state — to carry a concealed firearm in all states.  Unlike some reciprocity bills, it allows non-permit states like Vermont to benefit from its provisions and does not set “national standards” for carrying firearms.

H.R. 1684 (Hastings):  This bill would codify the Bush Administration’s regulations concerning guns in National Parks.

H.R. 1913 (Conyers, Frank): This is the controversial House-passed Hate Crimes bill.  It would impose a 10-year prison sentence for a simple “attempt” to cause bodily injury if a firearm was involved.

H.R. 2159 (King of New York, Rangel, McCarthy, et al.): This bill would allow Eric Holder to declare any person a “prohibited person” (revoke licenses of, etc.) if he “suspects” that individual of aiding terrorism. Given recent disclosures that the government regards pro-lifers, pro-gun advocates, veterans, and other conservatives as potential terrorists, this has to be regarded with some alarm. This is particularly true because Holder is specifically authorized by the bill to withhold information concerning the basis for putting conservatives on his “enemies list.”

H.R. 2296 (King, Space): This is a reincarnation of a bill which contains a hodge-podge of relatively minor good things — and one really bad thing which was used to secure the cosponsorship of the Judiciary Committee Chairman on the Senate version of the bill.  The bad thing is that the bill would allow BATFE to impose, for the first time, civil penalties on federal firearms licensees. Civil penalties could easily put a small licensee out of business, but can be imposed without the burden of proof, disclosure requirements, and other protections accorded criminal defendants. And, although proponents argue that civil penalties will allow BATFE to impose penalties short of license revocation, there is no requirement that license revocations be reduced commensurately. While GOA has pushed other provisions in the bill tightening state-of-mind requirements and gun definitions, these are not enough to offset giving the BATFE a tool which has served as the central engine for expanding the power and jurisdiction of other agencies (like the SEC).

H.R. 2324 (Castle, McCarthy, et al.):  This bill is a reincarnation of the year-after-year effort to effectively ban gun shows by allowing them to be regulated and inspected to an unlimited extent.  In addition, any gun show sponsor would be subject to up to two years in prison if he failed to notify every single attendee of his responsibilities under the Brady Law.

H.R. 2401 (McCarthy): This bill is a reincarnation of legislation to make “prohibited persons” of everyone on an administration “terrorist watch list.”  Suffice it to say that:

  • there are virtually no guidelines to who can or can’t be placed on one of these lists, and they have prohibited boarding by people like Ted Kennedy;
  • it is impossible to find out why you are on the list and very difficult to get your name off.

Senate:

S. 160:  This is the Senate-passed bill to grant a voting representative for the District of Columbia in the House.  As a result of an amendment added on the Senate floor by Senator John Ensign, it would repeal the gun registration and microstamping provisions of D.C. law, and would bar the District from passing new anti-gun statutes.

S. 296 (Chambliss, Cornyn, Coburn, Isakson):  This bill would replace the federal income tax with a national sales tax.  Although the language is a little muddy, it appears that the 1934 National Firearms Act is retained.

S. 325 (Cochran):  The bill would allow pest control pyrotechnics to be exempted from the explosives provisions of Title 18.

S. 371 (Thune, Vitter):  This “Vermont-friendly” bill would authorize a person who can lawfully carry concealed in his state of residence — or has a concealed carry permit from any state — to carry a concealed firearm in all states.  Unlike some reciprocity bills, it allows non-permit states like Vermont to benefit from its provisions and does not set “national standards” for carrying firearms.

S. 556 (Vitter):  Current law allows long guns to be purchased in a face-to-face transaction with a gun dealer in a state outside the purchaser’s state of residence.  This bill:

* extends that law to all firearms;

* allows the gun to be purchased at a gun show; and

* rescinds provisions that allow the state of residence to reach into another state and prohibit a transaction which has nothing to do with its jurisdiction.

S. 632 (Baucus et al.):  This bill would provide that the manufacturer’s excise tax on recreational equipment be paid quarterly.

S. 669 (Burr):  This bill would protect veterans by first requiring a finding by a judge or magistrate that an individual is mentally incompetent before his guns are taken away under laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.  This would replace the current method, which has resulted in the disarmament of more than 100,000 veterans by government psychiatrists, who have issued opinions claiming that PTSD symptoms require a returning veteran to get help to manage his financial affairs.

S. 816 (Crapo):  This bill would codify the Bush Administration’s regulations concerning guns in National Parks.

S. 845 (Thune, Vitter):  This is the GOA-supported “Vermont-friendly” concealed carry reciprocity bill.

S. 941 (Crapo, Leahy): This is the Senate counterpart to H.R. 2296 and is a reincarnation of a bill which contains a hodge-podge of relatively minor good things — and one really bad thing which was used to secure the cosponsorship of Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy.  The bad thing is that the bill would allow BATFE to impose, for the first time, civil penalties on federal firearms licensees. Civil penalties could easily put a small licensee out of business, but can be imposed without the burden of proof, disclosure requirements, and other protections accorded criminal defendants. And, although proponents argue that civil penalties will allow BATFE to impose penalties short of license revocation, there is no requirement that license revocations be reduced commensurately — and it’s pretty clear (and GOA has in fact been told) that this anti-gun provision was added as an inducement for the support of Leahy and Obama. And, while GOA has pushed other provisions in the bill tightening state-of-mind requirements and gun definitions, these are not enough to offset giving the BATFE a tool which has served as the central engine for expanding the power and jurisdiction of other agencies (like the SEC).

S. 1317 (Lautenberg): This bill would allow the Attorney General to deny the purchase of a firearm pursuant to an Instantcheck (or a permit which would allow a person to by-pass the Instantcheck) if he “suspect[s]” that the person has been engaged in conduct “related to terrorism” and the Attorney General has a “reasonable belief” that the firearm might be used in connection with terrorism. The Attorney General is specifically permitted to withhold any information concerning his “reasonable belief.” Take into consideration, in evaluating the application of this bill, that DHS in 2009 circulated an advisory attempting to link mainline Second Amendment and pro-life groups to “terrorism” — and a number of recent newspaper commentaries have argued that groups like GOA and the NRA are, in some way, responsible for criminal acts recently committed in Pittsburgh and Wichita.

SOURCE

A leash of sorts for thugs?

July 11, 2009

Abuse by one particular government agency is legend. It would appear that finally some real reform might come to the folks that brought you the Ruby Ridge entrapment fiasco, and the American Holocaust known as Waco. During the Clinton era, explosives were added to the bureau’s name in an effort to legitimatize the mission that was at that time under the administration of the Internal Revenue Service. Explosives? As a tax issue?  For some reason arson was also added to the sphere. While those things should come under the wing of the F.B.I. The changes made little if any difference in the day to day practice of Agents. It should be remembered that every single one of the people that work at B.A.T.F.E. have sworn to uphold the Constitution, and that these very same people do their very best to deny people of their unalienable rights. That friends, is treason, defined.

Don’t get me wrong, not all agents are evil people. I have actually known one that was a decent person. One…

SPACE’S ATF REFORM LEGISLATION GAINS SUPPORT OF 100 DEFENDERS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

07/09/09

– Cosponsor List Crosses 100 in This Congress –

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Hailing a major milestone in the effort to protect law-abiding gun dealers from excessive and overzealous actions on the part of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE), Congressman Zack Space (OH-18) today announced that his BATFE reform legislation has gained the support of over 100 Members of Congress. While the size of a cosponsorship list does not guarantee a vote on the bill, gaining 100 bipartisan cosponsors shows widespread support and momentum.

“My colleagues are waking up to the assault on the Second Amendment being perpetrated by a culture within the ATF that rewards agents for denying gun licenses,” Space said. “I applaud their willingness to stand up to protect law-abiding citizens from overzealous federal agents.”

“Every day that goes by without action on this issue is another day of lost liberty. ATF reform cannot wait. Crossing this milestone will only redouble my efforts to show House leadership that we are serious about this bill,” Space continued.

The bipartisan BATFE Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2009, which Space introduced with Rep. Steve King (IA-05), would replace the all-or-nothing rules for punishment with a graduated system, remove promotion guidelines that reward agents for the quantity of arrests and citations, and it would require the BATFE to establish intent behind minor violations. BATFE regulations now are so restrictive that if a person writes “y” instead of “yes” on a gun purchase form, the application is frequently rejected.

This legislation would:
  • Create a system to provide more flexibility in punishing those who are found to have violated gun sales laws.
  • Establish a solid legal requirement for determining the willful violation of the law.
  • Create specific sentencing guidelines for dangerous felons convicted of a gun offense.
  • Set limitations on the availability of electronic gun owner information to protect the privacy of law-abiding citizens.
  • Allow security companies and ammunition manufacturers to purchase machine guns for product testing and international security personnel training.
  • Ease the restriction on the importation of replacement parts for semiautomatic rifles.
  • Direct that a suspension or fine be vacated if a court determines a licensee did not willfully violate the law with attorney’s fees awarded to a cleared defendant.
  • Direct that the number of warnings, amount of fines, or suspensions or revocations shall not be a factor in firing, promoting, or transferring agents.

Although not identical, this legislation is similar to a bill Congressmen Space and Steve King (IA-05) introduced during the 110th Congress.

Congressman Space has represented Ohio’s 18th Congressional District since 2007. He is working to restore integrity to the office and create the conditions to bring new industry and jobs to Ohio.

SOURCE