Obama Tries To Move Forward By Backpedaling: By now we all know where presidential nominee Barack Obama stands on the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. But don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! His real record, based on votes taken, political associations, long-standing positions, and his own words, shows that Barack Obama is a very serious threat to our Second Amendment liberties
Archive for the ‘Gun Control’ Category
Obamasia and his ever changing ways
June 29, 2008NRA files lawsuits
June 29, 2008NRA Files Second Amendment Lawsuits In Illinois And California Following Supreme Court Ruling: Following up on yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects a private right to possess firearms that is not limited to militia service, the NRA today filed five lawsuits challenging local gun bans in San Francisco, and in Chicago and several of its suburbs.
I can hear the wailing and moaning of the big government authoritarians all the way here in the rockies!
GOA Hits The Airwaves On Heller Decision
June 29, 2008— Now looks forward to challenging other gun control laws around the
country
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, June 27, 2008
Yesterday was a historic day for the gun rights movement.
For starters, Gun Owners of America is pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court,
in the DC v. Heller opinion, struck down the handgun ban and trigger lock
requirement in the nation’s capital.
As a result, GOA experts have spent the last two days using radio, TV and
print media to explain the Court’s decision and its impact upon the future
of the gun debate in America.
GOA’s amicus brief urged the Court not to use the Heller case as a
springboard to resolve the constitutionality of all of the nation’s firearms
laws. In fact, the GOA brief was the only one making the request not to
rule on automatic weapons and other issues, upholding judicial restraint.
GOA is pleased that the judges heeded our admonition to limit the Court’s
holding to the case before it.
In so doing, the Court’s decision — in dissenting Justice Breyers words —
“threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws
throughout
the United States.”
Notable gun banner, Dianne Feinstein, was equally upset, saying she was
“profoundly disappointed” in the Court decision.
The U.S. Supreme Court also followed GOA’s urging and refused to do any
balancing of governmental powers and individual liberties — it just ruled
the ban was prohibited by the text of the Second Amendment, saying that its
language elevates, above all other interests, the “right of law-abiding,
responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”
However, the Court stated its opinion should “not be taken to cast
doubt” on
at least some prohibited persons’ restrictions, gun free school zones bans
and dealer licensing requirements. This dicta implies that, in the future,
courts might go further than the Constitution permits in upholding some gun
restrictions.
Nevertheless, the Court’s opinion directly conflicts with what anti-rights
advocates — like those in the Brady Campaign — have been saying for years.
So GOA welcomes the opportunity to continue our fight for the people’s right
to keep and bear arms.
GOA is already preparing to wage constitutional challenges to a range of
laws — federal, state and local — that violate the Second Amendment
principles endorsed by the Court in yesterdays majority opinion.
To contribute to these efforts, you can go to
http://www.gunowners.com/dogfund.htm and make a tax deductible contribution
to the Defend Our Guns (DOG) Fund. Contributing to this DOG Fund will allow
our committed and courageous legal team to make Justice Breyer’s fears a
reality.
Gun Owners Foundation wants to lay the groundwork for the next battle in the
Second Amendment war between those of us who love liberty and those who
would allow the government to disarm us as the first step to our own
enslavement.
You contribution to the DOG Fund is tax deductible, and it will go a long
way towards helping us preserve our Second Amendment rights — not only for
ourselves, but for our children as well.
This battle is far from over my friends.
Second Amendment, I was correct it seems!
June 26, 2008This has been a hot button issue for years. Yet, after the last two rulings that came down from the Supreme Court I had serious doubts that they would get this one on the correct side of the fence.
Face it, if you read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, there was no doubt. If you read Blackstone their was no doubt. If you studied “The Rights of Englishmen.” It became blatantly obvious that some things, like the ability to defend oneself effectively, and your neighbor, was not only a God given right, but a duty.
I am reading the full decision and have not yet determined the scope of this ruling.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
One would hope that this ruling will, in fact, and practice, strike down the draconian laws that deprive people in places like Chicago, New York City and elsewhere. The free fire zones that are so abundant across our nation have only resulted in innocent men, women, and children being slaughtered by people that are anything but innocent.
The Second Amendment is there as an individual right. It is not a privilege that is granted by any authority.
5th Amendment, Self-Incrimination, & Gun Registration
June 16, 2008While perusing another blog I commented that the unintended consequences of passing laws are often at odds with the original intent of the law. Well, the blog owner told me that I was full of crap, and to put up, or shut up. Guess what? The comments section is to small, so, for Doug, here is just one set of examples. Enjoy…
by Clayton E. Cramer
A recurring question that we are asked, not only by gun control advocates, but even by a number of gun owners is, “What`s wrong with mandatory gun registration?” Usually by the time we finish telling them about the Supreme Court decision U.S. v. Haynes (1968), they are laughing — and they understand our objection to registration.
In Haynes, a Miles Edward Haynes appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. [1] His argument was ingenious: since he was a convicted felon at the time he was arrested on the shotgun charge, he could not legally possess a firearm.
Haynes further argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun, especially a short-barreled shotgun, was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law. If he did register it, as 26 U.S.C. sec.5841 required, he was incriminating himself; but if he did not register it, the government would punish him for possessing an unregistered firearm — a violation of 26 U.S.C. sec.5851. Consequently, his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination (“No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”) was being violated — he would be punished if he registered it, and punished if he did not register it. While the Court acknowledged that there were circumstances where a person might register such a weapon without having violated the prohibition on illegal possession or transfer, both the prosecution and the Court acknowledged such circumstances were “uncommon.” [2] The Court concluded:
- We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851. [3]
This 8-1 decision (with only Chief Justice Earl Warren dissenting) is, depending on your view of the Fifth Amendment, either a courageous application of the intent of the self-incrimination clause, or evidence that the Supreme Court had engaged in reductio ad absurdum of the Fifth Amendment. Under this ruling, a person illegally possessing a firearm, under either federal or state law, could not be punished for failing to register it. [4]
Consider a law that requires registration of firearms: a convicted felon cannot be convicted for failing to register a gun, because it is illegal under Federal law for a felon to possess a firearm; but a person who can legally own a gun, and fails to register it, can be punished. In short, the person at whom, one presumes, such a registration law is aimed, is the one who cannot be punished, and yet the person at whom such a registration law is not principally aimed (i.e., the law-abiding person) can be punished.
This is especially absurd for the statute under which Haynes was tried — the National Firearms Act of 1934. This law was originally passed during the Depression, when heavily armed desperadoes roamed the nation, robbing banks and engaging in kidnap for ransom. The original intent of the National Firearms Act was to provide a method for locking up ex-cons that the government was unable to convict for breaking any other law. As Attorney General Homer Cummings described the purpose of the law, when testifying before Congress:
- Now, you say that it is easy for criminals to get weapons. I know it, but I want to make it easy to convict them when they have the weapons. That is the point of it. I do not expect criminals to comply with this law; I do not expect the underworld to be going around giving their fingerprints and getting permits to carry these weapons, but I want them to be in a position, when I find such a person, to convict him because he has not complied.
During the same questioning, Cummings expressed his belief that, “I have no fear of the law-abiding citizen getting into trouble.” Rep. Fred Vinson of Kentucky, while agreeing with Cummings` desire to have an additional tool for locking up gangsters, pointed out that many laws that sounded like good ideas when passed, were sometimes found “in the coolness and calmness of retrospect” to be somewhat different in their consequences. [5]
Unfortunately, Rep. Vinson`s concern about law-abiding people running afoul of registration laws, while criminals run free, turned out to be prophetic. The same year as the Haynes decision, the New York City Gun Control Law was challenged in the courts. The statute sought to bring shotguns and rifles under the same sort of licensing restrictions as handguns. Edward Grimm and a number of others filed suit against the City of New York, seeking to overturn the city ordinance. Grimm, et. al., raised a number of objections to the law during the trial, most of which were based on the Second Amendment. After the trial, but before the decision had been completed, the Haynes decision appeared. Grimm`s attorneys pointed out the implications for New York City`s gun registration requirement. The trial court held that the legislative intent of the law was:
- that there existed an evil in the misuse of rifles and shotguns by criminals and persons not qualified to use these weapons and that the ease with which the weapons could be obtained was of concern… [6]
Yet on the subject of the Haynes decision:
- In this court`s reading of the Haynes decision, it is inapposite to the statute under consideration here. The registration requirement in Haynes was “…directed principally at those persons who have obtained possession of a firearm without complying with the Act`s other requirements, and who therefore are immediately threatened by criminal prosecutions… They are unmistakably persons `inherently suspect of criminal activities.`”… The City of New York`s Gun Control Law is not aimed at persons inherently suspect of criminal activities. It is regulatory in nature. Accordingly, Haynes does not stand as authority for plaintiffs` position. [7]
In three pages, the court went from claiming that the registration law was intended to stop “an evil in the misuse of rifles and shotguns by criminals” to admitting that it was “not aimed at persons inherently suspect of criminal activities.”
Nor is Grimm an exceptional case. A number of other judicial decisions have upheld gun registration laws, specifically because they did not apply to criminals, but only to law-abiding citizens. During the turbulent late 1960s, Toledo, Ohio, passed an ordinance that required handgun owners to obtain an identification card. [8] The plaintiffs attacked the law on a number of points, [9] including the issue of self-incrimination. Regarding the Fifth Amendment, the Court of Common Pleas asserted that application for a handgun owner`s identification card (effectively, registration of gun owners) did not make a person “inherently suspect of criminal activities.” (This quotation suggests the judge writing this opinion was aware of the Haynes decision, although not cited.) The court pointed out that unless the plaintiffs had been prohibited persons within the Toledo ordinance, the Fifth Amendment would have provided them no protection. Only criminals were protected from a mandatory registration law — not law-abiding people.
Later that same year, in the Ohio case State v. Schutzler (1969), Gale Leroy Schutzler attempted to quash an indictment for failure to register a submachine gun in accordance with O.R.C. sec.2923.04, which required registration of automatic weapons. [10] At the original trial, Schutzler argued that the registration requirement violated his Fifth Amendment rights, based on Haynes. On appeal, the Court of Common Pleas did not agree with any of Schutzler`s arguments, including his citation of the Fifth Amendment. Where the Haynes decision was based on the fact that Haynes was an ex-felon, and therefore his possession of a sawed-off shotgun was illegal, Schutzler was not breaking the law by possession; his only violation of the law was his failure to register the submachine gun and post a $5000 bond. [11] Had he been an ex-felon, the Haynes decision would have protected him. Because he was not a convicted criminal, he did not receive the benefit of the Fifth Amendment`s protection.
In State v. Hamlin (1986), a case involving an unregistered short-barreled shotgun, the Louisiana Supreme Court refused to apply the Haynes precedent, because the Louisiana statute specifically prohibited the government from using registration information to prosecute convicted felons in possession of a firearm. The Louisiana registration law had been “sanitized” in a manner similar to the 1968 revision to the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. sec.5801, which required that no information obtained from gun registration could be used against a person who could not legally possess a gun — convicted felons could register their machine guns or short-barreled shotguns with complete confidence that they would not be prosecuted for illegal possession. [12]
If mandatory gun registration can`t be used to punish ex-felons in possession of a firearm, what purpose does such a law serve? If mandatory gun registration can only be used to punish people that can legally possess a gun, why bother? Because of the Haynes decision, if we want to punish ex-felons who are caught in possession of a gun, there are only two choices available: We must either skip registration, so that we can severely punish gun possession by those who aren`t allowed to own guns; or use the “sanitized” form of registration law — where the criminal is guaranteed that gun registration can`t hurt him, while the rest of us can be punished for failure to comply (source: Liberty Law).
It sounds paranoid to suggest that gun registration records might be used in the future to confiscate guns — although the second director of Handgun Control, Inc. has stated explicitly that mandatory registration is one of the steps towards prohibition of handgun ownership [13] — but when we examine how the courts have crippled gun registration laws so that felons are effectively exempt, and only law-abiding citizens need to fear such laws, what other explanation can there be for the continuing plea for mandatory gun registration?
Clayton E. Cramer is a software engineer with a telecommunications manufacturer in Northern California. His first book, By The Dim And Flaring Lamps: The Civil War Diary of Samuel McIlvaine, was published in 1990. Rhonda L. Cramer is completing her B.A. in English.
1. Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 88, 88 S.Ct. 722, 725 (1968).
2. Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 96, 88 S.Ct. 722, 730 (1968).
3. Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 100, 88 S.Ct. 722, 732 (1968).
4. Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 98, 88 S.Ct. 722, 730 (1968).
5. National Firearms Act: Hearings Before the Committee on Ways and Means, 73rd Cong., 2nd sess., (Washington, DC, Government Printing Office: 1934), 21-22.
6. Grimm v. City of New York, 56 Misc.2d 525, 289 N.Y.S.2d 358, 361 (1968)
7. Grimm v. City of New York, 56 Misc.2d 525, 289 N.Y.S.2d 358, 364 (1968)
8. Photos v. City of Toledo, 19 Ohio Misc. 147, 250 N.E.2d 916 (Ct.Comm.Pleas 1969).
9. Photos v. City of Toledo, 19 Ohio Misc. 147, 250 N.E.2d 916, 923 (Ct.Comm.Pleas 1969).
10. State v. Schutzler, 249 N.E.2d 549 (Ohio Ct.Comm.Pleas 1969).
11. State v. Schutzler, 249 N.E.2d 549, 552 (Ohio Ct.Comm.Pleas 1969).
12. State v. Hamlin, 497 So.2d 1369, 1372 (La. 1986).
13. Richard Harris, “A Reporter At Large: Handguns”, The New Yorker, July, 26, 1976, 57-58. A fascinating interview, Shields also describes the founder of Handgun Control, Inc., as a “retired CIA official” who was its first director — without pay. For those people who regard the CIA as a secret government with nefarious motives, this will doubtless make them wonder about the origins of Handgun Control`s current policies in support of prohibition of those rifles which are most necessary to restrain domestic tyranny.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=22&issue=006
No one is safe while the Congress is in session…
June 15, 2008So, besides trying to take your money, raise fuel prices, and let invaders into the country without penalty, just what has the Congress been up to? Why, they want to take away your ability to resist their authoritarianism of course! Here is just a partial list of the shenanigans that they have been working on. At your expense!
http://www.gunowners.org
Jan 2008
FIREARMS LEGISLATION IN THE 110th CONGRESS
Analysis by Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585, fax: 321-8408
House Bills
H.R. 73 (Bartlett): This bill would affirm the right of Americans to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves, their families, and their homes.
H.R. 96 (Castle, Shays, Kirk): This bill would require Instantchecks for private transactions at gun shows. If the sponsor “knowingly” fails to notify every attendee of his responsibilities under the Brady Law (new 18 U.S.C. 932(a)(2)(D) and new 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(8)(B)), every board member of the sponsor could be fined $250,000 for every person not notified and sent to prison for five years per violation. And, while the “knowing” requirement is an improvement over earlier versions, it is far from certain that a Brady-Law-pamphlet-distributing guard who intentionally leaves his post during a busy time for a bathroom break would not (1) be interpreted as “knowingly” failing to notify attendees, and (2) be interpreted as violating the law vicariously as an agent of every board member of the sponsoring organization. Obviously, at the hands of an anti-gun administration, this has the potential of permanently putting an end to all gun shows.
H.R. 171 (Lee and 16 others): This bill, which would authorize additional funds for school mental health counselors, makes a finding about the need to reduce the number of weapons in schools. Such a finding would demonize Utah teachers and administrators — who are allowed, by law, to possess firearms in schools — as well as, other heroes (such as Joel Myrick of Pearl, Mississippi) who have used firearms to stop school massacres and, thus, save the lives of students.
H.R. 203 (Rothman): This bill would interfere with the discretion of states by requiring that police seize firearms of persons suspected of domestic violence, based on “probable cause,” even though no court has heard the case. In addition, it allows a court to permanently bar an individual slapped with a “protective order” from possessing a firearm and to order a search of his home, even though, unlike current federal law, the order was an “ex parte” order with respect to which the individual had no notice, no right to be present, no right to be heard, and no right to an attorney.
H.R. 226 (Stearns): This is the NRA-backed reciprocity bill, which would set a “national standard” allowing persons who have obtained concealed carry licenses to be granted reciprocity in other states. Residents of Vermont, which does not require a license for concealed carry, would not be granted relief under this legislation.
H.R. 254 (Jackson-Lee): This bill would amend the hate crimes law — which prohibits using a firearm to cause bodily injury to any person on account of race or religion — to also include sexual orientation.
H.R. 256 (Jackson-Lee): This bill would:
extend current provisions of 18 U.S.C. 922(x) (making it virtually impossible to legally teach your children the safe and responsible use of firearms) by (1) raising the across-the-board age to 21, (2) covering semiautos, and (3) increasing the penalties;
require FFL’s (including small FFL’s) to keep guns in a government-approved storage facility;
require you to lock up all firearms (making them unavailable for self-defense) — or face a three-year prison sentence if a child gets hold of the firearm and causes bodily injury;
prohibit unaccompanied minors at guns shows; and
spend more money on anti-gun “education” programs.
H.R. 297 (McCarthy): This bill provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the states to “provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS] with all records concerning persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, regardless of the elapsed time since the disqualifying event.”
Covered under this bill are records pertaining to the Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban, lists of persons under indictment, mental health records, records relevant to the identification of illegal aliens and other records.
NICS is the system used by the FBI to conduct a background check prior to a firearm sale by a federally licensed gun dealer. Most people are aware that NICS records include a list of convicted felons, but there are many other categories of persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms for which computerized lists may not be available. It is these categories that are targeted by this bill.
For instance, the bill expands upon the unconstitutional Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban [18 USC 922 (g)(9)]. This gun ban, passed as an amendment to a 1996 omnibus spending bill and signed into law by President Clinton, was originally introduced by leading anti-gun Senators Frank Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, and Edward Kennedy.
Under the Lautenberg ban, people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, merely yelling at a family member can no longer own a firearm for self-defense. The Lautenberg gun ban should be repealed, not expanded.
The bill also seeks to computerize records of persons “under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Such persons, though not even convicted of the crime in question, are prohibited from possessing a firearm.
The gun grabbers are seeking to force the states to provide the federal government all of these indictment records, updated quarterly. Given the maxim among those in the legal profession that prosecutors can get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich,” this, too, is a gun prohibition that should be repealed, not expanded.
Mental health records are also covered under the McCarthy bill. This could have a significant impact on American servicemen, especially those returning from combat situations and who seek some type of psychiatric care. Often, veterans who have suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder have been deemed as mentally “incompetent” and are prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4). Records of those instances certainly exist, and, in 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system.
Mental health records can also have a future impact on young people, as this country trends closer to mandatory mental health screening for students. In a 2003 report by a subcommittee of the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the author states that “The problem of emotional disorders in children is large — 20% of all children are affected — and it seems to be growing.” It is unknown how these people will be categorized in the future.
The fact that metal health ‘experts,’ a notoriously anti-gun community, would have a say in who is allowed to possess a firearm is, quite frankly, frightening. Many in the profession would just as soon consider anyone who owns a gun as ‘mentally incompetent.’
Another sobering thought is how computerized data are often mishandled. Consider the disturbing news reports that 25 million Social Security number records of veterans were hacked. The more that our private data gets added into government computers, the more likely we are to have our identity compromised.
Perhaps the provision that would lead to the greatest number of ‘fishing expeditions’ is that related to illegal aliens.
Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill requires all relevant data related to who is in this country illegally. But what records pertaining to illegal aliens from the states would be relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what records are not relevant?
In order to identify illegal aliens, “relevant” records could allow the FBI to demand state tax returns of all citizens, employment records, library records (we’ve already seen how these have been deemed relevant to terrorism investigations), DMV and hospital records — all in the name of making sure that you’re not an illegal.
The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, is one of the most virulent anti-gunners in the entire Congress. Of the 32 cosponsors of the bill in 2006, 31 were GOA “F” rated, one was rated “D.”
H.R. 354 (McCarthy): This bill would spend $965 million a year on trying to figure out why and remedy the fact that schools that ban guns are not safe from “gun violence.”
H.R. 428 (Towns): This bill would require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban realistic toy handguns.
H.R. 623 (Rangel): This bill would allow a “nonviolent offender” to have his record expunged if he has complied with a variety of conditions, including obtaining a GED, performing a year of community service, staying free of substance abuse for a year, and not committing any other state or federal offense in the future. A “nonviolent offense” is one which does not involve “the use of a weapon or violence.”
H.R. 660 (Conyers): This bill would dramatically expand federal funding for law enforcement resources to guard federal and state judges, prosecutors, jurors, and other persons involved in the judicial process — and would expand criminal penalties for certain related offenses, including, for instance, placing a false lien on a judge’s home.
H.R. 861 (Stearns): This is the NRA-backed version of national concealed carry reciprocity. It would set “national standards” for recognition of concealed carry permits, but would provide no relief in cases of states like Vermont that don’t require permits as a condition of concealed carry.
H.R. 880 (Forbes, Wolf, Chabot, Coble, Franks, Gallegly, Goodlatte, Pence, Smith): This bill would subject guns to the same sort of mandatory minimum sentencing currently applied to organized crime. You would be sentenced to at least 10 years in prison if “a formal or informal group or association of 3 or more individuals” (such as your family), in relation to the group (e.g., protecting them), commit two or more “gang crimes,” one of which constitutes a “crime of violence” (which could include brandishing a firearm in order to protect your family from a robber). “Gang crimes” include driving within 1000 feet of a school with a firearm and training your kid how to use a handgun without first writing a letter of permission for him to keep on his person while you are training him. Other anti-gun provisions in this bill are section 109 (making it harder for a person charged with a “firearms offense” — including paperwork violations — to be released), section 114 (upping the mandatory penalties for simply owning a gun if you are convicted of a crime of violence — including trying to defend yourself when state law mandates that you retreat), and section 115 (allowing your kid to be prosecuted as an adult if you train him to use a handgun, but he fails to possess a written letter of permission while you are doing so).
H.R. 1022 (McCarthy): This bill would reauthorize the ban on semi-automatic firearms more or less verbatim. It would change the list of explicitly banned firearms to include:
a much broader list of named firearms which are banned;
a semi-auto rifle with detachable magazine capacity that has any one of the following: folding stock, threaded barrel, pistol grip, forward grip, or barrel shroud (the previous ban requires two of these features);
most semi-autos with fixed magazines with more than 10 rounds;
a semi-auto pistol with detachable magazine capacity that has any one of the following: second pistol grip, threaded barrel, barrel shroud, or detachable magazine capacity outside the pistol grip (the previous ban requires two of these features);
a semi-auto shotgun with a revolving cylinder or with folding stock, pistol grip, detachable magazine capacity, or fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds (the previous ban requires two of these features);
many frames, receivers, or conversion kits;
a military- or police-design semi-auto rifle or shotgun not suitable for sporting purposes.
It would also add four additional anti-semi-auto provisions. These would:
expand to semi-autos the provisions in 18 U.S.C. 922(x) making it virtually impossible to legally teach your kid the safe and lawful use of handguns (subjecting you and your kid to a prison sentence, for example, if he does not have a written permission letter from you on his person at the time you are training him);
expand and make statutory an import ban on semi-auto magazines;
require that transfers of semi-autos be through FFL’s; and
prohibit transfer of “any assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device” and require that an FFL transferring a grandfathered “large capacity ammunition feeding device” report to the Attorney General.
H.R. 1096 (Paul): This bill would (1) repeal the Brady law and the Instantcheck system; (2) repeal federal provisions discriminating against firearms which the government determines to have no “sporting purpose,” and (3) repeal the requirement that trigger locks be purchased by anyone purchasing a handgun from a dealer.
H.R. 1141 (Cannon): This bill would grant amnesty to any veteran with a pre-1968 unregistered automatic firearm.
H. R. 1167 (McCarthy): This bill would prevent anyone whose name turns up on one of the government’s secret “no fly” watch lists from possessing a firearm.
H. R. 1168 (McCarthy): This bill would reverse the Supreme Court’s U.S. v. Small decision by prohibiting firearms possession by any person who has been convicted of a felony in a foreign court, including political felonies by Nazi, Communist, and other totalitarian regimes.
H. R. 1399 (Ross, Souder): This bill would repeal the D.C. gun ban.
H. R. 1582 (Schiff, Bono): This bill would treat your family as a “criminal street gang” if you committed two gun-related offenses — including driving 1,000 feet from a school with a gun in your glove compartment.
H. R. 1592 (Conyers, et al.): This bill would reauthorize federal “hate crimes” legislation extending protections to homosexuals and transvestites and providing for a ten year federal prison sentence for anyone who uses a firearm to “attempt” to cause bodily injury.
H.R. 1593: This bill would reauthorize and expand upon transitional programs for reentry of prisoners into society, focusing particularly on drug offenders.
H.R. 1784 (Engel, McCarthy, Kennedy, et al.): This bill would essentially allow the Attorney General to ban most ammunition by defining as “armor-piercing” any ammunition which may be fired by any type of handgun and is “capable of penetrating body armor” — in accordance with tests in which the AG would solely determine the angle, the distance, the firearm, the number of shots, the quality of the body armor, and the number of penetrations required. H.R. 1791 (Gingrey, Paul, McCotter, Musgrave, Sessions, Rogers, Boozman, Jones, Goode): This bill would require BATFE to make videorecordings of firearms and ammunition testing. H.R. 1859 (McCarthy): This bill would reinstate the ban on “large-capacity” magazines. H.R. 1874 (Andrews): This bill would require firearms importers and manufactures to microstamp all firearms (or insure that they are microstamped), and would require ballistics resting of any firearm in the custody of the U.S. that is suspected of having been used in a crime. Such results would have to be computerized. H.R. 1895 (McCarthy): This bill would:
repeal current appropriations language prohibiting the disclosure of firearms trace information — thereby opening the door to new lawsuits against large firearms dealers;
require that all firearms used in crimes go into the trace database;
apply federal racketeering laws to “prohibited persons” violations.
H.R. 1897 (Paul): This bill would prohibit any federal regulation banning the possession or carrying of a firearm based in whole or in part on the fact that the possession or carrying occurs within a national park.
H.R. 2013 (Blackburn, et al.): This bill would make “technical corrections” in the current federal language prohibiting state regulation of toy “look-alike” guns and replicas.
H.R. 2074 (King of New York): This bill would potentially allow the Attorney General to make anyone on a federal “watch list” a “prohibited person” and to withhold information on why they are prohibited from possessing firearms.
H.R. 2093 (Meehan, Shays): This bill, which is almost identical to legislation GOA helped successfully defeat in the Senate as it pertains to GOA, would require reporting of “grassroots lobbying” (i.e., efforts to influence public opinion) by any group that hires a consultant to influence the public (by, e.g., doing radio broadcasts) and which spends an aggregate of over $100,000 a quarter to influence public opinion.
H.R. 2325 (Gohmert et al.): This bill would:
enhance and federalize crimes dealing with attacks against judges, court personnel, and their families;
allow judges and prosecutors to carry guns and insulate them from some types of liability.
H.R. 2424 (Paul): This bill would repeal the 1996 “gun-free school zones” law, which prohibits, in many instances, bringing a gun within 1000 feet of a school.
H.R. 2640 (McCarthy et al.): This bill would dramatically increase the number of personal records on Americans handed over to the FBI Instant check center in West Virginia and would, for the first time, statutorily make a battle-scarred veteran, a troubled school kid, or a senior with Alzheimer’s a “prohibited person” based solely on a diagnosis.
H.R. 2666 (Rush): This bill would require a firearms license for any person possessing a handgun or semi-auto (whether or not subject to the expired semi-auto ban). The license would be issued by the Attorney General, who would require a thumbprint, a certificate that the person has passed an exam, and a certificate that the firearm will be locked up, among other things. The license will have to be renewed after five years, and all information on transfers will have to be submitted to the Attorney General. Private sales of firearms without an Instant check would be outlawed. In addition, the bill provides for firearms lock-up requirements, unlimited inspections of FFL’s, various and sundry additional firearms-related crimes, and, of course, an exemption of police from its requirements.
H.R. 2726 (Forbes, Gohmert, Smith, Chabot, Buchanan, Boozman): This bill would expand, in modest ways, the circumstances under which current law enforcement personnel (e.g., Amtrak police) or retired law enforcement personnel (after 15 years of service, with firearms certification during the past year) are authorized to carry outside their jurisdiction (with the exception of machine guns and silencers).
H.R. 3142 (Reichert): This bill would:
establish civil penalties for FFL’s who engage in both “minor” and “serious” violations of federal gun laws;
dramatically expand penalties for gun offenses — increasing penalties for —
certain repeat “prohibited persons” offenses to twenty years (and a minimum sentence of 15 years in some cases);
“conspiracy” to commit a federal crime from five years to twenty years (unless this exceeds the penalty for actually committing the crime);
certain racketeering, illegal alien, murder-for-hire, and “other felony crimes of violence”;
expand the rebuttable presumption against release of persons (such as PTSD veterans charged with firearms possession) who have been charged with “firearms offenses,” but who have not been convicted of anything;
extend the federal statute of limitations for “violent crime offenses” and terrorism offenses to ten years.
H.R. 3156: This substantial rewrite of many provisions in the federal crime code would, inter alia, include “criminal street gang” language which would treat many minor gun offenses like criminal “racketeering” crimes.
H.R. 3305 (Paul): This bill would prohibit any federal agency from prohibiting a pilot from carrying a firearm in order to protect his craft.
H.R. 3436 (Reyes): This bill would allow courts to act more leniently with respect to firearms offense sentencing in cases of persons who are “authorized to carry” firearms in connection with their jobs.
H.R. 3462 (Lampson): This bill would:
expand penalties for violent crimes committed during drug trafficking crimes;
expand the rebuttable presumption against release of persons (such as PTSD veterans charged with firearms possession) who have been charged with “firearms offenses,” but who have not been convicted of anything;
extend the federal statute of limitations for “violent crime offenses” and terrorism offenses to eight or ten years, respectively.
H.R. 3474 (McNerney): This bill would expand funds (by $10,000,000 a year) for dealing with “gang crimes,” but would not expand substantive law to attack guns in the same way as other gang-related legislation.
H.R. 3547: This bill would include “criminal street gang” language which would treat many minor gun offenses like criminal “racketeering” crimes.
H.R. 3766 (Norton): This bill would authorize up to $100,000,000 a year for “gun buyback” programs.
H.R. 4128: This bill is a comprehensive rewrite of the federal criminal code, comparable to the one that was killed in 1982 by GOA and NRA because of its dramatic expansion of criminal liability for gun owners.
H.R. 4818 (King of New York, Rangel): This bill would:
impose a 20 year prison sentence on the sale of two or more firearms, e.g., to a “prohibited person” (such as a veteran with PTSD);
expand penalties for things like possession of a stolen firearm or a firearm with an obliterated serial number during the commission of a felony;
expand sharing of gun trace information.
H.R. 4900 (King): This bill would do the following:
Section 101: Current subsections 18 U.S.C. 923(e) and (f) allow BATF to revoke FFL’s, after notification and the opportunity for a hearing. Section 101 would create a bifurcated structure:
“non-serious” violations could trigger civil penalties of up to $1,000 ($5,000 per inspection) and a suspension of not more than 30 days;
“serious” violations could trigger $2,500 civil penalties ($15,000 per inspection), up to 90 days suspension, or revocation. “Serious” violations would consist of, inter alia, actions which could result in the acquisition of a firearm by a prohibited person or interfere with a criminal investigation. There would be a five-year statute of limitations, and there would be procedures for contesting penalties (before an administrative law judge in the case of minor penalties and before a court in the case of revocation). These procedures would be relatively pro-defendant — with a bar to bringing a civil charge after an unsuccessful attempt at a criminal prosecution.
Section 102: This section would allow an FFL applicant to supplement his application, in the case of problems, before final denial.
Section 103: One of the big battles in McClure-Volkmer was over “scienter” (state-of-mind) requirements. In particular, there has been a tendency to diminish what is required for an individual to act “knowingly” or “willfully.” This section would define “willfully” to mean “intentionally,” which is about the most culpable state-of-mind requirement in existence.
Section 104: This section would require BATF to establish guidelines for conducting investigations.
Section 105: This section would prohibit purchaser information concerning a non-prohibited person from being shared with any other agency –unless the agency agrees not to share it with anyone but a court, prosecutor, or law enforcement agency.
Section 106: This section would give an FFL with a revoked license 60 days (with the possibility of an extension) to liquidate his inventory.
Section 107: This section would allow more flexibility in permitting an FFL with a revoked license to transfer his business to another FFL without automatically assuming that the violation giving rise to the revocation continues — and with an opportunity for the acquiring FFL to cure any defects.
Section 108: This section would decriminalize a non-material (i.e., minor and irrelevant) “false entry” in FFL records.
Section 109: This section broadens federal supervision of state oversight of explosives.
Sections 201 through 210:
make minor non-controversial corrective changes to federal gun law;
allow testing and security corporations to test machine guns without getting a license;
make the Smith amendment permanent;
eliminate the provision of 18 U.S.C. 922(x) which would allow a parent to be prosecuted because his son possessed a handgun without a written permission slip — even if the parent were physically present;
limit sharing of trace information;
expand the ability to import gun parts; and
limit access to inactive licensee information.
Senate Bills
S. 77 (Schumer): Most importantly, this bill would allow the Attorney General to inspect gun dealers as many times as he wants for any purpose. In addition, the bill tweaks the Firearms Trace System on issues of confidentiality and coordination, and doubles many gun-related prison sentences for a wide variety of offenses.
S. 368 (Biden et al.): This bill would massively expand federal funding for (and hence control of) local law enforcement.
S. 376 (Leahy, Specter, Kyl, Cornyn): This bill would tweak the police concealed carry reciprocity law to, for example, (1) expand its provisions to retired police who had served 10 years (rather than 15), and (2) allow competency certification by “a certified firearms instructor” (as opposed to the state).
S. 378 (Leahy, Specter, Reid, Durbin, Cornyn, Kennedy, Collins, Hatch, Schumer): This bill would dramatically expand federal funding for law enforcement resources to guard federal and state judges, prosecutors, jurors, and other persons involved in the judicial process — and would expand criminal penalties for certain related offenses, including, for instance, placing a false lien on a judge’s home.
S. 388 (Thune, Nelson, Sununu, Inhofe, Coburn, Burr, Martinez, Crapo, Baucus, Cornyn, Dole, Craig, Lott): This is the NRA-backed version of national concealed carry reciprocity. It would set “national standards” for recognition of concealed carry permits, but would provide no relief in cases of states like Vermont that don’t require permits as a condition of concealed carry.
S. 456: Although differing in details, like H.R. 880, this bill would treat firearms offenses like Mafia crimes.
S. 607 (Vitter): This bill would create a 15-year prison for “forcibly… resist[ing]” law enforcement personnel during an emergency with a “weapon.”
S. 1001 (Hutchinson et al.): This bill would repeal the D.C. gun ban.
S. 1237 (Lautenberg): This bill would, at the sole discretion of the Attorney General, make you a “prohibited person” if he “suspects” you of being a terrorist. The Attorney General is specifically authorized to refuse to tell you why he has made you a “prohibited person.”
S. 1316 (Feinstein): This bill would overturn U.S. v. Small and would make persons convicted of felonies in foreign courts — including political offenses and actions not unlawful in the U.S. — a “prohibited person” unless they can affirmatively establish that the conviction violated “fundamental fairness” or that the activity would be legal (and not just a felony) anywhere in the U.S.
S. 1331 (Feinstein, Kennedy, Levin, Menendez, Mikulski, Clinton, Durbin, Boxer, Lautenberg, Schumer, Dodd): This bill would treat a rifle firing a .50 BMG caliber cartridge like a bomb, grenade, or missile for purposes of federal law.
S. 1860: This comprehensive crime bill contains a number of anti-gun provisions, including sections which would:
expand penalties for certain “prohibited persons” offenses;
expand the rebuttable presumption against release of persons (such as PTSD veterans charged with firearms possession) who have been charged with “firearms offenses,” but who have not been convicted of anything;
extend the federal statute of limitations for “violent crime offenses” and terrorism offenses;
include “criminal street gang” language which would treat many minor gun offenses like criminal “racketeering” crimes;
dramatically expand federal abilities to enact civil and criminal forfeiture.
S. 2237: This bill, which would dramatically expand the role of the federal government in going after ordinary street crime, contains, inter alia, “criminal street gang” language which would treat many minor gun offenses like criminal “racketeering” crimes.
Home
Copyright, Contact and Credits
More on McCain
June 15, 2008I have to admire it when well known people come out saying pretty much the same thing that I have been posting about Senator John McCain. The man is a danger to America. Unless that is, you want a balkanization of the United States. Which, is pretty much where we are heading these days, if not toward a full blown revolution.
http://www.gunowners.org
Feb 2008John McCain Is A Liberal Gun Grabber
by
Pastor Chuck Baldwin
As published at NewsWithViewsThe last thing we need is another liberal neocon in the White House. If the Presidency of George W. Bush proved anything, it proved the hazard of electing phony Republican conservatives. At least one is able to clearly see a liberal for what he or she is when they have a “D” behind their name. But put an “R” behind the name and suddenly their liberal, Big-Government, anti-freedom agenda is barely recognized, which makes a liberal Republican much more dangerous than a liberal Democrat.
Let me say it straight out: a John McCain Presidency would be far worse than a Barack Obama Presidency. With a Democrat in the White House, conservatives and Christians suddenly find their principles and are able to offer resistance. Put a Republican in the Oval Office, however, and those same people become blind, deaf, and dumb to most any principle they profess.
Nowhere is McCain’s chicanery and duplicity more jeopardous than in the area of the right to keep and bear arms. On issues relating to the Second Amendment, John McCain is a disaster! For example, the highly respected Gun Owners of America (GOA) rates McCain with a grade of F-. McCain’s failing grade is well deserved.
John McCain sponsored an amendment to S. 1805 on March 2, 2004 that would outlaw the private sale of firearms at gun shows. According to GOA, the provision would effectively eliminate gun shows, because every member of an organization sponsoring a gun show could be imprisoned if the organization fails to notify each and every “person who attends the special firearms event of the requirements [under the Brady Law].”
John McCain also sponsored an Incumbent Protection provision to the so-called “Campaign Finance Reform” bill, which severely curtails the ability of outside groups (such as GOA) to communicate the actions of incumbent politicians to members and supporters prior to an election.
The GOA report of the 106th Congress reveals that out of 15 votes relating to the right to keep and bear arms, Senator John McCain voted favorably only 4 times. Put that into a percentage and McCain’s pro-Second Amendment voting record is a pathetic 27%.
In addition, GOA warns that John McCain supported legislation that would force federal agents to increase efforts in arresting and convicting honest gun owners who may inadvertently violate one of the many federal anti-gun laws, which punish mere technicalities, such as gun possession.
For example, if John McCain’s proposed legislation were to become law, a gun owner who travels with a gun through a school zone or who uses one of the family handguns to go target shooting with a 15-year old could be sent to prison. And a person who uses a gun for self-defense could be sent to prison for a mandatory minimum of five years.
But there is so much more to the McCain madness.
Former California State Senator H.L. “Bill” Richardson wrote this about John McCain, “He’s [McCain’s] proven his dislike for conservatives and would gut us at every opportunity.
“Why do I say that? Because of three decades of experience as a Republican California Senator and a fifty year activist in the conservative movement. I have first hand, in-their-face experience with elitist RINO’s (Republican in Name Only) office holders. They are biblically ignorant, power hungry, status seeking egotists who have no difficulty aiding their liberal Democrat colleagues whenever their arms are politely twisted. The one thing they have in common with liberal Democrats is their dislike for all conservatives, especially those who are Bible-believing. McCain, as president, would stifle the voices of elected Republican leaders and try to legislate the conservative movement out of existence.”
Senator Richardson went on to say that he would in no way vote for John McCain, if indeed McCain is the Republican nominee (which he obviously will be).
I wonder how many gun owners and other professing pro-freedom Americans have already fallen victim to McCain’s phony conservative campaign? Do they not realize that they are giving a rope to the hangman? And that they–conservatives and gun owners–are the ones who McCain will send to the gallows? What is wrong with the American people these days? Have they not been betrayed enough by these phony conservative Republicans?
For example, President George W. Bush recently nominated Michael Sullivan to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Sullivan is one of the nation’s most rabid anti-gunners. GOA’s Larry Pratt describes Sullivan as being “as anti-gun as Ted Kennedy.” Honest gun owners, lawful firearms dealers, and law-abiding gun show operators could have no worse enemy within the federal government than Michael Sullivan. We could expect no worse from Hillary Clinton. And a John McCain Presidency would doubtless give us more of the same.
Regarding the Second Amendment, the American people have no better friend than Ron Paul. He has a 20-year proven track record of fidelity to the right to keep and bear arms. The GOA rates Congressman Paul with a grade of A+. According to GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt, Ron Paul has been a leader in the fight to defend and restore the Second Amendment. He has sponsored legislation to repeal the following: the Brady law; the requirement to lock up your guns; the law permitting the U.S. to be part of the U.N (which, among other attacks on American freedoms, seeks to ban privately transferred firearms); participation in UNESCO; federal prohibitions on any pilot wishing to carry a handgun to and in his cockpit; and the so-called “assault weapons” ban (prior to its sunsetting in 2004).
Ron Paul has also sponsored legislation requiring states to treat the concealed carry permit of one state the same as they do that state’s driver’s license. Dr. Paul also opposes a national ID card, which would be a tool of government to identify gun ownership.
Gun owners (along with conservatives and Christians of all sorts) should be ashamed of themselves for allowing an angry, gun-grabbing liberal such as John McCain to become the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, while rejecting the candidacy of one of America’s most principled pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-Constitution, and pro-freedom legislators of this generation: Congressman Ron Paul.
I say again, the last thing we need is another liberal neocon in the White House. John McCain may have an “R” behind his name, but he is just another establishment liberal: one America cannot afford.
Now, I am anything but a Christian zealot but that Pastor has hit the nail squarely on the head about Senator McCain. Shortly after the Columbine incident the good Senator came here to Colorado, and in the midst of our collective grief said one of the stupidest things that I have ever heard come from any politicians oral orifice. That we needed more gun laws … Idiot! At last count a minimum of eighteen laws were broken by any person that had any connection with the incident. Did, or does he still think that outlaws would have paid any more attention to some abstract new law than they did to the ones that were already in place?
Then we have the good Senators circle of friends and supporters. None other than the notorious George Soros leads the list.
John McCain Funded By Soros Since 2001
Candidate’s Reform Institute Also Accepted Funds From Teresa Kerryby
Jerome R. Corsi
As published at WorldNetDailySubsequently, David Horowitz’s DiscoverTheNetworks.org website and Michelle Malkin’s blog gave renewed attention to the Reform Institute’s funding ties.
The Soros-Kerry funding connection with McCain was first exposed by Ed Morrissey at the Captains Quarters blog in 2005.
As Sen. John McCain assumes the GOP front-runner mantle, his long-standing, but little-noticed association with left-wing donors such as George Soros and Teresa Heinz Kerry is receiving new attention among his Republican critics.
In 2001, McCain founded the Alexandria, Va.-based Reform Institute as a vehicle to receive funding from George Soros’ Open Society Institute and Teresa Heinz Kerry’s Tides Foundation and several other prominent non-profit organizations.
McCain used the institute to promote his political agenda and provide compensation to key campaign operatives between elections.
In 2006, the Arizona senator was forced to sever his formal ties with the Reform Institute after a controversial $200,000 contribution from Cablevision came to light. McCain solicited the donation for the Reform Institute using his membership on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. In a letter to the Federal Communications Commission, he supported Cablevision’s push to introduce the more profitable al la carte pricing, rather than packages of TV programming.
Yet, the Reform Institute still employs the McCain campaign’s Hispanic outreach director, Juan Hernandez, as a senior fellow of its Comprehensive Immigration Reform Initiative.
As WND reported, Hernandez serves as a non-paid volunteer for the McCain campaign. A dual Mexican-U.S. citizen, he was a member of former President Vicente Fox’s cabinet, representing an estimate 24 million Mexicans living abroad. Hernandez, with a “Mexico first” message, has argued aggressively against building a fence on the Mexican border, insisting the frontier needed to remain wide open so illegal immigrants could easily enter the U.S.
The July 6, 2001, homepage of the Reform Institute archived on the Internet lists founder McCain as chairman of the group’s advisory committee.
Prominent senior officials on the McCain 2008 presidential campaign staff found generously paid positions at the Reform Institute following the senator’s unsuccessful run for the White House in 2000.
Rick Davis, McCain’s current campaign manager, was paid $110,000 a year by the Reform Institute for a consulting position, according to the group’s 2003 Form 990 filing with the IRS.
In 2004, Davis advanced to the position of Reform Institute president, with an annual salary of $120,000, according to the group’s 2004 Form 990.
In 2005, Davis remained president, but his salary dropped back to $45,000 a year, with a time commitment of five hours per week, according the 2005 Form 990.
Carla Eudy, a senior advisor on McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign who until recently headed fundraising, was paid $177,885 in 2005 to serve as the Reform Institute’s secretary-treasurer.
Other McCain presidential campaign staffers who have found employment at the Reform Institute include Trevor Potter, McCain’s 2000 legal counsel, and Crystal Benton, the senator’s former press secretary, who served as institute’s communications director in 2005 for an annual salary of $52,083.
The Reform Institute regularly has supported McCain in various legislative efforts, including on campaign finance reform, global warming and “comprehensive immigration reform,” all efforts widely opposed by many in the party’s conservative base.
Arianna Huffington, syndicated columnist and creator of the HuffingtonPost.com, has served on the Reform Institute’s advisory committee since the group’s inception.
According to FrontPage Magazine, Teresa Heinz Kerry has provided more than $4 million to the Tides Foundation, a non-profit organization founded by anti-war activist Drummond Pike in 1976 with a history of funding causes such as abortion, homosexual-rights activism and open borders.
Financial contributors while McCain was chairman of the Reform Institute also have included the Educational Foundation of America, a group that supports abortion and opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.
This, will be a continuing story …
On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama!
June 9, 2008| Friday, June 06, 2008 |
| The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where apparent nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career. ~snip~ http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3991 Follow the link. |
Rogue Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
June 8, 2008Rogue Agency at it yet again! These people need to just go away. As presented in an earlier posting, any legitimate work that they do would better be placed in the hands of the FBI.
Rep. Bill Sali To Government Agency:
“Always Think Freedom”Representative Bill Sali is introducing a bill to send a message to
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
(BATFE) that freedom still means something in this country.As part of its Asset Forfeiture training program for agents, the
BATFE ordered 2,000 Leatherman tools inscribed with the words
“Always Think Forfeiture.” The program urges agents to focus
on seizing private property.Rep Sali believes the agency should be thinking ‘Freedom,’ not
‘Forfeiture.’ The Idaho Republican complained about the program
and recieved a letter from Acting ATF Director Michael Sullivan,
who apologized for the “confusion” over the issue.While Rep. Sali appreciated the apology, he said that, “My
constituents deserve to know the truth about this marketing program,
which has been interpreted by many Idahoans as anti-gun and
anti-private property.”The agency halted distribution of the tools in the face of public
outcry, but “[t]he fact remains that the ATF thought it was OK to
think ‘Always Think Forfeiture’ instead of focusing on
protecting our constitutional rights,” Sali said.In a letter to his fellow Congressmen, Sali noted that “the inscription
raises serious concerns to law-abiding citizens as to the intent of an
ATF agent who is performing investigations, particularly with
respect to law-abiding gun owners.”Rep. Sali plans to introduce the ‘Always Think Freedom’ bill
sometime next week. The bill will prohibit the agency from
making purchases of tool kits “on which any reminder of
forfeiture appears.”Action: Please urge your Representative to become an original
cosponsor of the “Always Think Freedom Act.”You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Rep. the
pre-written e-mail message below.—– Pre-written letter —–
Dear Representative:
I urge you to become an original co-sponsor of Rep. Bill Sali’s
“Always Think Freedom” bill, which will be introduced shortly.As part of its Asset Forfeiture training program for agents, the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
ordered 2,000 Leatherman tools inscribed with the words
“Always Think Forfeiture.” The program urges agents to focus
on seizing private property.The agency, which has been the frequent subject of
congressional inquiry into its heavy-handed law enforcement
tactics, should focus on protecting our Constitutional rights.Rep. Sali’s bill will simply prohibit the agency from making
purchases of tool kits “on which any reminder of forfeiture
appears.”Please support this bill by signing on as an original
cosponsor.Sincerely,
Seems like the folks that brought us Ruby Ridge, and Waco will never learn.
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 