Topic: Gun Control
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (H.R. 45) A review and critique of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (H.R. 45)by Libertea
(libertarian)
Sunday, January 18, 2009
On January 6th, Congressman Rush (D) of Illinois introduced the Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (H.R. 45). The introduction to this bill states the intent of the legislations is "to provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes." As of the writing of this article, this bill has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. This article reviews the content of the Act and provides commentary on various portions of the act, which violate logic, individual rights, State's rights, and the separation of powers. This article also speaks to some areas of HR 45 that fall within the purview of the Federal government.
Violations of Logic
In a somewhat standard political maneuver, sections of the HR 45 are clearly an emotional appeal to the American people and their representatives. First, statistics regarding the use of firearms in homicides, suicides, and non-fatal violent injuries are pointed out. Second, the stated purpose of the bill is "to protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with the unrecorded sale or transfer of qualifying firearms to criminals . . . to restrict the availability of qualifying firearms to criminals . . . to facilitate the tracing of qualifying firearms used in crime . . ." What the author of the bill fails to point to is the staggering amount of research that suggests that gun control laws do not reduce gun crime and may even be linked to an increase in such crime. The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a non-profit, non-partisan group dedicated to research on public policy. The findings of this group on gun control are clear: Gun control laws are ineffective in reducing violent crime. Two reasons for this ineffectiveness are often cited by gun rights activists. First, crime is committed by criminals who, by definition, are not concerned with adhering to the law when obtaining a firearm. Second, when crime victims are law abiding citizens, they will not have a firearm to be used in self-defense; essentially, leaving the law abiding victim a sitting duck for the gun wielding criminal.
The second assault on the emotions comes with the story of Blair Holt for whom this bill is named. This young man acted with a heroism seldom seen among adults, much less 16-year-old boys and was shot while bodily protecting a classmate from a shooter who had boarded the public bus the students were riding on. This young man should certainly be memorialized for his actions, but not by attaching his name to a piece of legislation that is not likely to reduce gun crime. Again, criminals do not care about the legality of their tools.
Finally, part of the stated purpose of HR 45 is "to facilitate the tracing of qualifying firearms used in crime by Federal and State law enforcement agencies." As stated above, criminals are not likely to be using firearms obtained through legal channels, making this statement somewhat laughable. Second, HR 45 does nothing to protect law abiding citizens from law enforcement agencies invading their privacy using the information gathered under HR 45.
Violations of Individual Rights
HR 45 threatens individual rights, including those protected by the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. In addition, it proposes amendments that remove logical protections that currently exist in the United States Code.
The fourth amendment protects individuals against searches unless there is evidence that such search will find evidence of a crime, in such cases a judge will issue a search warrant. The only exceptions to this are if an individual consents to the search, if there is a crime in progress or about to occur, subsequent to a legitimate arrest, or in extreme conditions where quick action is required to assist an injured person or apprehend a dangerous person. HR 45 clearly violates this amendment by giving the Attorney General the right to "enter any place where firearms or firearm products are manufactured, stored, or held for distribution in commerce and inspect those areas where the products are manufactured, stored, or held".
A CDC training document provides a clear description of the constitutional guidelines for seizing private property:
There are clear constitutional guidelines for seizing private property. If the property is seized and destroyed to protect the public health and safety, then the constitution does not require the government to pay compensation for the property. The owner of the property is entitled to a hearing to determine if the seizure was lawful, but this hearing may be provided after the property has been seized and destroyed. If the seizure was unlawful, the government must pay compensation.
Under HR 45, an individual who owns a firearm prior to the time that HR 45 is enacted has 2 years to become licensed. If that individual were to fail to become licensed, they would face the choice of giving up their private property or becoming a criminal. In my mind, this amounts to the government forcing an individual to dispose of private property and amounts to seizure by proxy. If a law abiding citizen is in possession of a firearm and is not a threat to the public, then such seizure is unconstitutional.
Similarly, HR 45 allows the Attorney General to "prohibit the sale or transfer of any firearm that is found to be transferred or distributed in violation of HR 45, an amendment to HR 45, or a regulation issued under HR 45." So, if an individual legally purchases a firearm and it later comes out that said firearm was at one time in violation of HR 45, then that person is prevented from selling their personal property. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment s protect the right to property and, traditionally, property rights have included the right to transfer property of other individuals. HR 45 interferes with that right by prohibiting an individual from transferring their personal property, in this case a firearm, because it was used for illegal purposes before coming into their possession.
When the Brady Bill was enacted in 1993, it specifically included language prohibiting the creation of a gun registration database. This language was codified into law as part of section 926(a) of title 18, United States Code. The logic behind this language is succinctly described on the Keep and Bear Arms website:
The rationale was that if John Doe were cleared during the background check to purchase a firearm, that was what was important, and the government did not need to keep a list of who owned what. That information would still be recorded in the usual manner in the dealer's records, so it was available if a gun was found at a crime scene, because the manufacturer's serial number would trace it through all levels of sale until it wound up at the dealer's, and upon checking the dealer's records, the individual who purchased the gun could be identified. Thus, the government would have the ability to trace firearms to their owner, yet would not be able to assemble a hit list' of gun owners in general to go after . . .
HR 45 requires the Attorney General to establish and maintain a database of information that includes the name, address, and firearm license number of any individual receiving a firearm. In addition, this database must include the manufacturer, model, serial number, and date of receipt of the firearms received by each individual. As it is so clearly described above, this information is not necessary to trace firearms used in crimes. It is only necessary to create "hit lists" of the individuals who own certain numbers or types of firearms. Perhaps this sound paranoid; unfortunately, it is not. Keep and Bear Arms notes that:
since the [Brady Bill] passed, several states have retroactively banned classes of firearms (without even presenting any evidence to support a need to do so for any public good), and confiscated them based on registration lists. Additionally, the federal government, in blatant defiance of the Brady law's clause requiring immediate erasure of their information once the sale is approved (again, the dealer retains the information, should a legitimate need arise for it at any later date), has been openly admitting that they have created a computerized registry of gun owners.
Violations of State's Rights
The term "State's Rights" refers to those areas that are the right of the individual States to legislate. Essentially, any area not specifically addressed in the Constitution is assumed to be left to the discretion of the states. HR 45 violates these rights in several areas.
HR 45 states that the manufacture, distribution, and importation of firearms is inherently commercial in nature and that this commerce regularly takes place across State boundaries, making it a type of interstate commerce. The bill goes on to say that the impracticality of separating which firearms are destined for interstate commerce and which are destined for intrastate commerce will result in the "incidental regulation of intrastate commerce". I agree that the manufacture, distribution, and importation of firearms (or any other product) is commercial in nature and that this commerce often results in firearms crossing State lines. I believe that the final assertion that it is impossible to separate interstate and intrastate commerce is nothing more than a poorly veiled excuse for violating State's rights. While the same firearm may be involved in an interstate transaction at one time and in an intrastate transaction at another time, this does not mean that it is impossible to separate the two. Anyone transferring ownership of a firearm to another entity is required to know who they are transferring ownership to. As a result, it is actually quite easy to determine whether a transaction is intrastate and subject to State regulation or interstate and subject to Federal regulation.
The bill's author goes on to say that Federal gun control laws are "in the national interest" and "within the role of the Federal Government". First, I have difficulty understanding how it is in the national interest to pass legislation is at best ineffective and at worst detrimental to public safety (see NCPA findings cited above). Second, the claim that it is "within the role of Federal Government" to impose gun control legislation on the States is also inaccurate. In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that there was not a substantial enough link between gun control and interstate commerce to give the Federal government the right to legislate gun control on a national level. Furthermore, the decision also noted that the definition of interstate commerce that the Federal Government was using in this case constituted a "blank check" for Federal legislation in areas historically under state control (see the full text of this decision). Later in the text of HR 45, the author states that State firearm licensing laws will only be valid if they meet or exceed the requirements put forth under HR 45, a clear violation of the Supreme Court ruling described above.
Violations of Separation of Powers
A final class of violation is the violation of the sole right of the Legislative Branch to make laws. In HR 45, there are sections that allow the Attorney General (a member of the Judicial Branch) to determine the topics that will be included on an examination that is required for obtaining a firearms license and to create licensing regulations under HR 45. In addition, HR 45 also prohibits ownership of a firearm without such a license. Thus, HR 45 provides the Attorney General with the power to determine who will and will not be legally permitted to own a firearm, effectively creating legislation in this area.
Violation of Expectations
There is one part of HR 45 that is a reasonable use of government power and I would be remiss if I failed to mention this. In addition to keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, this bill has the purpose of keeping firearms out of the hands of youth and includes sections regarding to the secure storage of firearms where there is the reasonable expectation that a child might be on the premises where the firearm is stored. I grew up in a house where guns were a part of life; however, these guns were stored unloaded and, to this day, I cannot tell you where the ammunition was stored. In an ideal world, all adults would be as wise as my parents without government interference; however, the fact is that many adults are not. I believe that the role of Federal government should be limited to protecting the people. Legislation that requires the secure storage of firearms so that children cannot access them falls well within the boundaries of this protection; however, this bit of reason does not make HR 45 a viable or Constitutional piece of legislation.
While HR 45 may have been conceived with the best of intentions, this legislation is fundamentally flawed on several levels. First, it violates logic by attempting to fix a problem with methods that have been historically ineffective and even counterproductive. Second, it violates individual and State's rights. Third, it violates the separation of powers between the various branches of government.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 1165 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Libertea only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Libertea is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Firearms licensing and registration is a joke as a means of reducing crime and/or criminal access to firearms. Per U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Haynes v. U.S. (390 U.S. 85, 1968) no criminal can be compelled to register their guns, obtain a license, or be legally charged for not having a license or an unregistered gun on 5th amendment grounds. Criminals are 100% exempt from these laws. These laws can only be enforced against the law-abiding citizen.
What do you call a government that recognizes Constitutional rights for criminals, but can not fully grasp the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" for law-abiding citizens?
This is just the first of many restrictions that are going to be imposed by this new administration. This is not the land of the free any longer. Buy up what you can now and move to a country that at least has a nice view.
Posted By: James Thompson
Date: 2009-01-25 11:46:30
This same representative offered up the same legislation in 2007 and it didn't even make it to committee. This one has so far gone one step farther. Hopefully it will die in committee: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45
We do not need nor want this bill to be passed. I do not understand why some people in this country want to take ore rights away. Eventually the only people who will have firearms in this country will be criminals.
It is a proven fact that gun lawssuch as this do NOT work. I ill be contacting my congressmam to het my thoughts be heard on this.
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2009-01-29 12:21:14
I agree with most of your points. However, the Sec. 305 Child Access Prevention is also extremely poorly considered. I will summarize it without changing any words or meaning, and then comment on it.
"[I]t shall be unlawful for any person to keep ... an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm... within any premises ... if an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years uses the firearm and the use of that firearm causes the death of, or serious bodily injury to, that individual or any other person [unless]... at the time the child obtained access, the firearm was secured with a secure gun storage or safety device..." (There were 3 other exceptions that have no bearing either way on my coming argument).
Since you cannot see the future to know if your gun will be used by someone under 18, you are obliged to use a "secure gun storage or safety device." What exactly constitutes a "secure gun storage or safety device?" This is not spelled out, and so can be used after the fact to make a gun owner a criminal if someone else under 18 uses his gun and hurts himself or another person.
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2009-01-30 08:42:45
Why is this marked as Libertarian? Libertarians believe in the constitution as is was intended. This would be a violation of the intention of the 2nd Amendment. Liberals tend to believe in "common sense gun control laws". This definately falls under what a Liberal would consider common sense.
They have been waiting for years for the opportunity to introduce this stuff. Now is their chance. However, if this ever became law, myself and about 50 million other Americans would be criminals. I will be writing my congressman and hoping it never makes it to the house floor.
The analysis of the OP is very well done. I think it is accurate on all counts, very concise and on-point. But i would add one thing for consideration - i don't think this this bill has anything to do with keeping anyone safe at all - it is clearly aimed at eliminating all possible concealed carry by non-law enforcement personnel. The safe-storage clause is the critical element - if it's on your waist, someone could grab it. Safe locked storage is the only possible way to keep that from happening. That is their real agenda - make no mistake.
Definitely, write your US representatives and senators. Let them know how stupid this bill is. Let them know you resent being thought stupid and untrustworthy by shady Illinois politicians. Tell them you could never support an appointee (the US A.G.) making these kind of pronouncements with no possibility of redress or recall power resting with the people. Make sure they know you VOTE. Join the NRA and GOA and encourage your like-minded friends to do so also - if you approve of the 2nd Amendment. Give them the additional political power that your membership conveys, because in the end, political power can only be taken seriously if it translates into VOTES in a politician's mind. An NRA with 7 million members who vote is powerful. But an NRA with 30 million members who vote is much more powerful and can better preserve your RTKBA.
As a police officer now and a member of ther military in the past, I know that liberals will try anything to grab our guns. I will never, repeat NEVER register my weapon or list anyone else that I may sell one to, period. I will fight for my or anyone elses right to keep a weapon though!
This is a clear and open attemp to develope lists and confiscate our guns. Do we want to end up like Great Briton where law abiding citizens are convicted and thrown into prison for protecting themselves and their property with the only means capable of stopping criminals. I think not. Write your congressman and senators.
Some of you need to STOP thinking in absolutes all of the time. Stereotyping and attacking others whom you think are wrong (i.e. liberals), will NOT solve the problem. I am former law enforcement, carry a weapon, have a concealed carry permit and I do NOT consider myself a conservative! OH and I voted for Obama. So sue me. Many of my good friends are "conservatives." One sent me this article. So go ahead and name call if it makes you feel better but you aren't going to win anyone over that way. I know gun control doesn't work and I am a liberal Democrat. You can spout off here, all you want but what are you REALLY doing, to help our country?
It is a hard earned right of all Americans to differ with each other
on every subject. To protest, object, peacefully demonstrate and
assemble. That right was paid in full by the blood of our ancestors,
and our sons and daughters,who have fought to insure that we will
never feel the yoke of bondage. With my gun, I will defend with my
life if necessary your right to differ with me. Do not use your right,
that was bought at the expense of my fore father's willingness to stand and fight for it, to do the very thing they fought against.
At this moment there are entire nations that wish to see us destroyed, simply because we do not believe as they do.
I will not walk like a herded sheep into a concentration camp.
I also, am not a hero. But I am an American. As the saying goes,Freedom has a sweeter taste for those who have fought for it, than the protected will ever know. I will never give up my right to own a gun.
Holy Cow! I get busy off line for a couple of days and look what happens, lol.
Couple of thoughts . . .
1. Karen, I agree with you 100%, we need to stop looking at each other as labels and start working together on the things we agree on.
2. The whole child protection thing was (and continues to be) a huge conundrum for me. On the one hand, I don't want guns in the hands of children who lack the judgement and/or skill to use that weapon. On the other hand, it makes me ill to give over my right to choose how to store my weapons because some idiot can't figure it out by himself. A friend proposed the solution of making the punishment for negligence leading to death or injury as stiff as that for actually causing the death or injury. I am interested to hear folks take on this idea.
3. Thank you all for the comments . . . the good, the bad, and the ugly.
The way they are Sneaking things in bills..hire Tax evaders.. allow Inepts to continue to be in the Banking Committees instead of being in jail...hire Lobbyists..[ractice FEAR BASED POLITICS ala Past dictatorial practices... What else is going on??? Certainly not Change, Transparency, Forward looking policies..since so far they have broken all of the Campiagn Promises.. nad go back to proposing failed measures as done by FDR and Carter...At the rate that the OBLAHBLAH Kamp of inepts is going we might no be accepted in the EU should we try to apply for membership...
Karen-I consider you to be a patriot. Being former law enforcement you placed your life in harms way wether on foreign soil or here. I spent over 20 years in the service myself but by the grace of God I was never called into combat. But the question you ask applies to us all including yourself. What are we doing to stop the loss of our constitutional rights that I swore under oath to defend. To all do not be complacent and hope that the next guy will fight this battle. Act.
Safe storage around kids was not necessary when I was growing up because our parents actually did their jobs as parents! They taught us proper gun handling from a very early age, and it was understood that they'd tan our hides if we handled a gun without permission or with anything other than the utmost respect. My dad kept a loaded gun behind every door, by the bed, in the car, etc, and no kids were stupid enough to mess with them without him there. If someone breaks into your house, they're not going to wait for you to retrieve your gun and ammo from separate locked storage as recommended nowadays. Just remember, an unloaded gun is about as useful as a rock when that burglar is 20' away and closing...
I voted for someone who loves this country and the Constitution.--and he actually reads our Constitution and obeys the Geneva Convention.
His name WAS Obama.
At least we know that this president listens...and isn't a dictator... so he will weigh all sides in decision making. He's smart enough to 'think' and heartfelt enough to FEEL. It's nice to trust ....and have a 'say-so' in the way our government is run. It's a nice change.
When will the government get it, the criminals; a) don't vote, b) could care less with the firearm laws, c) don't purchase firearms legally, and d) never carry valid identification. Spend more time and money on the illegal import and illegal distribution of firearms to those who care less and the gangs, causing the random shootings and killings and invest/assist our Law Enforcement.
The government doesn't want its citizens (or someone born on the land not subject to US jurisdiction) to have guns that propose a threat to them, period. The thing is, one bullet from one gun is a threat to government. Infringement of rights is what government does best. Just another evil empire on its rise to the bottom. As a member of the posterity of We The People circa 1776, no artificial political entity created in the minds of men can ever have jurisdiction over me unless I volunteer it. I can also withdraw my volunteerism at any point I so desire.
This Blair Holt emotionalism is tyrammy. For a nantion that calls itself a Republic, this is just smoke and mirrors. Here's something you might read about republics.
What Is a Republic? - What Constitutes a Republican Form of Government?
A republic is not what you would like to believe that it is when you utter the "Pledge of Allegiance - to the flag of the United States of America, and to the "Republic" for which it stands..." Please understand that China is a true republic - officially known as: "The People's Republic of China".
Is the government of China what you envision when you think of a republic or refer to the United States as a republic and or pledge your allegiance to the Republic of the United States of America?
No? - So then what is a republic and why does the Federal CONstitution guarantee a republican form of government to all of the territories that seek to join and become a State of the Federation of the United States of America?
In order to fully understand the answer to these questions it is necessary to understand who the men were who created the CONstitution - or, more importantly, what had been their individual personal political and social statue under King George.
The men who actually participated in the writing of the original CONstitution were, almost to a man, of the ruling Aristocratic class under King George, and as members of that superior political class they enjoyed an elite Social Status, considerably superior to that of that "enjoyed" by those persons who had been mere Commoners under King George.
It is critically important to understand the significance of this political and social status of these "former" aristocrats under King George because human nature will tend to cause such persons to strive to maintain their former status no matter what the "former" commoners might think or believe in regard to the purported elimination and neutralization of these titles as a result of the "former" commoners having been the moving party in the removal of King George and the British concept of Monarchy from their land.
The point here is that George Washington and his white-wigged aristocratic buddies were NOT going to be inclined to create a government where they would have to give up their superior political and social status and be considered to be no different, politically or socially, than those former subjects of King George who had been (and still were), mere scrub women and stablemen.
There was a problem though, a certain rabble rouser named Thomas Paine had written extensively prior to and during the war of rebellion, against the concept of monarchical government, Paine wrote, quite eloquently, that men did not need to have a king, that they were quite competent to govern themselves without the tyrannical interference in their lives that always accompanied monarchical governments. Without Paine's "heretical" influences, George Washington was assured of being coronated as the first king of the United States; although this country would most probably not have been named the United States of America if Paine had not been present, as it was Paine who had first suggested such a union and who had first referred to it as "The United States of America".
So what does all of this have to do with the word "republic", and republican form of government guaranteed to the states? And what of Benjamin Franklin's words when asked if they had given us a democracy, - "No, we have created a republic, if we can keep it."? Yes, a republic, just like China, if they could keep it.
So what did Franklin mean by his words? Well, I do not have any magical insight into Franklin's inner thoughts but I do have a considerable ability to read and listen between the lines and between the uttered words. This is not all that difficult to do when you put aside your preconceived notions instilled in your mind when you were a small child by teachers in government controlled public schools who were and still are intent on completing the re-establishment of monarchical republican government here in this land of those who have been led to believe they are free while, if they would just look around and be honest, they would have to acknowledge that they were more subjugated and micro-managed that were the commoners under King George, who would have never put up with all this nit-picking control of every aspect of their lives!
Due to Paine's considerable influences the "former" British commoners were convinced that there was to be no aristocratic or commoner delineation in the government created here - so the "former" aristocrats had to be very careful as to how they wrote what they did - so not to tip their hand - in order to set things up for the future gradual establishment of themselves (or their posterity), as the ruling class - at the outset they allowed a government to be formed up under the Articles of Confederation which they knew would not work but would allow the commoners to participate in the creation so that the "former" commoners would be able to believe that the government they had designed would never evolve into any kind of monarchy and, by the time the Articles of Confederation had proven themselves unworkable, the "former" commoners would have gone on with their lives, becoming too busy to be all that bothered or concerned and would allow the "former" aristocrats to work out the minor flaws with minor "tune-ups".
After about eleven years the government under the Articles was floundering so badly that a convention was organized to apply a much needed "tune-up", but the "former" aristocrats had a private agenda - they already had a rough draft of the CONstitution written - and after just a few hours of haggling over amendments to the Articles it was determined that what was really needed was a totally new basic document, with more centralized federal power - where, with very carefully crafted phraseology, they could re-establish a republican form of government - just like the King of England had - and just like exists in modern day China.
In order to discover the true intent it is wise to pay attention to the words actually written rather than what the politicians tell you the words mean - do you really believe that politicians have changed? Get real!!
Start with the Preamble to the CONstitution - the purpose of the Preamble is to set forth the purpose of the CONstitution and to whom it's protections t apply; what are the opening words?
"We the people of the United States..." - Pay attention to the words, "We the people." These words are limiting and exclusionary words - these words do not refer to or include anyone who is not of the class conveniently designating themselves as being Z"We the people of the United States" - then it continues (in relevant part), "... to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity...".
These words, "ourselves and our posterity", are likewise limiting and exclusionary - this is made exceedingly clear with the inclusion of the words "... our posterity..." after "ourselves" - this really serves to make it very clear that these words were intended to be and are indeed, both limiting and exclusionary!
Please take very careful note that not everyone's posterity is protected - just OUR posterity - whose posterity? - why, the posterity of the "former" aristocrats, of course, pay attention to who it was who wrote the words - please note that they did not write the following words, "We the citizens of the United States...in order to secure the blessings of liberty to all citizens and their posterity...", nor did they write, "We the citizens of the states of the Federation...in order to secure the blessings of liberty to the citizens of all the states and all of their posterity "- nor did they write, "We the free men of the land... in order to secure the blessings of liberty to all mankind who should forever come to this land...".
If the purpose of the preamble was not to be limiting and exclusionary then why was there any reason what-so-ever for the words, "We the people" and or "ourselves and our posterity" to be included? Why not this:
"In order to secure the blessings of liberty to all persons, this constitution is hereby ordained and established for the inhabitants of the United States of America".
Not only did the inclusion of the words, "We the people" constitute a limiting and exclusionary application, but this manner of writing is well known by attorneys as being a "term of art" - of which the intentional purpose is to construct an implied definition of the entire phrase or even of just the one word "people"- which was followed through later in the manner in which the proposed thirty amendments were re-written by the same self serving white wigged "former" aristocrats who wrote the CONstitution, when they likewise re-constructed the Bill of Rights to protect the critical rights of the people of the United States, not the "commoners", as is clearly indicated in the second part of the First Amendment where only the people's right to redress is protected; and in the people's right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment and in the Fourth Amendment's requirement that a warrant be secured to search the people; and in the Ninth and Tenth amendment's reservation of unspecified rights to the people (of the United States)! The word "citizen" does not appear anywhere in the so called "Bill of Rights"!
Why is it that here in the twenty-first century (and during the past 200+ years), no one seems to be interested in what the commoners of the Eighteenth Century had to say about the proposed CONstitution? We frequently hear references to the writings known as "The Federalist Papers", written by Hamilton, Madison and Jay, all three "former" aristocrats all three in favor of a stronger central federal government, but almost never do we hear anything about the writings known as "The Anti-Federalist Papers" - why is this? Could it be that those in power do not want us to know that the "former" commoners present when the CONstitution was first presented had totally rejected it? Patrick Henry was heard to say, "I smell a rat", and Henry refused to have anything to do with the proposed CONstitution.
Go to this site http://www.constitution.org/dhbr.htm, and read the content of the thirty proposed amendments written by those men then present who did not like the CONstitution. I encourage you to read these proposed amendments for what I call "their flavor". What was it that these "commoners" were wanting to see added to the CONstitution? If you read carefully you will discern that what they wanted was protections for everyone, not protections limited to just one class. Read how they wrote about the right to own firearms - try to find any suggestion that they wanted any political status limitation on this all important critical right - then take a look at the totally perverted Second Amendment - wherein the only class who has a protected right to keep and bear arms, to have guns, is limited to, you guessed it - the people (of the Preamble).
George Washington and his white wigged "former" aristocrat buddies did not include any commoner protected rights in the original CONstitution because they did not want any such protections for the commoners (Why else" - Do you actually believe for one moment that these "former" aristocrats were not aware of the need and desire for such rights?), and then they did their best to emasculate those rights in what they wrote when they twisted around and diluted the proposals presented to them by the "commoners".
If you think that is seems like the "Founding Fathers" were unfamiliar with the term, "citizen of the United States" all you need to do to correct that error is read the first article of the CONstitution where it provides that in order for a person to be eligible to serve in the House of Representatives the person must be at least 25 years of age and a citizen of the United States for seven years.
Did you catch that? Twenty-five years old and seven years a US citizen? Does this disparity catch your attention - why the twenty- five and seven?
If you recall one of the complaints Thomas Paine included in the Declaration of Independence (that's correct - Paine wrote the Declaration - NOT slaver till he died Jefferson!!), it was that King George would not allow the colonists to make their own rules for naturalization - one of the items included in the CONstitution was that the federal Congress would establish uniform rules for naturalization - do you now grasp the significance of the disparity of the twenty-five years of age and seven years a US citizen?
If a person were born in the United States then would not the person be twenty-five years a citizen when the person was twenty-five years old - so why the CONstitutional disparity of twenty-five years old and seven years a US citizen in order to be eligible to serve in the House of Representatives, unless the clear purpose and intent of this provision was to provide authorization for a naturalized citizen of the United States to serve in the House of Representatives?
I contend that this subtlety written provision was a clear intent on the part of the Framers of the CONstitution to create in the original CONstitution, their intention that there be two political classes in this country in order to design this government to be a REPUBLIC, just like there was then in England and there is now in China; with two political classes - (1), those who make the rules and (2), those who follow the rules.
It is true that there was no clear definition of citizen of the United States until 1868, as then set forth and defined in the Fourteenth Amendment, however the political class, "citizen of the United States" was clearly established and recognized by the Founding Fathers as a distinctly separate political class in the original CONstitution, from that of the people of the United States. It is not unreasonable that those persons of a naturalized political status be of a lesser political status than those persons who are of the posterity of the people of the Preamble. Two political classes are the primary aspect of a republican form of government.
Indeed, "A republic if we can keep it."!
Franklin's concern was that the then prevalent belief of the "former" commoners that they were politically and socially equal to the "former" aristocrats would become so well established that the "former" aristocrats would be unable to later make the republican separation as clear and distinct as the "former" aristocrats wanted it to be and Franklin's concerns were well founded as there was no denying that "lawfully" the "former" commoners were indeed fully entitled to claim the political status of the people of the United States as it was irrefutably clear that as a result of the insurrection ousting King George that the governmental authority formerly based on King George had been totally discarded and that as a result thereof all those persons who were formerly under the dominion of King George were thereafter politically equal; they were all individually Sovereign over their own individual persons with no one or combination thereof having any ability to claim political dominion over any others. The "former" aristocrats could not be expected to be favorably disposed to this "equality".
Over the years the division became more and more indistinct - as a result the "former" aristocrats needed something that would enable the republican division to be made clear - so they concocted the Dred Scott case in 1854 in which the Supreme Court (populated by - you guessed it - "former" aristocrats), ruled in one of the most unambiguous rulings ever written by any court anywhere, that the term "citizen of the United States" and the term, "people of the United States" were synonymous, having exactly the same meaning, with no difference what-so-ever between the two.
The aristocrats "cure" for the intentionally "adverse" ruling in the Dred Scott case was in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments (am I suggesting that Lincoln's unconstitutional and unconscionable war on the Confederate States of America was an inside job, like 9-11, naw, not me), both of these two amendments were written by the exact same Congress perps in 1864 - the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in 1866 and the Fourteenth declared to be in effect in 1868.
The Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude protects every person born on this land who can read, from being declared to be a US citizen, while the Fourteenth Amendment provides the means by which the "former" aristocrats can con all others born on this land who are actually of the posterity of the people of the preamble but who have been dumbed down to believe that US citizen and people of the United States are one and the same, who could properly claim to be of the Sovereign class, into voluntarily claiming to be citizens of the United States; so the posterity of the "former" aristocrats finally got their republic officially delineated in the CONstitution, while those "former" commoners who "smelled a rat" are ignorantly clamoring for a restoration of Franklin's republic - not realizing that they have already got it and when they finally come to a realization thereof, they will be in one of those 800 Department of Homeland Security Relocation centers, still wondering what happened to their wonderful "republic".
So this still leaves the question as to why the CONstitution includes a guarantee to the states that they shall have a republican form of government? Two reasons (1), the white wigged Founders used this "guarantee" to con the all too trusting "former" commoners into believing that a republican form of government was good for them and (2), to let the aristocrats (0r the informed insider posterity thereof), who would most likely be the persons who would be forming up new states to enter the Union, that those forming up those new states would be able to set them up as republics, so that the "former' aristocrats could set themselves up to be the ruling class over all those who they conned into opting into the "commoner" citizen status - whether or not such citizens referred to themselves as State citizens or US citizens is totally irrelevant, as long as they referred to themselves as "citizens", they could be treated as mere commoners by the Posterity of the People of the Preamble, the "former" aristocrat class.
While my service and that of my ancestors has granted uzi the right to free speech, the free time obviously overly available there may be better spent fulfilling a need and the grill position at McD's.Rather than the conspiratorial twisting of "We the People", it was and always has meant 'The People' and that being distinct and separate from 'The State'! All the Founders documents and writings were focused on 'Individual' rights vs. 'The State' (government).And Franklin's words are obvious to me and any freedom loving American. If we (The People) permit politicians (The State) to TAKE away our Republic, We (The People) will get what we then deserve... Commoner status, subservient to The State (politicians) (reads Comrade).Now, WHAT WILL YOU do to aid us (The People) from completely giving up our freedom to The State (politicians/government)??? Will you volunteer for service and replace the corrupted State (politicians?) If not YOU then WHO?uiz, Big Mac please, no onions. Thnx
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2009-02-19 14:42:30
Right on RDG. The fact is we (the people?) expect the governement to govern at the consent of the governed. If this expectation is not met, and enough of us believe this expectation is not met, there will be great unrest in the land.
I don't have a chrystal ball. Yes many Americans would beome criminals should it pass. Look further. The Patriot Act deals w/ "terrorists" w/o giving a definition. HR 45 is only one step from making a gun owner a terrorist. One would have no civil rights!
"Will you volunteer for service and replace the corrupted State (politicians?) If not YOU then WHO?uiz, Big Mac please, no onions. Thnx"
Why would I volunteer into an artificial political entity that was created in the minds of men? I was born without the USA, not within it. The land exists and is tangible. Nature exists and is tangible. Artificial political powers exist that are subject, servant, and slave based and comprise an unnatural allegiance . My political status is that of Individual Personal Sovereignty. I am a living breathing flesh and blood spirit entity that is present on the land. I am not "appearing" into any artificial political jurisdiction.
How can the 39 people who signed the US Constitution make me a party to their covenant or contract? I wasn't living at the time and this was done without my volition. Being born does not make me automatically "appear" into US citizenship. Just because a particular geographical area has been claimed by a political entity, it doesn't make me a party to the transaction and political changes or fallout that may occur. The 14th Amendment is very clear on this.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof (the point is right here to grasp, you can be born but NOT SUBJECT to the jurisdiction of the United States - get it?), are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"We The People" was the political status when "we" kicked out our former sovereign King George III. At that time Individual Personal Sovereignty was laid on the people. Some decided to become US citizens and some DID NOT. I was born Sovereign and have no intention of swearing allegiance to anything that is artificially political!
Section 4.The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. *Nice, huh? Gun control and the undermining of rights is what this clause covers.
The 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude. Paying the national debt without question is involuntary servitude, period. This is one of the requirements of US Citizenship. The US government cannot MAKE me LEGALLY renounce my Sovereign political status and SWEAR allegiance to it! Nor can it extort or through robbery seize payment (in any form). I have diplomatic immunity strictly speaking.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
As for a grill position at "McD's, I personally object to cooked processed food that enables people to take the path of least resistance. A sick decrepit society will only ensue with these eating/lifestyle habits and choices.
I myself am a Raw Vegan living on raw living cells that nature provides me in the form of plants, fruits, and vegetables. Unhealthy people lead to unhealthy profits I say. Why go into business on the premise of unsound, unhealthy practices? Why set up everybody for failure in the end with an ever increasing gray area of personal and corporate "perceived and artificial duty bound" responsibility?
Love your neighbor as yourself, don't grill him to death. And when someone violates your "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights", then you need to step up and take the safety "off" on your uzi (or personal defense instrument of your choice).
While any child protection/gun safety legislation sounds good in theory, it is still infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. Educate yourselves people!!! Using the year 2000 as an example, 1 infant (under 1 year) was accidentally killed by a firearm. Two were killed by dogs. Under age 10, (39) were accidentally killed by firearms, and (9) were killed by dogs. (1170) under age 10 drowned!! Please revise this legislation to outlaw pools, lakes and streams!!! All the above information is available on two government run websites for anyone to access, CDC.org and FBI.gov. Refer to the mortality rate studies on the CDC website and the Uniform Crime Report on the FBI website.
I am totally confused by the actions of these anti-gun freaks, as a legal gun owner and licencee for carry, I wish for once they would leave us alone and let us deal with the problem. However it looks like their agenda is to remove all fire arms from the citizans so it will be easier to take over and relieve us of all rights. To bad they don't believe in the constitution.
Trying to prove a point by dissecting paragraphs to look at a few measly words in them is a fools argument. Give me enough words and I can chop it up into pieces that say we are all to be clowns hopping around on one foot. You must always look at the whole piece, it is fine and sometimes very important to look closer, but you can't forget about the words to the left and right.Our founding fathers were not trying to protect there own power, in fact if you know history it proves 100% the opposite as George Washingtonis on record TWICE turning down power. Once after the war he resigned and went back to his home, next after two terms as president many wanted him to continue on for a third but he would have nothing to do with it. Turning down and giving up current power is not protecting your own power it is protecting the peoples power. The constitution and other founding documents were written to protect the average US citizens writes. Not only were they written to protect us, but were so eloquently written that repeated attempts to reproduce similar constitutions by other countries have failed to measure up.
This is why there are many out there who seek to erode it, for as long as it stands we will be a free people. But the day we let it be rewritten to the point that the original thread no longer holds true we will surely loose our freedom.
While I think there needs to be some form of gun control, this bill is ridiculous. We need to control the guns in the hands of criminals. But somehow, criminals seem to have more rights than do law abiding citizens.
It would be a good idea to have a ballistics imprint made and connected to a serial number for the criminal justice system. However, this bill is just another tax on the citizens and a way to make people inadvertently break the law. It's giving a little more power to the goverment.
I think this is a stupid bill. i have been a gun owner for many years and i think it is down right stupid to make it this hard for the honest man. When you purchase a long gun, the store calls the FBI directly to check your background for approval. You have to go to the Sheriffs dept and get fingerprinted and get a license to get a handgun permit. What is wrong with this system? We are already being checked out before a gun gets placed in our hands. And if this crap gets passed i guess i will never be able to do what i love doing, trading guns with my friends and co-workers like i do. All this is , is another government control. How is this going to make it any harder for a criminal or child to get ahold of a gun. If someone wants a gun bad enough, there is always a way to get it. THIS IS RIDICULOUS.
John McCain, wasn't a proponent of the Geneva Convention? Really? Prisoner of war John McCain? The guy who doesn't believe in waterboarding - even though HAD he been waterboarded instead of wrenched backwards by his arms, he'd have cracked in the first 30 seconds instead of cracking after four years and he'd be able to reach the peanut butter on the top shelf today? THAT John McCain?
Somehow I doubt that John McCain is/was/will be at odds with terms of the Geneva Convention.
Or... did you perhaps have some mistaken notion that the Geneva Convention applies to ununiformed terrorists?
Here, let me glue Daniel Pearl's head back on so I can ask his opinion about extending Geneva Convention rights to terrorists.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law which conflicts with it is unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Every representative, senator and president takes an oath to support the constitution when he or she is sworn in. HR-45 would be a clear cut violation of the second amendment.
Suppose HR 45 passed and we the people refused to comply with it. Who would be the criminals, those of us who stand up for the constitution, or the politicians who broke their oath and passed a law which clearly violates the constitution?
In my opinion the federal government is run by criminals. I cite the TARP bailout as evidence. That bill took $700 billion from the taxpayers and gave it to the crooked bankers who caused our current financial fiasco. There is no constitutional authority for government to do that and under the tenth amendment if the constitution doesn't specifically give the federal government a power then they don't have that power. Every politician who voted for TARP violated his oath of office and participated in the biggest robbery in History. That $700 billion amounts to $2300 for every man, woman and child. Each of us was robbed of that amount by our government. They are all criminals. You may or may not agree with me on that. But in the case of Bobby Rush, that fact is indisputable. He is an ex-felon who was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm. [link edited for length]
You know, it would be a lot more cost and time effective if we were to start, you know, controlling criminals. Lock up violent offenders for life instead of letting them off with plea bargains and technicalities and such. You take some punk thug with holding people up with a gun, throw him in prison for the rest of his life. And bada-bing, the violent crime rate goes down instantaneously.
This Bill sucks. I own and will continue to own guns. I am a firm believer in the right to bear arms. i have been trained in the proper handling of firearms and I own gun permits. I have owned guns for over 50 years and I do not intend to give up my guns now. This is all because of a bunch of idiots in DC who have nothing more to do with their time than dream up this crap.
This bill is probably both the best and worst thing that could possibly happen to firearm owners, hobby rocketeers and boy scouts in America today. If passed, it says, "WE THE PEOPLE are in fact WE THE GOVERNMENT and we can do what the heck we want to you and you have to suck it up".
I don't know about how you think, but I would campaign against Obama and his D cronies until the day I die and that means 24/7. I would contribute my fair share to anyone running against Obama's cronies and so on. All totally within the frame of the law. But, if passed, what does this say about the law? What does it say about common law? What does it say about the constitution of the United States of America? Well, I am pleased to tell you. It throws the whole thing out the window and leads to anarchy, that's what it means.
I don't see this law having a snowball's chance in hell of passing, let alone making it out of committee; it would be political suicide unless the intent is to foster a civil war or the like.
I believe that the American public has made its will know in no uncertain terms in past years and that the empirical data shows that disarming the people has an adverse effect on crime in the nation.
On the other hand.. I AM in favour of gun control (sic). I don't want criminals, lunies and kids to be out running around with concealed handguns and it is that simple. The laws are in place to deal with this but are not strict enough. I say, commit a crime using a firearm and away you go with the keys thrown into the river. Period. That's the kind of gun control we need. The constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms and there was a reason for that when the constitution was framed and that reason still holds. Firstly, the government should be afraid of the People, not the reverse. Secondly, an armed society is a polite society, (who said that?) and that holds true and always has. And lastly, one of the things that makes America strong is the fact that it is, in fact, an armed society with a populace that is not afraid of having and holding firearms.
Gun control? Yes. Make sure that we aren't giving them to kids, felons and druggies and you have me. Start registering owners and you have lost me. I don't even believe that it is right to have to obtain a 'concealed' permit to carry concealed. But that's just me. Once you are confirmed sane and upstanding, that's good enough for me.
As one who has been on the receiving end of two home invasions, one successful by druggies high as kites who stole our pots and pans and left; the other by druggies as high as kites who were taken down on the front porch and hauled ass to jail, I shudder to think of my inability to protect myself with such a law. As one who has also had a whacko still a big old six shooter stuck in his nose because he didn't like the car I was driving (Orlando Florida - home of Disney nontheless!) I can assure you that although that incident turned out well it could have been very different. That man should not have had a gun and I should have had a gun to protect myself when I saw him coming at me. Today, we do not travel to any states that do not recognize my right to carry a concealed firearm and never will again.
Go ahead, pass the bill. It will last all of about a year until the D government is toppled, three and a bit years at most until the President is ousted along with the largest landslide ejection of Democrats from both houses and most piggy postings. Go right ahead. There's no need for everyone to run out and join the NRA and their local gun club although that sure would be a good indicator to these morons.... the fact is that the law(s) would not last all that long with the bad guys out shooting up the town.
Just take a look at Compton, California, now on the top ten list of bad places to be. A sleepy bedroom community of folks who cannot protect themselves these days. And a place where the bad guys know it and flock like pigeons to easy pickings.
The very thought of such a bill, such legislation, is contrary to the very fabric that our society was built upon and is an absolute insult to everyone. Our family has fought in several wars to uphold our constitution. We have paid dearly for it. To even think that these slobs (who have probably never spent a day in the service of their country) would think of removing the rights that my family members paid the supreme sacrifice for maintaining is an absolute and total insult.
My family members served in the armed forces, my family members are INS, Border Patrol, Customs and now Department of Homeland Security. Me and my family members were and are all trained in the storage and proper use of firearms. My family members are all hunters and have been since they were of legal age, we all protect our personal property and families with firearms and we will not give up that right. Train up your children in the way and they will not sway from it. Parents, inform your children and protect our constitutional rights, get involved in your local hunting and gun rights chapter(s). Our first, original, only homeland security comes from our 2nd amendment right. Do not give that up! Just like a thief in the night, you won't even know what is coming until you realize that it is too late...you reach for your protection and all you find is your empty holster while a criminal is crashing through your door or driving a car through your front window with a loaded gun. Write your congressman, senator, representative - Do what it takes to get this bill to fail!
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
