For those of you who haven't read it, H.R.-45 has been introduced into the current House of
Representatives.

Briefly, the preamble justifies the legislation on the basis of federal control of interstate commerce, arguing that as intrastate and interstate traffic in firearms is indistinguishable in the U.S., the legislation is legitimate and justified.

Secondly, the bill would ban not only all sales or transfers of guns without a federal license, but would ban the possession of ANY firarm by ANYONE for ANY purpose without also holding a federal firearms permit to possess it. Naturally, federal troops on duty are more or less expempted while performing their duties.

Hello? Since when are the people who are supposed to work for us, at our pleasure, going to transmute the U.S. into Great Britain? Are we going to PERMIT them to do that?

And you know, if this, or any other piece of (shit) legislation relating to firearms/ammunition control makes it through the legislature, it will be gleefully signed into law by the new socialist leader occupying the White House. Just think how many new jobs in Federal Law Enforcement and the Criminal Justice system could be created. This is only the tip of the proverbial iceburg.

Yes, Craigster, of course you are right.

What really worries me is all the folks who will do nothing to let their Conress people know of their displeasure with this proposed law. They'll think "Oh, that's so extreme it will never go through." But, without protests pressuring Congressmen (and women) to vote against it, it may very well be enacted.

I haven't seen or heard of the proposal myself but, it is rumored that Obama wants a national police force made up of 18 to 25 year olds to do his bidding. These are the ones brought up under the philosophy of "guns are nasty, guns a bad" and will fit his purposes perfectly. I don't know what he will call them seeing that "SS" and "Brown Shirts" have already been taken by "Uncle Adolph" back in the 30's.

quote:

Originally posted by Masterifleman:
I haven't seen or heard of the proposal myself but, it is rumored that Obama wants a national police force made up of 18 to 25 year olds to do his bidding. These are the ones brought up under the philosophy of "guns are nasty, guns a bad" and will fit his purposes perfectly. I don't know what he will call them seeing that "SS" and "Brown Shirts" have already been taken by "Uncle Adolph" back in the 30's.

Click here

Now you need to take a look at HR 625.

http://www.govtrack.us/congres...xt.xpd?bill=h111-645

They want to build the regionalfacilities to accommodate you.

Does the name Bobby Rush - HR45's sponsor - ring a bell? It's the same Bobby Rush that deserted the army and later was imprisoned on weapons charges while the Deputy Minister of Defense for the domestic terrorist Black Panther Party.

Those who can remember will recall that Nixon
tried to set up concentration camps for draft
protestors in closed military camps.
Good luck!

Well now, If a gun ownership "license" replaced all the other crap laws, it wouldn't be so bad....Of course we all know this will be in ADDITION to all the other crap laws.

trust me I am in now way in favor of the law but the original post is not accurate to what the proposed law states,,,

it only relates to handguns and detachable magazine semi auots...

the proposed law defines the above as qualified firearms...

my point is...when we fight this let's fight it with the right arguments and not sound like a bunch of fanatics

What I am really surprisd at is how stuped the basis of the interstate commerce arguement is...

It's quit easy to disctinguish...when buyer and seller are in differnt states its interstate...when buyer and seller are in the same state it's intrastate...but then stuidty and gun laws kinda go together

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
Well now, If a gun ownership "license" replaced all the other crap laws, it wouldn't be so bad....Of course we all know this will be in ADDITION to all the other crap laws.

Exactly

Write to your Congressmen! Let them know how you feel about this law.

We have the same thing up here, mandatory registration for firearms. All firearms, doesn't matter if it's a .22LR rifle or whatever - if it's over 500fps you need to register it. You can't sell a gun without transferring the registration. In actuality it's not horrible, registration is free. We have a tiered Federal licensing system anyways, Unrestricted (hunting guns), Restricted (handguns), and Prohibited (automatic weapons - can't get these anymore).

So life isn't so bad, right? We can still buy hunting rifles/shotguns/muzzleloaders and if we attend and pass a safety course, we can buy handguns too (no concealed carry or anything, however). Still we're way better off than most other places in the world - we can own as many as we want and can buy/sell as we please because registration is free.

The big problem is the costs you don't see. Our Liberal government at the time spent well over 2 billion dollars creating this monstrosity, costs spiraled out of control and the project was way behind deadline and massively over budget. You guys really want Obama and company blowing a few billion dollars of your tax money on that? Shouldn't that money go to bolster your economy? You know how Government works, liberal or conservative - throw money at it until it goes away. This is not something that needs to have your money thrown at it. Making legitimate firearms owners jump through extra hoops to buy/sell guns doesn't keep illegal guns off the streets, and now is not the time to spend money on frivolous gun control measures that are known not to reduce gun crime.

A local radio station was reporting on the run on guns and ammo at gun shows, gun shops, etc. in anticipation of the many new laws likely to be proposed (no private sales, handgun registration, ban on semiautos & high capacity magazines, gun owner licensing & database, serial numbers on ammo, restrictions on how much ammo or guns you can buy or own, etc. etc.). An informal survey noted that about half of those stocking up on guns & ammo voted Democratic. Most, including the Democrats, agreed that the proposals would have little effect on gun violence but were intended as retribution and control of the great unwashed (libertarians, conservatives & Republicans).

I recently wrote a letter to Senator Orrin Hatch, my Senator, regarding my opposition to the nomination of Eric Holder for Attorney General because of his anti second amendment views. Senator Hatch is usually a very strong supporter of all things 2nd amendment, but he just sent me this reply:


Thank you for your letter expressing your concerns about the nomination of Eric Holder to serve as the Attorney General in President Obama's Administration.

I certainly understand your concern regarding this issue. However, please allow me to explain my position with regard to all nominations to positions within the Executive Branch. I believe the most important
criteria for any nominee is there qualifications for the specific post.
If a nominee is objectively qualified for the position, I believe the Senate should defer to the preferences of the President, particularly
with regard to members of his Cabinet. In general, I do not believe that nominees for any position should be held up for purely political
reasons. This is the approach I have taken regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican is in the White House.

Mr. Holder has had a long career of service at the Justice Department and elsewhere. He has come before the Senate for confirmation on two
separate occasions - both times not a single opposing vote was cast. He first served as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and later as the Deputy Attorney General during the last three years of the Clinton dministration. Clearly, by any objective standard, he has
adequate credentials for the position of Attorney General. For these reasons, I intend to support his confirmation.

I share some of the concerns that people have with his record in previous positions and the beliefs he's expressed about certain policy issues. Make no mistake, he and I disagree on some substantive issues and I do believe that, while he served in the Clinton Administration, he made some ill-advised decisions. Indeed, if the power to nominate Cabinet officials were vested in members of the Senate, I likely would
have nominated another candidate. However the power of appointment resides with the President. Therefore, I do not believe it is
appropriate to encourage opposition to an otherwise qualified nominee based solely on differences in opinion or political ideology.

Rest assured that, in my dealings with Mr. Holder, I will hold true to the convictions and beliefs I have stood for my entire career. I will do all I can to ensure that he factors these principles into the decisions he makes as Attorney General. Thank you, once again, for
writing.

Sincerely,

Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senator


So much for a representative form of government!

constitutional crisis by albert mitchell who has his own show current events public access television chico calif
on may 25 1992 the constitution of the united states was supended by then president bush on that day he issued an executive order#10808 that declared a state of national emergency
from that moment on the constitution was shelved
this is the condition that prevails when the country is at war
the president has total power until such time as the war ends and the state of emergency has been rescinded
the president of the u s gave as a reason for issuing the state of national and international emergency the civil conflict that was taking place in what was then yugoslavia
he declared yugoslavia to be a threat to the security of the u s the economy of the u s and a threat to the foreign policy of the u s
before the year was out bush lost the presidency to clinton
when may 1993 came around clinton extended the state of national emergency and has done so each subsequent year his reason was haiti represented a threat to the security the ecomony and the foreign policy of the u s
most americans are totally unaware that they have been living with a constitution that has been suspended
most americans are unaware that the top law of the land is something called fema the federal emergency management agency
under fema the president can rule by executive order there are no restrictions no restraints as to what fema can do
under presidential executive order #11921 the congress cannot alter or review any emergency order for at least six months
fema has the power to seize all commutions radio television newspapers etc
it can order whole populations to relocate without explanations or compensation
it can imprision without charge it can grant immunity to its agents committing crimes no matter how deadly their actions
at the time of this writing fema had constructed 23 civilian detention centers each one of which having the capability to hold 32.000t to 45,000 civilans
documation of the existence of these camps has been made by video camerman operating under the american justice federation of indianapolis
they have made videotapes available to the general public the tapes also depict a map pinpointing the location of the detention sites
fema also has prevailed upon the department of defence to build 20 more civilan detention centers of equal size
the mass media has ignored these developments and theamerican people are largely ignorant of the contents of this article
cnn was the only mainstream media that reported on the issuance of bushs state of emergency in 1992
evidence gathered from congressional records open to the public was collected from the staff of u s representive wally herger

Welcome to the New World Order folks.Read the book"The Planned Destruction of America" by Dr James Wardner 1993-94.The sheople can't be allowed to have guns for them to implement their plans now can they?

btt