Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I will be watching HR 45 very closely. It will be very interesting to see a list of politicians that support this legislation.
Think of this as a Declaration of War on U.S. Citizens".
The scary thing is that there are probably quite a few elected officials that will support this.
GL2"
I do have a feeling that the majority will not. They want to keep their seats, and this is not just a strike into the heart of republicans, because I know many Democrats that are gun owners as well.
Im not sure if any of the last couple posts were in referance to my post, but I am not talking about HR45...... Anyway, to Noahma....How so? Im kinda confused. I want this to go through because I have a CHL, and also am a State Official and when I am not on duty I can not carry a gun visibly. I disagree with that theory. I also am super pro Texas in the manner that Texas NOT follow the crazy ways of the Obama admin. even if they request so.
Im not sure if any of the last couple posts were in referance to my post, but I am not talking about HR45...... Anyway, to Noahma....How so? Im kinda confused. I want this to go through because I have a CHL, and also am a State Official and when I am not on duty I can not carry a gun visibly. I disagree with that theory. I also am super pro Texas in the manner that Texas NOT follow the crazy ways of the Obama admin. even if they request so.
Federal law always takes precedence over state laws in the court of law. Unfortunately if passed it removes the states rights to "regulate" firearms. Thus disallowing CCW and open carry permits, requiring that the federal government knows where every firearm is at ALL times, (see 5-10 year prison sentence if you do not notify the attorney general within 60 days of relocation)
here is a link I posted earlier with a good overview of the bill, I just started reading the bill itself.
Gun Law Update: Gun-Rights Testing Planned | Prescott Arizona News and Events - Read It News Magazine (http://readitnews.com/read-it-views-prescott-opinion/page-9/1624-gun-law-update-gun-rights-testing-planned - broken link)
and more specific to your question is this clause in the act.
"SEC. 601. EFFECT ON STATE LAW.
(a) In General- This Act and the amendments made by this Act may not be construed to preempt any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision of that State, or prevent a State or political subdivision of that State from enacting any provision of law regulating or prohibiting conduct with respect to firearms, except to the extent that the provision of law is inconsistent with any provision of this Act or an amendment made by this Act, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency.
(b) Rule of Interpretation- A provision of State law is not inconsistent with this Act or an amendment made by this Act if the provision imposes a regulation or prohibition of greater scope or a penalty of greater severity than a corresponding prohibition or penalty imposed by this Act or an amendment made by this Act."
Unforyunatly I see a great deal of support for such restrictive legislatio coming forth fro the new president, his cabinet and the new congress. With Pelosi at the helm of the Senate she will be right out front howling for this to pass and will out a great deal of pressure forward to further her ends. Remember how the first AWB went down? . Our senator from NV has gone on record as saying that he will NOT vote the wishes of his constituentcy and there are a lot of others who feel the same way as he. Anything can happen right now and we need to expect the worst.
Unforyunatly I see a great deal of support for such restrictive legislatio coming forth fro the new president, his cabinet and the new congress. With Pelosi at the helm of the Senate she will be right out front howling for this to pass and will out a great deal of pressure forward to further her ends. Remember how the first AWB went down? . Our senator from NV has gone on record as saying that he will NOT vote the wishes of his constituentcy and there are a lot of others who feel the same way as he. Anything can happen right now and we need to expect the worst.
the USA has gone through 1 revolutionary war and 1 civil war already. people should never think that it shall never happen again. trod upon the citizens rights and constitutional rights too much, and the federal goverment might just find out that some states could do well enough without them.
I am not saying that it will happen, but i shall not be suprised if it does happen.
I've just started reading it and right near the beginning, it says:
Quote:
(aa) Firearm Licensing Requirement-
`(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license--
`(A) under title I of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not been invalidated or revoked under that title; or
`(B) pursuant to a State firearm licensing and record of sale system certified under section 602 of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not been invalidated or revoked under State law.
I'm no Constitutional scholar, but it can't be legal for them to require a license to simply own a gun. Could you imagine the outrage if they required a license to speak your mind, practice your chosen religion or be tried by a jury? Constitutional rights are not given by government; we're born with them. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to ensure that the government couldn't interfere with these rights.
I suspect that this bill will go nowhere, and if it does, this clause will be stripped or rewritten. If it actually does manage to pass as-is, there will be challenges filed immediately, it'll be deemed un-Constitutional and just about every politician that voted for it will be out of a job come the next election.
It is ironic that this bill is named after a person killed by a thug illegally possessing a gun. This will just give the bad guys who don't follow the law a bigger advantage. People who can't afford to go through the licensing requirements but still need protection will be punished.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
I suspect that this bill will go nowhere, and if it does, this clause will be stripped or rewritten. If it actually does manage to pass as-is, there will be challenges filed immediately, it'll be deemed un-Constitutional and just about every politician that voted for it will be out of a job come the next election.
A few months ago I would have believed this couldn't get out of committee but now I'm having doubts. With the new AG and the gun haters in Congress there is a LOT of power wanting this to pass. At least my Democratic congressman is a member of the NRA. I just hope he doesn't vote with the party lines.
I've just started reading it and right near the beginning, it says:
I'm no Constitutional scholar, but it can't be legal for them to require a license to simply own a gun. Could you imagine the outrage if they required a license to speak your mind, practice your chosen religion or be tried by a jury? Constitutional rights are not given by government; we're born with them. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to ensure that the government couldn't interfere with these rights.
I suspect that this bill will go nowhere, and if it does, this clause will be stripped or rewritten. If it actually does manage to pass as-is, there will be challenges filed immediately, it'll be deemed un-Constitutional and just about every politician that voted for it will be out of a job come the next election.
I agree it'll probably die, but I bet the President would sign it if it didn't.
Anyway, the phrase that prompted my reply was "Could you imagine the outrage if they required a license to speak your mind, practice your chosen religion or be tried by a jury?"
That correlates more directly with things they already have done & most folks seem ok with.
In other words while you dont need a license to own a gun, or your mouth, in most places you need what ammounts to a license in order to use, as in carry, it in addition to proving your trustworthyness before you can even buy one with the NICS backround check. But you can carry & use your mouth or any communications device almost at will & any restrictions there are are punitary & you get in trouble for doing something wrong after you did it. You dont need to prove you dont have turrets syndrome before you can go into a library or that you arent going to scream fire before going into a theatre.
My main point being that the constitutionality of restrictive legislation doesn't seem to be the same across the board. If its not unconstitutional to do whats already been done & Congress has seen fit to sit & watch states & municipalities enforce outright bans, registrations & licensing schemes I'm not real confident that they wont think this is ok Constitutionally. Politically its suicide. Alot of gun owners voted Dem because they dont buy the fact that DNC policy is one of disarmament. Anyway this would go a long way to alienating alot of fence sitters that jumped on the Democrat side last year. Something like this wont sit well with many voters.
I know you & me are on the same page & I'm not argueing with you, just useing you I guess. Hope you dont mind.
Anyway I think its this inconsistancy that NEEDS to be adressed directly & have been pitching it to my Reps & Senators for awhile now. Theres no justification for there being an absolute ban on prior restraint in regards to speech & religion but it being simply dandy regarding the second amendment. They both carry the same weight as far as I can tell.
There is great need for a line in the sand & ALL the rights protected by the constitution are on one side & all legislation on the other.
Anything less renders the constitution pretty worthless.
Federal law always takes precedence over state laws in the court of law. Unfortunately if passed it removes the states rights to "regulate" firearms. Thus disallowing CCW and open carry permits, requiring that the federal government knows where every firearm is at ALL times, (see 5-10 year prison sentence if you do not notify the attorney general within 60 days of relocation)
here is a link I posted earlier with a good overview of the bill, I just started reading the bill itself.
Gun Law Update: Gun-Rights Testing Planned | Prescott Arizona News and Events - Read It News Magazine (http://readitnews.com/read-it-views-prescott-opinion/page-9/1624-gun-law-update-gun-rights-testing-planned - broken link)
and more specific to your question is this clause in the act.
"SEC. 601. EFFECT ON STATE LAW.
(a) In General- This Act and the amendments made by this Act may not be construed to preempt any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision of that State, or prevent a State or political subdivision of that State from enacting any provision of law regulating or prohibiting conduct with respect to firearms, except to the extent that the provision of law is inconsistent with any provision of this Act or an amendment made by this Act, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency.
(b) Rule of Interpretation- A provision of State law is not inconsistent with this Act or an amendment made by this Act if the provision imposes a regulation or prohibition of greater scope or a penalty of greater severity than a corresponding prohibition or penalty imposed by this Act or an amendment made by this Act."
I guess im just not following. I apologize. I already got those links, and did not see it's concern with what im talking about. Maybe if the "Obama" laws go through before "State" laws, but I don't see that as the case. I guess you are saying that the Federal Act if imposed will retroactively hold supremacy over any State law, even if the State law is not a provision post the Federal Act?? If that is what your saying I do not see that happening in Texas no matter what the Federal government wants.
As far as registering firearms goes I know alot of people have issues with it, but I just don't know why. Most don't understand that if they own a firearm and it was purchased within the last few decades it's already registered with the FBI even if they don't believe it is....general missconception by the public. On the other hand like many with "old firearms" that have been handed down etc... I still don't see why they have an issue with registering them. As long as a person isn't trying to commit a violent crime why not? I think it can be a safeguard especially for the innocent gun owners in cases of theft, etc....
Lastly the theory of the Federal government "taking" away everyone's firearms I think is a far out view. Maybe in the minds of those in control they would like that, but really.....come on. In the US, especially the more "Southern" states it would literally cause an uprising, and there would be literally 0 compliance, and I think those with wishfull dreams in DC know that.
I guess im just not following. I apologize. I already got those links, and did not see it's concern with what im talking about. Maybe if the "Obama" laws go through before "State" laws, but I don't see that as the case. I guess you are saying that the Federal Act if imposed will retroactively hold supremacy over any State law, even if the State law is not a provision post the Federal Act?? If that is what your saying I do not see that happening in Texas no matter what the Federal government wants.
As far as registering firearms goes I know alot of people have issues with it, but I just don't know why. Most don't understand that if they own a firearm and it was purchased within the last few decades it's already registered with the FBI even if they don't believe it is....general missconception by the public. On the other hand like many with "old firearms" that have been handed down etc... I still don't see why they have an issue with registering them. As long as a person isn't trying to commit a violent crime why not? I think it can be a safeguard especially for the innocent gun owners in cases of theft, etc....
Lastly the theory of the Federal government "taking" away everyone's firearms I think is a far out view. Maybe in the minds of those in control they would like that, but really.....come on. In the US, especially the more "Southern" states it would literally cause an uprising, and there would be literally 0 compliance, and I think those with wishfull dreams in DC know that.
Your first paragraph is exactly what I was saying
I know it would cause an uprising if the feds were to take our guns, but if you slowly turn up the heat on water containing a lobster, it will never know once the water reaches boiling, and by then it is too late, and it is dead. The feds do the same thing, they spoon feed us poison, and when we realize it is too late. England, and Australia are two prime examples of this.
One of the main reasons for our second amendment is the final check of our systems of checks and balances. If the feds know who has guns, they know who they need to go to first to take them. I do NOT want our government to know who has a firearm if they are being held legally. I personally believe our government has already overstepped its bounds in regard to gun control. Know where in our Constitution nor the speeches / writings does it say that the government can control the arms we may possess.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Our senator from NV has gone on record as saying that he will NOT vote the wishes of his constituentcy and there are a lot of others who feel the same way as he. Anything can happen right now and we need to expect the worst.
Hope you dont mind.
