Gun-ban bill lying in wait in Congress - waiting for "the right Columbine moment"?

[Little-Acorn]

There's nothing new about gun-ban bills in Congress. They are regularly introduced, half a dozen or more in each session, and are routinely voted down or left to die in committee. Usually they are considered the detrius of legislation - the kind of junk you have to put up with while getting real legislation.

But there's one that, while it hasn't moved forward, hasn't died either. It's written by the founder of the Black Panthers, now a congresscritter from Illinois (the political environment that spawned Al Capone, Dan Rostenkowski, Rod Blagojevich, Roland Burris, and Barack Obama).

Is it being held in anticipation of the next mass shooting by some deranged individual, so that its backers can use the victims' death and agony to further their political agenda?

Wayne LaPierre warned about this during the Clinton administration. Is his prophecy on the way to being fulfilled?

---------------------------------------------

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89830

Is bill lying in wait to ban handguns?
Activists worry another Columbine will spark end of 2nd Amendment

By Drew Zahn
Posted: February 23, 2009
10:13 pm Eastern

Tucked away in committee on Capitol Hill is a firearm licensing bill that Second Amendment advocates worry may just be waiting for the right "Columbine moment" to emerge and effectively ban handguns in the U.S.

As WND reported, U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., sponsored H.R. 45, an extensive licensure law that creates a national database of current firearm owners, requires psychiatric testing and fingerprinting to obtain a license and places new restrictions on gun use and storage.

Mike Hammond, legal advisor with Gun Owners of America, told WND that H.R. 45 gives the federal government so much power over gun ownership, that the wrong administration could use it to "bring gun ownership in America to an end."

"It takes semi-automatic firearms and handguns – the guns people use for personal self-defense," Hammond said, "and sets up a licensure system, that is, the government would have to give you permission to own a gun. The government can therefore also deny that permission, and it would mean an anti-gun administration could use it to effectively ban most guns from private ownership.

"Even if you are willing to undergo a psychiatric exam, be fingerprinted and do what the bill requires to obtain a license, the law still requires the guns be unloaded and locked up," Hammond added. "It renders the gun practically unavailable for self-defense."

And even though H.R. 45 has remained dormant in the House Judiciary Committee since it was introduced, Hammond told WND that his organization is worried it may not stay there.

"Our concern is that Rep. Rush comes from same political machine that Barack Obama comes from," Hammond said. "So we have a real concern that Rush's introduction of this reflects the thinking of an Obama administration. And while we don't think this bill will be the first thing that the president pushes, before the Obama administration uses a Columbine incident to bring the bill alive, while it's still lying on its back [in committee], we want to put a stake through its heart."

Hammond summarized, "Ultimately if a license system is in place, any anti-gun administration can come after your guns."

[darin]

I'll never understand how grown-up Americans can believe the Police can protect them better than themselves..

[DannyR]

I'll never understand how grown-up Americans can believe the Police can protect them better than themselves..Depends on the situation. The individual can certainly protect themselves at the moment vs a rather unorganized thief/rapist/robber.

However the police are necessary if you're in the middle of a gang/drug war. One individual usually ends up dead if they take on such overwhelming numbers.

[crin63]

Depends on the situation. The individual can certainly protect themselves at the moment vs a rather unorganized thief/rapist/robber.

However the police are necessary if you're in the middle of a gang/drug war. One individual usually ends up dead if they take on such overwhelming numbers.

I disagree. Thugs and punks don't usually expect anyone to actually shoot back, their plan is terror. When someone shoots back the run for cover like the cockroaches they are.

[gabosaurus]

I told you a while back that this was coming. I am waiting for passage. How many of you will assert that the laws of the U.S. do not apply to you?

[Trigg]

I told you a while back that this was coming. I am waiting for passage. How many of you will assert that the laws of the U.S. do not apply to you?

Gabby, it wouldn't surprise me at all if MANY otherwise law abiding republicans and Democrats refuse to register their guns.

[gabosaurus]

Why? Shouldn't Americans follow the law? How would this law be different than the alleged "Patriot Act," which a lot of Americans also disagreed with?

[Trigg]

Why? Shouldn't Americans follow the law? How would this law be different than the alleged "Patriot Act," which a lot of Americans also disagreed with?

Because they would see it, rightly in my opinion, as the first step in making all guns illegal.

Should Americans follow the law???? Yep, but millions don't. As evidenced by our MANY jails and paroled individuals.

I'll guarantee you that my husband, father and father-in-law will never register any firearms they have, like I said dems and republicans.

[hjmick]

I'll never understand how grown-up Americans can believe the Police can protect them better than themselves..

That's just it, isn't it? People don't realize that the police are not out there to protect us. They are there to clean up the aftermath and, if they're lucky, solve the crime and arrest the bad guy. That's it, period. If, in the course of their duties, they just happen to protect some people, it's plain, dumb luck.

[Little-Acorn]

The bill lying in wait in Congress, would be a clear violation of the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. And the Const says that any law that violates the Const, is automatically null and void.

So, if this bill passes, people who refuse to register as it requires, aren't violating any law at all... because that particular law vaporized as soon as it was signed.

The 2nd says that since an armed populace is necessary, no government can ban or restrict personal arms. A licensing law like this bill, is a plan to let government do exactly that. As such, it will be null and void as soon as it hits the books.

[Mr. P]

The bill lying in wait in Congress, would be a clear violation of the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. And the Const says that any law that violates the Const, is automatically null and void.

So, if this bill passes, people who refuse to register as it requires, aren't violating any law at all... because that particular law vaporized as soon as it was signed.

The 2nd says that since an armed populace is necessary, no government can ban or restrict personal arms. A licensing law like this bill, is a plan to let government do exactly that. As such, it will be null and void as soon as it hits the books.

That's true..Fact is it will have to go through the courts..someone has to pay for that..I'd hope the NRA, before an individual gets tagged "it". It'll be spensive.

[Little-Acorn]

The Constitution does indeed say that such a law is null and void... and if we were really under the Rule of Law, that's all that would be needed.

But we haven't been under the Rule of Law for a long time. Our brethern of the southpaw persuasion, have been trying hard to turn our legal system into "It doesn't matter what the law says, it matters what the courts say, and you can't count on any particular prediction of that, especially after we get 'OUR' judges in place!". And then proceed to put judges on the bench who rule according to how they think the country SHOULD be, rather than how the Constitution and other laws say it MUST be.

So there may\\\will be a lot of people who "didn't get the word" about the law being null and void... including the cops who come to arrest you and the court judge who simply declares you violated Federal law, open and shut.

What the Constitution clearly says, will be of very little interest to them.

[Mr. P]

The Constitution does indeed say that such a law is null and void... and if we were really under the Rule of Law, that's all that would be needed.

But we haven't been under the Rule of Law for a long time. Our brethern of the southpaw persuasion, have been trying hard to turn our legal system into "It doesn't matter what the law says, it matters what the courts say, and you can't count on any particular prediction of that, especially after we get 'OUR' judges in place!". And then proceed to put judges on the bench who rule according to how they think the country SHOULD be, rather than how the Constitution and other laws say it MUST be.

So there may\\\will be a lot of people who "didn't get the word" about the law being null and void... including the cops who come to arrest you and the court judge who simply declares you violated Federal law, open and shut.

What the Constitution clearly says, will be of very little interest to them.

That's why I say it will have to go through the courts..all the way to the Supreme I'm sure...

[Nukeman]

I told you a while back that this was coming. I am waiting for passage. How many of you will assert that the laws of the U.S. do not apply to you?
Is your husbands gun registered?????

[Mr. P]

Is your husbands gun registered?????

:lmao:

[Trigg]

Is your husbands gun registered?????

lol, come on gabby answer that one