Legislation Could Devastate U.S. Gun Ownership Rights

Pennsylvania Drafts 2009 Mandatory Vaccination, Gun Confiscation Law

States are getting ready for the mandatory vaccination stage of the eugenics program, and Pennsylvania is right on schedule with Pennsylvania House Bill 492, the “Emergency Health Powers Act.”
October 16, 2009

KnowTheLies - Emergency Health Powers and Procedures authorizes on the basis of one man’s opinion, the governor, forced medical examinations, forced isolations and quarantines, forced relocations, prohibitions of firearms, and forced vaccinations!

See Pennsylvania House Bill 492, and please do not miss the following:

“The public health authority may, for such period as the state of public health emergency exists, compel a person to be vaccinated” – HB 492, Pg. 28, Line 29 to Pg. 29, Line 3

“A person who fails to comply with this section commits a misdemeanor of the third degree.” – HB 492, Pg. 29, Lines 20-21

“The public health authority shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this article through the imposition of fines and penalties, the issuance of orders and such other remedies as are provided by law.” – HB 492, Pg. 36, Lines 22-25

Based on the above, it appears that a patient who refuses vaccination may be incarcerated and fined under the above provisions. Further, scientific evidence is now clear that vaccines can and have done harm to the patient and have even caused death. If the vaccination actually harms the patient, government officials and health care providers are exempt from civil damages except in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct, facts very difficult to prove.

“State immunity.-Neither the Commonwealth, its political subdivisions, nor, except in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct, the Governor, the public health authority or any other State official referenced in this article shall be liable for the death of or any injury to persons or damage to property as a result of complying with or attempting to comply with this article or any rule or regulations promulgated pursuant to this article.” – HB 492, Pg. 38, Lines 5-12

“During a state of public health emergency, no private person, firm or corporation and employees and agents of such person, firm or corporation in the performance of a contract with and under the direction of the Commonwealth or its political subdivisions under the provisions of this article shall be civilly liable for causing the death of or injury to any person or damage to any property except in the event of gross negligence or willful misconduct.” – HB 492, Pg. 38, Line 25 to Pg. 39 Line 2

The State also assumes the power to destroy property and as was just referenced, the Commonwealth nor any of its agents can be held accountable or liable for damages. This provision violates the clear rule that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation.

“The public health authority shall, for examination purposes, close, evacuate or decontaminate any facility or decontaminate or destroy any material when the authority reasonably suspects that such facility or material may endanger the public health.” – HB 492, Pg. 12, Lines 3-7
The State’s emergency powers further include the power . . .

“to control, restrict and regulate by rationing and using quotas, prohibitions on shipments, price fixing, allocation or other means, the use, sale, dispensing, distribution or transportation of food, fuel, clothing and other commodities, alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives and combustibles” – HB 492, Pg. 18, Lines 18-24

Similar legislation was introduced in Massachusetts and made national news and has met with much resistance.

Please help get the word out about this.
Thanks
Samuel J. Granata III
Greensburg

Schwarzenegger Signs Ammo-Regulation Bill

October 13, 2009

San Francisco Chronicle - People buying ammunition in California will soon have to be thumbprinted and dealers will have to keep records of sales, under legislation that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law.

After vetoing similar bills three times since 2004, Schwarzenegger signed AB962 by Assemblyman Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, on Sunday, saying he now believes it will promote public safety.

The measure is California's first statewide regulation of ammunition sales. It survived close votes in both the Assembly and state Senate and strong opposition from gun-rights organizations, which succeeded in stripping a provision that would have required sellers of more than 50 rounds of ammunition a month to be licensed by the state.

Starting in July, the law will require dealers to keep records of handgun ammunition sales for at least five years, and store the bullets securely out of customers' reach.

Like gun transactions, all ammunition sales will have to be face-to-face, a requirement that will force online buyers to arrange delivery of ammunition to a seller in California. Another provision makes it a crime to knowingly sell or give ammunition to someone who cannot possess it legally, including felons, gang members and the mentally ill.

As of February 2011, all ammunition buyers will have to provide a driver's license or other state identification and a thumbprint.

De León said Monday that the bill gives police "a valuable tool to crack down on armed, dangerous criminals and gang-bangers in our communities."

Opponents said the restrictions would burden gun owners and dealers without impeding criminals.

"Ammunition or ammunition purchaser registration, in any form, serves only to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens," Gun Owners of California said while the bill was before the Legislature.

In signing the bill, Schwarzenegger said local governments that require record-keeping for ammunition sales have enabled police to arrest many illegal purchasers. Governments that regulate ammunition sales include San Francisco, Oakland, Tiburon and Contra Costa and Marin counties.

"Utilized properly, this type of information is invaluable for keeping communities safe," Schwarzenegger said.

ObamaCare Could Be Used to Ban Guns in Home Self-Defense

October 9, 2009

Gun Owners of America - Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has something to say to gun owners: “Own a gun; lose your coverage!”

Baucus’ socialized health care bill comes up for a Finance Committee vote on Tuesday. We have waited and waited and waited for the shifty Baucus to release legislative language. But he has refused to release anything but a summary -- and we will never have a Congressional Budget Office cost assessment based on actual legislation. Even the summary was kept secret for a long time.

But, on the basis of the summary, the Baucus bill (which is still unnumbered) tells us virtually nothing about what kind of policy Americans will be required to purchase under penalty of law -- nor the consequences. It simply says:

• “all U.S. citizens and legal residents would be required to purchase coverage through the individual market...”;


• “individuals would be required to report on their federal income tax return the months for which they maintain the required minimum health coverage...”;


• in addition to an extensive list of statutorily mandated coverage, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would be empowered to “define and update the categories of treatments, items, and services...” within an insurance plan which would be covered in a policy constituting “required minimum health coverage.”

ObamaCare and gun control

It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities. And, given Sebelius’ well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment -- she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas -- we presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm. It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.

The ObamaCare bill already contains language that will punish Americans who engage in unhealthy behavior by allowing insurers to charge them higher insurance premiums. (What constitutes an unhealthy lifestyle is, of course, to be defined by legislators.) Don’t be surprised if an anti-gun nut like Sebelius uses this line of thinking to impose ObamaCare policies which result in a back-door gun ban on any American who owns “dangerous” firearms.

After all, insurers already (and routinely) drop homeowners from their policies for owning certain types of guns or for refusing to use trigger locks (that is, for keeping their guns ready for self-defense!). While not all insurers practice this anti-gun behavior, Gun Owners of America has documented that some do -- Prudential and State Farm being two of the most well-known.

The good news is that because homeowner insurance is private (and is still subject to the free market) you can go to another company if one drops you. But what are you going to do under nationalized ObamaCare when the regulations written by Secretary Sebelius suspend the applicability of your government-mandated policy because of your gun ownership?

All of this is in addition to something that GOA has been warning you about for several months … the certainty that minimum acceptable policies will dump your gun information into a federal database … a certainty that is reinforced by language in the summary providing for a study to “encourage increased meaningful use of electronic health records.”

Remember, the federal government has already denied more than 150,000 military veterans the right to own guns, without their being convicted of a crime or receiving any due process of law. They were denied because of medical information (such as PTSD) that the FBI later determined disqualified these veterans to own guns.

Is this what we need on a national level being applied to every gun owner in America?

Incidentally, failure to comply would subject the average family to $1,500 in fines -- and possibly more for a household with older teens. And, although a Schumer amendment purports to exempt Americans from prison sentences for non-purchase of an ObamaPolicy -- something which was never at issue -- it doesn’t prohibit them from being sent to prison for a year and fined an additional $25,000 under the Internal Revenue Code for non-payment of the initial fines.

Legislation Still Under the Radar Would Devastate U.S. Gun Ownership Rights

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. – President Barack Obama in San Francisco at a 2008 fundraiser.

September 30, 2009

Personal Liberty Digest - While high profile issues like passage of a healthcare reform bill and cap-and-trade energy tax are getting front page headlines and top billing by television talking heads, be very wary of stealth legislation slowly working its way through Congress to restrict gun ownership.

Passage of either of two bills, HR 45 (also known as Blair-Holt Firearm Licensing and Record Sale Act of 2009) and S 1317, would be a devastating blow to Second Amendment rights.

HR 45, introduced by Rep. Bobby Rush, would make it illegal to own a gun unless you are fingerprinted and can provide a driver’s license and Social Security number.

Additionally under HR 45, a person buying a gun would have to undergo both a physical and mental evaluation before making a firearm purchase. It also would require guns be secured from access by children under age 18, and would empower law enforcement officers to come into your home to check compliance.

S 1317, introduced by Sen. Frank Lautenburg, would give the attorney general the right to block gun sales to people on terror watch lists.

A third bill, HR 2647, contains a companion clause to S 1317 that gives the attorney general the authority to determine who belongs on terrorist watch lists.

And who are the terrorists? In Obamaworld it’s not the Islamo-fascists flying airliners into buildings, planting improvised explosive devices (IEDs) or strapping bombs to their waists and setting them off in crowded areas.

No, because in Obamaworld, the word terrorism no longer applies to those who were once called terrorists. And those who used to be considered terrorists no longer commit acts of terrorism. No, they commit man-caused disasters. The word terrorist, at least in its past usage, has been dropped from the lexicon.

Today’s terrorists, according to those now in power in the United States, are people in flyover country who believe the Constitution is sacrosanct, and that the Second Amendment actually means that people are free to own guns without restriction.

Our own country’s Department of Homeland Security issued an assessment earlier this year warning law enforcement of a possible rise in home-grown terrorism from “right wing extremists.” And who are those rightwing extremists? The assessment tell us:

“Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

As we’ve reported before in related stories here and here the current administration is no friend to gun owners.

And what does Eric Holder—attorney general for the United States and the person who would under S 1317 be granted the authority to determine who belongs on terrorist watch groups—think about guns? Following are few of his quotes that have appeared in various newspapers over the last few years:

• “As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.”


• “The second amendment does not protect firearms possession or use that is unrelated to participation in a well-regulated militia.”


• “To further strengthen the ability of law enforcement officials to track those suspected of terrorism or other criminal acts in this country, Congress should also pass legislation that would give the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale.”

Holder’s boss, the president, is equally unfriendly to gun owners. Writing for Gun Digest last October, gun lobbyist Richard A. Pearson called Obama an enemy of the law abiding firearm owner.

Some of Obama’s own quotes, as they have appeared in various publications, will back this up:

• “I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.”


• “I am not in favor of concealed weapons. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”


• “The package (legislation passed in the Illinois Senate) closes the Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card loopholes which resulted in the shooting out in Melrose Park. We’re eliminating 17 specific assault weapons. There is no reason why anybody should need an assault weapon to protect themselves or their family. We’re limiting handgun sales to one a month. We’re calling for handgun registration. It’s very hard right now to track whether or not a felon has turned in his weapons or if he has a FOID card because we don’t know how many weapons he has purchased.”

Without a doubt, the current administration is the most anti-gun administration in our nation’s history. Don’t let the hullabaloo over healthcare and cap and trade cause you to let your guard down.

And be sure you cling to your guns and religion. They may soon be all you have.

The Gun-Grabbers Are on the Move Again

September 5, 2009

Alan Caruba - Every despotic regime in the last century favored gun control laws. Today, the gun-grabbers are on the move again and are being led by the Obama regime.

During last year’s campaign both Hillary Clinton and John McCain tore into Barack Obama for saying that residents of small-town America "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them out of bitterness over lost jobs.”

Obama quickly retreated from that statement, but it revealed his real thinking and real feelings about people who own guns for any reason, as well as his contempt for people whose religious values are an important part of their lives. In both cases he was condemning large segments of the nation’s population.

In America today, the figure I hear most often is an estimated ninety million people who own guns. No matter the source one cites, there is no question that most Americans have no qualms about owning guns for hunting, sport shooting, or for protection. It is no coincidence that, since Obama’s election last year, gun and ammo sales have been off the chart.

Look back at what history teaches us regarding the right to bear arms. The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Unable to defend themselves, the regime killed an estimated twenty million Russian dissidents.

Turkey established gun control in 1911 and, from 1915 to 1917, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were rounded up and killed.

Germany established gun control in 1938. Prior to and throughout World War II, the Nazis systematically murdered an estimated six million Jews and another five million others deemed “enemies of the state.” This pattern was repeated in China which outlawed gun ownership in 1935. Gun ownership was outlawed in Guatemala, Uganda, and Cambodia.

It is estimated that 56 million people were killed by their own governments in the last century. Despite that, both England and Australia passed laws prohibiting gun ownership. The result has been a surge in deaths of people who were killed because they were left defenseless against criminals. In Australia, armed robberies increased 44 percent.

As this is being written, there are proposed laws in the House and Senate that would strip Americans of their Second Amendment right to “to keep and bear arms.” A right the Constitution says “shall not be infringed.”

Recently, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced S.1317 that would give the Attorney General the discretion to block gun sales to people on terror watch lists. The government’s consolidated watch list, used to identify people suspected of links to terrorists, has now grown to more than a million names since 9/11.

In Lautenberg’s New Jersey, one must have a government issued certificate to purchase a firearm and undergo a difficult process to secure the right to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise.

A similar law, the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 would make it illegal to own a firearm unless you are fingerprinted and can provide a current driver’s license along with your Social Security number. It requires people to submit to a physical and mental evaluation each and every time a firearm is purchased.

In addition, Blair-Holt would require that guns must be locked away and inaccessible to any child under age 18. It would empower law enforcement officers to come into your home to inspect whether or not you are in compliance. Failure to comply includes a fine and incarceration up to five years in prison. In a case of criminal home invasion this law renders the gun owner defenseless.

This replicates the 1938 German Weapons Act that restricted ownership of firearms to “persons whose trustworthyness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.”

These proposed laws also abrogate the Fourth Amendment that says,

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures” shall not be violated without a warrant.

To learn more about these “under the radar” efforts to restrict gun ownership and the right to carry firearms, visit the website of the Second Amendment Foundation and the website of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

What I have described are incremental steps taken to ultimately render the Second Amendment null and void.

If you oppose these efforts, you need to write your representatives in Congress and let them know. A donation to the Second Amendment Foundation and/or the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms will assist their efforts on your behalf.

Despite the anti-gun attitude of the current White House I have always found it incongruous that the President is surrounded by men and women in the Secret Service, all of whom carry firearms to protect whoever holds that office. Members of Congress are protected by a Capitol Hill police force, all of whom are armed. We all know that a gun is an essential part of what every police officer wears daily while enforcing the law.

When writing the Constitution, the Founding Fathers first protected free speech, freedom of the press, and the freedom of citizens to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Second Amendment gave priority to the right to own and bear arms because you cannot have the freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment without those protected in the Second.

Lawmakers Pass Gun Show Ban in Dale City, California

September 11, 2009

San Mateo County Times - The days of gun shows at the Cow Palace in Dale City appear numbered.

On a 45-33 vote, the California Assembly on Wednesday passed legislation banning the sale of firearms and ammunition at the state-owned entertainment venue.

The Assembly's vote came three months after the state Senate approved the bill, which is expected to head to the governor's desk in the next few weeks.

If signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senate Bill 585 would take effect Jan. 1, stipulating that no more than five gun shows may be held at the Cow Palace during the years 2010, 2011 and 2012. By Jan. 1, 2013, there would be no gun shows permitted there at all.

The bill is "about respecting local values and local standards," said Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who wrote the legislation.

Those who live near the Cow Palace "do not want gun shows there," he said.

According to Leno, 44 percent of the homicides and more than 30 percent of the guns seized in San Francisco have happened in the Visitacion Valley, Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhoods and the Mission District since 2005.

The bill also is a response to residents' calls and resolutions passed by the counties of San Francisco and San Mateo to end gun shows in their neighborhoods, Leno said.

Residents and community groups have asserted that illegal firearm sales occur in the Cow Palace parking lot whenever the Crossroads of the West gun show is in town.

Bob Templeton, producer of the traveling show, could not be reached for comment.

Templeton, however, previously has denied that illegal gun sales happen at the Cow Palace, which is owned and operated by the state Department of Agriculture's Division of Fairs and Expositions.

He has also maintained that his event abides by state laws, which mandate background checks and a 10-day waiting period for all firearm buyers.

The Crossroads show has been known to draw 2,000 to 3,000 Bay Area residents. It's scheduled to return to the Cow Palace on Sept. 19-20 and in November, January, March and May.

Elsewhere, Alameda, Marin and Los Angeles counties have banned gun shows at county-owned facilities with local ordinances.