Another RINO Sells Out Second Amendment
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Another RINO Sells Out Second Amendment

  1. #1

    Another RINO Sells Out Second Amendment

    Nationwide Call To Action: Write Your Representatives - OPPOSE H.R. 2159 OF 2009

    NRA-ILA :: Anti-Gun Blacklist Bill Introduced in U.S. House

    Anti-Gun Blacklist Bill Introduced in U.S. House
    Friday, May 15, 2009
    Rumor was enough to get you burned as a witch in Salem, Massachusetts. It was enough to get you shot in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. It's enough to get your head chopped off in parts of Iraq infested with madmen claiming to carry out Allah's will.
    And if U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) has his way, it may be enough to prohibit you from acquiring a firearm or federal firearm license, especially if the Attorney General is as opposed to gun ownership as Janet Reno was during the Clinton Administration, and as Eric Holder is today.
    Fresh on the heels of a disturbing paper from the Department of Homeland Security, characterizing gun owners as rightwing extremists, on April 29 King introduced H.R. 2159, which he calls the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009."
    King, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, describes himself as "a strong supporter of the war against international terrorism, both at home and abroad," so without reading the bill one might assume that H.R. 2159 is a legitimate effort to clamp down on genuine terrorists. However, King and his bill's co-sponsors—Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), Mike Castle (R-Del.), Jim Moran (D-Va.), Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), Mark Kirk (D-Ill.), and Chris Smith (R-N.J.)1—are extreme gun control supporters, and his bill is intended only to give the Executive Branch arbitrary, unaccountable power to stop loyal Americans from acquiring firearms. Here's how:
    H.R. 2159 would give "the Attorney General the authority to deny the sale, delivery, or transfer of a firearm or the issuance of a firearms or explosives license or permit to dangerous terrorists. . . . if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism."


    H.R. 2159 does not, however, impose any requirements or limits on the information the Attorney General could use to make a determination, and it proposes that "any information which the Attorney General relied on for this determination may be withheld from the applicant if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security."
    In stark contrast to the scheme proposed in H.R. 2159, federal law establishes guidelines for the nine categories of persons currently prohibited from possessing firearms, and it protects the right of a person to be told why he is prohibited. The latter is important because a person who is not prohibited can be mistaken for someone who is, due to incomplete or incorrect records in the FBI's database of prohibited persons, or due to being mistaken for a prohibited person on the basis of a similar name or other personal information.
    The trash bin of history is full of politically-motivated, authoritarian abuses of peoples' rights. As King and his bill's co-sponsors have shown, however, the concept behind the evil yet remains.
    NRA-ILA :: Anti-Gun Blacklist Bill Introduced in U.S. House

    Remember Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.)? Take a look at the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA 1986!

    Remember Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) ? Clinton Gun Ban, and every other anti-second amendment piece of legislation in the last two decades...

    In Addition,

    Write the RNC Chairman Michael Steele and state we will no longer support RINO's like Pete King (R-NY)
    Republican ? National ? Committee

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    St. Louis/Missouri
    Posts
    578
    I just sent the following to all of my congressmen and senators.

    In light of recent documents from the DHS which broadly paint conservative people and returning war vets as possible terrorists I respectfully request that you do not support this infringement of our 2nd amendment rights defined in the US Constitution as follows.

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

    No ambiguity in the above.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Belding, Michigan
    Posts
    20
    Emails sent

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Belding, Michigan
    Posts
    20
    MadnMO....I quoted your letter a bit..Hope you don't mind..

    Here is the letter I sent to my congressmen and senators:

    Dear Senator,

    In light of recent documents from the Department of Homeland
    Security that broadly paint conservative people and returning war vets as
    possible terrorists, I respectfully request that you do not support this
    infringement of our 2nd amendment rights defined in the US Constitution as
    follows.

    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
    state, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE
    INFRINGED."

    I believe that passing more and more restrictive gun laws, that will only
    be adhered to by LAW ABIDING gun owners, is just punishing the good
    because of the bad.

    Sincerely,

    I got a response from my congressman Vernon J. Ehlers:

    Dear Mr. D***:

    Thank you for contacting me about gun control legislation. I appreciate knowing your concerns.

    As you know, on June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller, that Americans have the individual constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Although the Court ruled that individuals have the right to bear arms, it also stated that some government restrictions may still be valid, such as restrictions on owning machine guns, or allowing felons to possess guns. I fully support this Court ruling.

    Since being elected to Congress, I have supported some gun control efforts while opposing others. For instance, I support the Brady Bill, which requires background checks for the purchase of handguns. Before this bill went into effect, there was virtually no way to prevent convicted felons or minors from buying handguns. However, I have opposed other legislation, such as the ban on semi-automatic weapons. I do not believe that an entire class of firearms should be banned based on their appearance or the misuse of a small fraction of those guns.

    Thank you again for contacting me. You can be sure that I will carefully consider every piece of gun control legislation that comes to the Floor of the House of Representatives for a vote. With best wishes, I am,

    Sincerely,

    Vernon J. Ehlers
    Member of Congress

    Nothing from the Senators yet....

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Wolf View Post
    MadnMO....I quoted your letter a bit..Hope you don't mind..

    Here is the letter I sent to my congressmen and senators:

    Dear Senator,

    In light of recent documents from the Department of Homeland
    Security that broadly paint conservative people and returning war vets as
    possible terrorists, I respectfully request that you do not support this
    infringement of our 2nd amendment rights defined in the US Constitution as
    follows.

    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
    state, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE
    INFRINGED."

    I believe that passing more and more restrictive gun laws, that will only
    be adhered to by LAW ABIDING gun owners, is just punishing the good
    because of the bad.

    Sincerely,

    I got a response from my congressman Vernon J. Ehlers:

    Dear Mr. D***:

    Thank you for contacting me about gun control legislation. I appreciate knowing your concerns.

    As you know, on June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller, that Americans have the individual constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Although the Court ruled that individuals have the right to bear arms, it also stated that some government restrictions may still be valid, such as restrictions on owning machine guns, or allowing felons to possess guns. I fully support this Court ruling.

    Since being elected to Congress, I have supported some gun control efforts while opposing others. For instance, I support the Brady Bill, which requires background checks for the purchase of handguns. Before this bill went into effect, there was virtually no way to prevent convicted felons or minors from buying handguns. However, I have opposed other legislation, such as the ban on semi-automatic weapons. I do not believe that an entire class of firearms should be banned based on their appearance or the misuse of a small fraction of those guns.

    Thank you again for contacting me. You can be sure that I will carefully consider every piece of gun control legislation that comes to the Floor of the House of Representatives for a vote. With best wishes, I am,

    Sincerely,

    Vernon J. Ehlers
    Member of Congress

    Nothing from the Senators yet....
    You need to write Vernon back and tell him to READ the D.C. vs. Heller SCOTUS decision...

    it says nothing about restrictions on owning machine guns or any others for that matter...

    Although it does state "The Second Amendment extends, prima
    facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
    even those that were not in existence at the time of the
    founding."

    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...06/07-2901.pdf

    "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means just that, without exception...

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast