U.S. House Passes Extreme Gun Control Bill, President Trump Threatens VETO

2
996
2nd amendment
More Gun Laws Green Road Sign With Dramatic Clouds and Sky.

Today, the newly minted anti-gun leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives passed its first gun control measure by a 240 -190 vote, offering further proof that anti-gun politicians are more interested in scoring cheap political points than doing their jobs and passing meaningful legislation that would make Americans safer.

Chris W. Cox, the executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), issued the following response to the passage of H.R. 8:

“This extreme gun-control bill will make criminals out of law-abiding Americans. It will also make it harder for good people to defend themselves and their families. Criminals, on the other hand, will continue to get their firearms the way they always have – through the black market, theft, and straw purchases. Forcing more government paperwork and additional fees on good people trying to exercise a constitutional right will do nothing to make Americans safer. On behalf of our members and supporters, the National Rifle Association will continue to fight to preserve the constitutionally protected right to self-defense.”

Earlier this week, President Donald Trump issued a statement of administration action publicly stating he would veto H.R. 8.

WhiteHouse on H.R. 8:

” The Administration opposes H.R. 8 because it would impose burdensome requirements on certain firearm transactions. H.R. 8 would require that certain transfers, loans, gifts, and sales of firearms be processed by a federally licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer of firearms. H.R. 8 would therefore impose permanent record-keeping requirements and limitless fees on these everyday transactions.

H.R. 8 contains very narrow exemptions from these requirements, and these exemptions would not sufficiently protect the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms. For example, unless an exemption applies, both the act of leaving a weapon in the temporary care of a neighbor while traveling and the act of later retrieving that weapon would require processing by a licensed entity under H.R. 8. Also, unless such an exemption applies, domestic violence victims would be prohibited from borrowing a firearm for self-defense without first having the transaction go through such a licensed entity. The extensive regulation required by H.R. 8 is incompatible with the Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual right to keep arms.

By overly extending the minimum time that a licensed entity is required to wait for background check results, H.R. 1112 would unduly impose burdensome delays on individuals seeking to purchase a firearm. For this reason, the Administration opposes the legislation. H.R. 1112 would require a federally licensed firearms importer, manufacturer, or dealer that initiates a mandatory background check on an individual seeking to purchase a firearm to wait ten business days on results before processing the transaction. If the Federal Government fails to complete the background check within this window of time, the individual seeking to purchase the firearm may petition the Government for permission to proceed with the transfer.

Under H.R. 1112, the licensed entity would be required to wait an additional ten business days after such a petition is filed before it is allowed to proceed with processing the transaction. Currently, such background checks are considered invalid 30 calendar days after the date the licensed entity initiated them. As the bill is written, therefore, an individual must file their petition on the earliest day possible. If they fail to do so, H.R. 1112 would effectively prohibit some firearms purchases from being processed because the initiated background check would be considered invalid before the end of the second ten-business-day waiting period. Allowing the Federal Government to restrict firearms purchases through bureaucratic delay would undermine the Second Amendment’s guarantee that law-abiding citizens have an individual right to keep and bear arms.

If H.R. 8, or H.R. 1112, are presented to the President, his advisors would recommend he veto the bill.”

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Follow the NRA on social at Facebook.com/NationalRifleAssociation and Twitter @NRA.


National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

2 COMMENTS

  1. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that “Where rights (liberty) secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate (abolish) them.” (Miranda v Arizona) What’s that mean? Well, it means that in order to lawfully effect a Right/Liberty protected by our Constitution (nullify it, limit it, license it or restrict it) the powers that be (state or federal) are required to comply with the Constitution’s Article V Amendment process before they expediently make an end-run around our Constitution to take away (or “infringe” upon) your Right of self defense protected by the Second Amendment.

    A few elected bozos and the stroke of an executive’s pen doesn’t cut it my friends. Telling you they have the “authority” to by-pass the Constitution by passing some goofy law because ‘they’ voted on it is what’s known as acting under “the color of law.” The color of law is defined as the actions of an ‘official’, be it law enforcement or legislative, purported to be in the conduct of their official duties when, in fact, they have no lawful authority to actually ‘act’ or conduct themselves. An example might be law enforcement making arrests of peaceful protestors or phony traffic arrests in order to raise revenue. Another example would be a legislature passing laws effecting areas where they have no lawful authority to legislate.

    “Shall not be infringed” means that if they want to “infringe” and expand the government’s authority to nullify, limit, license or restrict that doesn’t exist, they must go through the Article V Amendment process in order to ‘acquire’ the lawful authority to legislate limits, licenses or to nullify your Rights. If they have no authority to pass such a law or ordinance (haven’t complied with the the lawful Amendment process) then the aforementioned Supreme Court stated in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham Alabama that the individuals should “engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” Without said lawful Amendment the Supreme Court’s Marbury vs Madison comes into play: “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

    If the Supreme Court’s declarations mean nothing, Hamilton made clear in Federalist 78 that “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” Jefferson said much the same thing in 1798 when he said “Whenever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force.” The Supremacy Clause (Article 6 clause 2) codifies this very principle;  that any law made by Congress that is not made in pursuance to the Constitution, is no law at all.

    If politicians, judges and law enforcement don’t care to comply with our Constitution (the ‘highest’ law of the land) which they’ve sworn an Oath to, then the People shouldn’t worry about complying with their ‘gun laws’.

    https://resistancetononsense.wordpress.com/2018/06/29/our-preexisting-irrevolkable-right-of-self-defense/

  2. Where is the “Red Flag” law on politicians, police, judges, ALL government employees? These SOBs think they can just take your property based on sketchy claims? Well how about the SAME process for them?!
    They are capable of, and DO, far more damage to Citizens, to Rights, to Taxes, then lone actors. The insane politicians do corrupt and unjust acts, police murder unarmed Citizens, judges are corrupt and rule STUPIDLY, employees are incompetent, and corrupt.
    Where do we report THEM and see them suspended and removed from further corrption until they have been cleared?
    Where are the Mental Screening? true surprise Drug Tests and Steroid Tests, Financial Examinations, for THEM? Alcohol Counseling.

Comments are closed.