What I’m Politicing: Pres. Obama Wants to “Ban” Guns?

Correcting wrong headed ideas about Pres. Obama and H.R. 45.

Facebook Polls

One of those vote instantly about a hot button issue popped up in my Facebook feed this morning, along with a request from a high school friend to take the quiz so we could compare results.  And it gave me pause.

This isn't the case... necessarily.

Why did it give me pause?  Well, not too long ago, I was excoriating liberals for jumping the gun (haha!) on Sen. John Thune’s proposed reciprocity bill, and it seems as though I must excoriate conservatives here.

Pres. Obama doesn’t want to ban guns.  I’m sure if he could, he make them as scarce as possible (as seems that to be the liberal thinking about guns), but I highly doubt that he wishes to ban all guns.  Most especially, he wouldn’t want to ban those fully automatic assault rifles that keep him safe day-to-day.  This poll was created by a person whose obviously heard a little bit about this bill and who has made a snap judgment that Pres. Obama must be behind this legislation.

That’s not helpful to the conservative cause, and that’s not helpful to Second Amendment supporters.  Polls like this make us look like crazy people.  The wording of the poll doesn’t accurately reflect the content of the bill or the current political climate.  The answers are silly (“hell no!!!!!!!!!”), and again make us look unhinged.  (Full disclosure: I voted “no.”)

I’d like to take some time to educate my (dear and few) readers about the context and content of the bill.  First, so that if you see this poll in your Facebook feed, you’ll know what you’re voting about.  Second, so that if this does become an issue, you’ll know what your dealing with.

The polls refers to a bill called H. R. 45  Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record Sales Act of 2009.  It was introduced by Rep. Bobby Rush – a Democrat from Illnois – on January 6, 2009.  Right now, Govtrack.us lists the bill as “referred to committee.”  I blogged about it earlier this year with amazement… and with the same reaction as that Facebook poll author: “What?  Have liberals finally lost their minds?!”

Who Was Blair Holt?

The bill is named after a Chicago kid, Blair Holt.  He died when another Chicago kid shot him on public transportation.  From witnesses, we know that Holt was not the intended target, but he did jump in front of a young girl who was the intended target – saving her life and ending his own.

Two years ago on May 10, 2007, 16-year-old Chicagoan Blair Holt was gunned down on a CTA bus. Holt wasn’t the intended target, but that didn’t matter to him when he used his body as a shield to protect his Julian High School classmate Tiara Reed. According to Chicago Police, the shooting was in retaliation over a girl, but after shooting four other people and killing Holt, Michael “Mario” Pace did not shoot his intended target. Pace was sentenced to 100 years in prison for his crime. Kevin Jones, who police said supplied Pace with the gun, was sentenced to 10 years.  [Chicago Defender]

Hero comes to mind when you read about Blair Holt.  It’s easy to see why he jumped in front of bullets to save this girl: various online sources claim his father is a police officer and his mother a firefighter for the city of Chicago.  It seems as though he was raised to be brave and to protect the innocent from evil.

Tackily, at a funeral service honoring his life, both Rep. Bobby Rush and Rev. Jesse Jackson used the occasion to comment about a political issue.

During the three hour service, speakers talked about the need for more gun control. Congressman Bobby Rush says he is introducing a new bill called “The Blair Bill.”

Reverend Jesse Jackson said Blair Holt should not — and will not — be forgotten.

“Yet out of the loss of the innocent comes even greater life. Unearned suffering is redemptive,” said Rev. Jackson.  [via ABC7]

I find it in poor taste to speak in such a manner at a funeral: to use the horrible death of a bright young man to further your own political agenda and re-election.  That’s tacky.

Strange, though, that neither Rep. Rush or Rev. Jackson seem aware of a few of the gun control laws already on the books.

It Is Already Illegal for 16-year-olds to Possess Handguns.

The criminal who shot Holt was sixteen year-old Michael Pace.  He got the gun from fifteen year-old Kevin Jones (from CBS2 – local CBS affiliate for Chicago).  It was illegal for this children to have a hand-gun in the first place.

Again, it is already illegal for a 15 or 16 year-old to own a handgun.   Blue Steel Democrats from Oregon put it as plainly as possible:

Note that both of the perps were under 21. Neither had any legal right in any state to own a handgun, let alone to carry one legally. There is no place in the United States where anyone could have legally sold or loaned a gun to either of those kids.

Uhmm… duh?  So, one might ask, do we really need another gun control bill to protect the innocent?  Yes says Rep. Rush.

So What’s In the Bill?  Will It Ban Guns?

No.  It won’t “ban” guns.  It will just make it really difficult for law abiding citizens to get one and keep one.  It will allow government bureaucrats into your home to ensure that you’re obeying the letter of the law.  It’s draconian.  It’s scary.

I find the constitutionality of such legislation suspect, so it’s always interesting to read how lawmakers justify stealing away our rights.  This bill suggests that gun ownership is a commercial activity, and thus, proposes to regulate because it is commerce.  Wah…?  Here’s the text:

it is in the national interest and within the role of the Federal Government to ensure that the regulation of firearms is uniform among the States, that law enforcement can quickly and effectively trace firearms used in crime, and that firearms owners know how to use and safely store their firearms  [via OpenCongress.org]

I’m reminded of Mark Twain’s prescient comment: When the legislature is in session, no one’s liberties are safe.  (I’m paraphrasing.)

Anyway, the bill closes the “gun show” gap by making it illegal to own a gun without a license.

(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;

(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. [via OpenCongress.org]

So, the next question is, how does one get such a license?

(a) In General- In order to be issued a firearm license under this title, an individual shall submit to the Attorney General (in accordance with the regulations promulgated under subsection (b)) an application, which shall include–

(1) a current, passport-sized photograph of the applicant that provides a clear, accurate likeness of the applicant;

(2) the name, address, and date and place of birth of the applicant;

(3) any other name that the applicant has ever used or by which the applicant has ever been known;

(4) a clear thumb print of the applicant, which shall be made when, and in the presence of the entity to whom, the application is submitted;

(5) with respect to each category of person prohibited by Federal law, or by the law of the State of residence of the applicant, from obtaining a firearm, a statement that the individual is not a person prohibited from obtaining a firearm;

(6) a certification by the applicant that the applicant will keep any firearm owned by the applicant safely stored and out of the possession of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;

(7) a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination, which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding–

(A) the safe storage of firearms, particularly in the vicinity of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;

(B) the safe handling of firearms;

(C) the use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use;

(D) the legal responsibilities of firearms owners, including Federal, State, and local laws relating to requirements for the possession and storage of firearms, and relating to reporting requirements with respect to firearms; and

(E) any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate;

(8) an authorization by the applicant to release to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant;

(9) the date on which the application was submitted; and

(10) the signature of the applicant.  [via OpenCongress.org]

In other words, in order to exercise your Constitutional rights, you must prove to the government that you are competent to exercise such rights.  I find that grossly antithetical to the Constitution.  I’ve made the same complaints about America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.  That bill give unchecked power to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  This bill would give the same unchecked power to the Attorney General.  Just like the health care bill, this bill would place the long arm of the federal government into your bedroom (or wherever it is that you store your guns).

Further, if you don’t keep your guns safely, you’d become legally responsible for the crimes that a child might commit with your guns.  If you own a gun shop (or any gun-related business that must be licensed under this bill), the Attorney General can enter your place of business during business hours and inspect your stock; he doesn’t need notice or a search warrant.

I can only imagine how much it will cost taxpayers to pay the Attorney General’s office to oversee Constitutional rights.

A Soft Ban on Guns?

Of course the effect of the bill will have a negative impact on legal gun ownership.  Maybe we could call it a soft ban?  It’s already frustrating enough trying to negotiate each state’s laws on gun ownership.

For example, when Dear Husband and I drive back home to see my folks in Kansas, we take the Baby Eagle.  In SoDak, we can drive with the gun in plain view.  When we reach various states on the way (Iowa, Missouri, and finally Kansas), we’ve got to move the gun around before we enter those states to comply with state laws.

If passed as is, this bill would add more frustration to gun owners who already comply with their states’ laws.  I’m sure that some would just give up their guns rather than have the Attorney General have access to their private property.  Some folks who wish to legally obtain guns might be cowed by the draconian laws.

The one thing that would remain constant, though?  Criminals would still continue breaking the law, and they would still get their guns illegally.  I’d wager that they would still use their illegal guns to continue to break laws and commit crimes against the innocent.

Anyway, I began this post in order to excoriate conservatives.

Instead of creating misleading and alarmist Facebook polls, we should reach out to our liberal friends who might support such legislation and explain to them why we thinks such legislation is unconstitutional and antithetical to our own principles.  We should tell liberals that when the federal government starts requires liscenses to exercise rights, we no longer have inalienable rights… we’ve got just whatever the government decides.  I was with you liberals folks when ya’ll were upset about government spying in your homes.  Here’s a case where you liberals might stand with conservatives: no government intrusion in your home.

Sen. John Thune’s Reciprocity Bill

One last thought on Sen. John Thune’s reciprocity bill. It was a great idea because it worked to repeal gun laws that affected law-abiding gun owners.   The bill that would amend federal code so that certain gun permits are valid from state-to-state.

Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009 – Amends the federal criminal code to provide for reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms in states that allow their residents to carry such firearms by persons who are not prohibited by federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm and who are:
(1) carrying a valid state license or permit for carrying a concealed firearm; or
(2) otherwise entitled to carry a concealed firearm in their state of residence. [ via OpenCongress.org]

And, it was voted down this July:

Sen. John Thune sponsored an amendment to the defense authorization bill allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry their weapons across state lines as long as they abided by other states’ CCW rules and regulations.

The Senate just voted down the measure by 58-39, falling two short of the 60-vote threshhold needed to block a filibuster.

Several Democrats voted for the amendment, including Sens. Feingold, Dorgan, Bayh, and Webb.

Sen. Pryor switched his vote from “nay” to “aye” at the last minute.

GOP Sens. Lugar and Voinovich voted “nay.”  [via Michelle Malkin]

Well damn.