Basically this would make it illegal to own a rifle with a clip or any pistol unless:
* It is registered
* You are fingerprinted
* Your supply a current Driver's License
* You supply your Social Security #
* You will submit to a physical & mental eval at any time
* Each change of ownership through must be reported and costs $25
Failure to do so means:
* You automatically lose the right to own a firearm
* You are subject up to a year in jail.
Federal gun storage inspection at any time to verify locked AND inaccessible to anyone under 18.
Failure of gun storage inspection means a fine plus up to 5 years in prison.
I think this hardcore tracking is a little spooky.
Looking into the second amendment, "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."
It doesn't say I have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms, nor does it define how formal the militia must be, but it does state that it should be well regulated, except to the point of infringing on the right of the People to keep and bear arms.
This definitely infringes on the right of the People to keep and bear arms.
Also, the commerce clause states, "The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
This bill specifically claims intrastate commerce rights, which are constitutionally reserved by the states. Firearms are traditionally only covered by the commerce clause when traded across state lines. Trading across state lines would not taint the firearm as always being regulated by the federal government. Only the specific transactions related to the interstate trade would be constitutionally regulated by the federal government.
Finally, the necessary powers clause states, "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
This bill does is neither necessary nor proper for the execution of the powers vested by the Constitution.
- I think a viable alternative would be to simply criminalize transferring possession or ownership of a firearm:
- to a person who is not a citizen or naturalized citizen without an international firearm sales license
- to a person who may be reasonably expected to commit a crime using that firearm
- to improperly store your firearms such that a minor might reasonably be expected to obtain unsupervised access
The problem is that some people seem to be pushing for a unitary government, rather than a federation with confederation leanings. These people are usually one of two groups: Those with very little experience outside of a small realm of influence, or those who stand to gain further power by the changes. Not entirely. Some people just like to control others, or are socialist enough to think that everyone is the same and should want the same things.
TX and Florida will both be very much against this, but I'm not sure about the other states. California would probably would vote in favor of this.
*sigh* I'm really tired of people trying to take away my rights "for my own good". I want the fed to protect my borders, handle a common currency, help ensure stable transportation and communication, and be funded by the states. I don't like the IRS, nor many of the hundreds of other agencies glommed on to the federal government.
I think many of these should be separate entities to which states have a choice over whether to subscribe to their services or not.
Though, I subscribe to a strong federalization, almost to the point of sovereign states, but not quite enough to be a confederation.
I'm probably just a nut and should bow to my wonderful overlords who love me very much and only want to take all of my money and subvert any drive for creativity or technological growth. It's best for everyone. Really.
I should be asleep.