alan
Member
Note to moderators:
Should you find the following "off-topic" or otherwise problematic, apologies offered. I thought that the following might prove of interest to some.
Introduction: The Congress (House and Senate) has legislated. Does the mere presence of words in the statute books merit their retention, when the legislation has not performed as promised? Should their work product be periodically be reexamined to determine its’ efficacy. Yes, is should be, as is indicated by the following.
All legislation should be examined periodically to determine its’ effectiveness or lack thereof. This is especially true of Gun Control Laws, for such legislation impacts adversely, on the most basic civil and constitutional rights of the law abiding citizenry.. The foregoing is especially important due to the fact that there is significant question concerning the constitutional correctness of the Congress legislating in this field at all. The need for periodic examination of the work product of the congress (legislation) to ascertain whether it is delivering expected or promised results is unquestioned, or should be. Looking at the history of such things, Gun Control Laws have never performed as promised, though they do and have adversely impacted upon the law abiding..
Let’s look at some examples of Gun Control Laws currently gracing the federal statute books. First there is the National Firearms Act of 1934, originally enacted in the guise of a revenue bill, though it never raised all that much revenue. What this legislation does is restrict or regulate the sale, possession and transfer of automatic and selective fire weapons, silencers, destructive devices and certain other types of firearms. A time consuming paperwork process, and payment of a $200 “transfer tax” is required every time any arms or devices that fall under the acts purview are transferred. Except for The Prohibition era, there has been little criminal use of machine guns in the history of this nation. Prohibition was the breeding ground of organized crime as we know it today. Additionally, the restrictions on silencers, more accurately mufflers, has led to no small amount of hearing loss, and accompanying problems, problems that could have been easily avoided. We here come face to face with unintended consequences. Does anyone claim that the congress intended to damage the hearing of millions? Likely not, despite their passing strange antics, but those unintended consequences loom large. Hearing loss and accompanying problems could have been easily avoided. If one were to seriously inquire whether the public safety had been enhanced by the existence of the NFA, and honest answer would be NO !!.
Next is the Gun Control Act of 1968, whose opening text declared more or less that it was not the intent of this legislation to interfere with or create obstacles in the paths of the law abiding. Alas, it did exactly that. It most certainly didn’t reduce crime or the use of arms by criminals. It also led directly to the massive enlargement of federal gun control bureaucracy, and the manifold abuses of power and authority that have been part and parcel of this bureaucracies operations and methods. The current iteration of this bureaucracy is the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, whose antics are currently the subject of congressional criticism and investigation, investigation that the Obama Administration and its’ Dept. Of Justice seem intent on stonewalling.
Next there is the Hughes Amendment circa 1986, legislation attached to The Firearms Owners Protection Act, via a most questionable unrecorded voice vote. Enactment of this legislation did little except to lead to a significant increase in the prices of transferable automatic weapons, which in no way served to enhance the public safety. There has, via this legislation, been no benefit of any kind to the law abiding public, NONE.
Where to now? A lot of junk has accumulated in the closet, wherein one finds the federal criminal statutes. A significant portion of this junk are existing gun control laws. More such junk is proposed virtually every year, this year being no exception. A wholesale housecleaning is needed and it is needed badly. No additional junk should be added.
Obviously, there are amongst the body politic, the largest part of which is law-abiding, individuals who have clearly shown that they are unfit to bear arms of any kind. This aspect can be addressed by simple legislation, there being no need for legislative, bureaucratic complexities. Actually existing federal law already stipulates that certain classes of individual are disallowed from the possession of arms, convicted felons being amongst that group. Problem is that respecting the BATFE, today’s relevant government mob, and those that came and went before it appeared, existing federal law, some small parts of which actually make sense, contains the appropriate specifications. Unfortunately, existing federal law under the BATFE and its’ predecessors, has seldom been properly enforced. That Virginia is a fact.
The existing situation need not exist. There is no justification for allowing run away mobs such as BATFE to essentially create law via bureaucratic decree, which it currently. Allowing the creation of law by bureaucratic decree makes for the worst sort of law, which is what, re firearms, we currently have.
As a member of congress, you have a duty to the people who elected you, that duty including the above referenced examination of existing law. On any reasonable basis, existing federal law in the firearms field is and has been an abject failure. Above referenced and badly needed house cleaning should commence RDN (Right Damned Now). To do less is to fail in multiple ways. First, you will have failed to uphold the oath of office that you took, that oath including words about “supporting, upholding and defending The Constitution”. Secondly you will have failed those that elected you, for they had and have a reasonable expectation of the congress periodically reexamining its’ work product (legislation) respecting the operations and effectiveness thereof. Do not fail those who hired you.
Should you find the following "off-topic" or otherwise problematic, apologies offered. I thought that the following might prove of interest to some.
Introduction: The Congress (House and Senate) has legislated. Does the mere presence of words in the statute books merit their retention, when the legislation has not performed as promised? Should their work product be periodically be reexamined to determine its’ efficacy. Yes, is should be, as is indicated by the following.
All legislation should be examined periodically to determine its’ effectiveness or lack thereof. This is especially true of Gun Control Laws, for such legislation impacts adversely, on the most basic civil and constitutional rights of the law abiding citizenry.. The foregoing is especially important due to the fact that there is significant question concerning the constitutional correctness of the Congress legislating in this field at all. The need for periodic examination of the work product of the congress (legislation) to ascertain whether it is delivering expected or promised results is unquestioned, or should be. Looking at the history of such things, Gun Control Laws have never performed as promised, though they do and have adversely impacted upon the law abiding..
Let’s look at some examples of Gun Control Laws currently gracing the federal statute books. First there is the National Firearms Act of 1934, originally enacted in the guise of a revenue bill, though it never raised all that much revenue. What this legislation does is restrict or regulate the sale, possession and transfer of automatic and selective fire weapons, silencers, destructive devices and certain other types of firearms. A time consuming paperwork process, and payment of a $200 “transfer tax” is required every time any arms or devices that fall under the acts purview are transferred. Except for The Prohibition era, there has been little criminal use of machine guns in the history of this nation. Prohibition was the breeding ground of organized crime as we know it today. Additionally, the restrictions on silencers, more accurately mufflers, has led to no small amount of hearing loss, and accompanying problems, problems that could have been easily avoided. We here come face to face with unintended consequences. Does anyone claim that the congress intended to damage the hearing of millions? Likely not, despite their passing strange antics, but those unintended consequences loom large. Hearing loss and accompanying problems could have been easily avoided. If one were to seriously inquire whether the public safety had been enhanced by the existence of the NFA, and honest answer would be NO !!.
Next is the Gun Control Act of 1968, whose opening text declared more or less that it was not the intent of this legislation to interfere with or create obstacles in the paths of the law abiding. Alas, it did exactly that. It most certainly didn’t reduce crime or the use of arms by criminals. It also led directly to the massive enlargement of federal gun control bureaucracy, and the manifold abuses of power and authority that have been part and parcel of this bureaucracies operations and methods. The current iteration of this bureaucracy is the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, whose antics are currently the subject of congressional criticism and investigation, investigation that the Obama Administration and its’ Dept. Of Justice seem intent on stonewalling.
Next there is the Hughes Amendment circa 1986, legislation attached to The Firearms Owners Protection Act, via a most questionable unrecorded voice vote. Enactment of this legislation did little except to lead to a significant increase in the prices of transferable automatic weapons, which in no way served to enhance the public safety. There has, via this legislation, been no benefit of any kind to the law abiding public, NONE.
Where to now? A lot of junk has accumulated in the closet, wherein one finds the federal criminal statutes. A significant portion of this junk are existing gun control laws. More such junk is proposed virtually every year, this year being no exception. A wholesale housecleaning is needed and it is needed badly. No additional junk should be added.
Obviously, there are amongst the body politic, the largest part of which is law-abiding, individuals who have clearly shown that they are unfit to bear arms of any kind. This aspect can be addressed by simple legislation, there being no need for legislative, bureaucratic complexities. Actually existing federal law already stipulates that certain classes of individual are disallowed from the possession of arms, convicted felons being amongst that group. Problem is that respecting the BATFE, today’s relevant government mob, and those that came and went before it appeared, existing federal law, some small parts of which actually make sense, contains the appropriate specifications. Unfortunately, existing federal law under the BATFE and its’ predecessors, has seldom been properly enforced. That Virginia is a fact.
The existing situation need not exist. There is no justification for allowing run away mobs such as BATFE to essentially create law via bureaucratic decree, which it currently. Allowing the creation of law by bureaucratic decree makes for the worst sort of law, which is what, re firearms, we currently have.
As a member of congress, you have a duty to the people who elected you, that duty including the above referenced examination of existing law. On any reasonable basis, existing federal law in the firearms field is and has been an abject failure. Above referenced and badly needed house cleaning should commence RDN (Right Damned Now). To do less is to fail in multiple ways. First, you will have failed to uphold the oath of office that you took, that oath including words about “supporting, upholding and defending The Constitution”. Secondly you will have failed those that elected you, for they had and have a reasonable expectation of the congress periodically reexamining its’ work product (legislation) respecting the operations and effectiveness thereof. Do not fail those who hired you.
