H.R. 127 - The End of our Second Amendment?

[danielpalos]

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.--The Federalist Number Forty

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.

All terms are collective and plural not individual or singular. Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not the whole and entire concept of Individual rights. And, the People are the Militia, you are either well regulated or unorganized.

Only well regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia as Individuals of the People are subject to the police power of their State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

That interpretation basically sounds like another way of saying "you have the right to bear arms unless we feel like taking it away."

Due process applies. Gun rights are taken away from individual (criminals) of the People all the time. Right wingers would have us believe that the People may not be infringed in the keeping a bearing of Arms by the police power of a State for their own security.

Only well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union not gun lovers as unorganized militia of individuals of the people. Our First Amendment is first not Second. And, would legislators feel any need to enact gun control laws if it weren't for the safety issues caused by those who are specifically unorganized and unconnected with militia service well regulated?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Idiotic question.

This isn’t going to happen because this is feel-good, window dressing ‘legislation.’

It will never pass – but that won’t keep the dishonest right from lying that it will.

WHY will it "never pass" ?

Because it will never make it out of committee for a vote.

 

[protectionist]

Because it will never make it out of committee for a vote.

So you have no answer. I thought so.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because it will never make it out of committee for a vote.

So you have no answer. I thought so.

lol

You have your answer – that you don’t like the answer is irrelevant.

It’s been almost two months since the bill was introduced and it hasn’t even been addressed by the committee.

“3% chance of being enacted according to Skopos Labs”

Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act (2021 - H.R. 127)

To provide for the licensing of firearm and ammunition possession and the registration of firearms, and to prohibit the possession of certain ammunition.

www.govtrack.us

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Bill:

Text - H.R.127 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act

Articles/Information about the Bill:

Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act (H.R. 127)

FightHR127.com: Stop HR 127 - Gun Licensing, Registration & Partial Ammo Ban

Pro Gun Group Says H.R. 127 Gun Control Bill Is 'Insanity on Steroids'

Congressional Bill H.R. 127- To Provide for the Licensing of Firearms and Ammunition - FosterFollyNews.com

Videos about the Bill:






OP Commentary:

Eleven or so miles as the crow flies from where I sit typing out this post criminal maniacs are "quaking" it up on the streets of Charm city free of any federal, state or local laws prohibiting them from murdering each other and innocent bystanders with every modern firearm imaginable, from handguns and submachine guns to semi and fully automatic rifles and carbines. Every single day I open up my Windows 10 news feed and find there, glaring back at me, new reports of killings down in beautiful old Baltimore—often within mere blocks of such bastions of civilization as Johns Hopkins University campus and the Inner Harbor, a world renowned tourist attraction. The factual truth is no level of government imposed "gun control" will ever stop or even slow down the Baltimore murder rate or number of daily shootings.

Despite the above undeniable reality, people like myself—veterans, former law enforcement and otherwise upstanding, law abiding citizens must jump through nearly impassable bureaucratic red tape hoops in order to simply transport our legally owned firearms to our local ranges in order to use them. And that's the sad state of affairs here in Maryland even before H.R. 127 makes its way through our Congress to President Biden's Resolute Desk. As it stands criminal maniacs, such as those daily murdering Americans on the streets of every major U.S. City, already are empowered with greater Second Amendment rights than American citizens who have never broken gun laws. With the introduction and likely passage of H.R. 127, We The People will have next to no legal ability to own firearms and/or use them to defend ourselves, our communities or our families.

The situation seems ultra clear, both from a gun owner's viewpoint and any American Citizen possessed of the capability for basic reasoning. Criminal maniacs—drug dealers, human traffickers, narco-terrorists, gangbangers and other human scum—will all have the protection of our federal government to carry on with their rampant destruction of human life with any firearm they choose to steal and shoot, whilst Americans who have always abided by our civilization's rule of law will be taxed and punished out of our Second Amendment right for the "crime" of merely wanting to own, oh no, a gun.

H.R. 127 is a clear and overt effort by our federal lawmakers to disarm, catalogue and demonize all law abiding American gun owners, from generational hunters to target shooters and even the little old lady who lives alone in the ghetto and seeks a gun for protection. H.R. 127 is a direct attack on all decent American Citizens and another front opened in our government's war against We The People.

"H.R. 127 - The End of our Second Amendment?"

More rightwing ignorance and demagoguery.

As already correctly noted: the Constitution cannot be changed by legislative action, only by the amendment process.

And that process would required the Constitution be amended to repeal the Second Amendment – which will never happen, just like the passage of this bill will never happen.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Infringe:
act so as to limit or undermine (something);
encroach on.
undermine
erode
diminish
weaken
impair
damage
compromise
limit
curb
check
place a limit on
encroach on
interfere with

For all of you who stood firm and vowed to do the "pry my cold dead hands" thing, tell me about your plan now that you know a little more about their plan. After you sell your home to pay the fines for noncompliance, they are still going to make you comply...

And to those who voted for this, having no protection while opening our borders, don't think for one minute that the men who just broke into your house and are armed, are going to ask you if you are a Democrat before they raped your daughter, you are sadly mistaken.

 

[protectionist]

lol

You have your answer – that you don’t like the answer is irrelevant.

It’s been almost two months since the bill was introduced and it hasn’t even been addressed by the committee.

“3% chance of being enacted according to Skopos Labs”

Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act (2021 - H.R. 127)

To provide for the licensing of firearm and ammunition possession and the registration of firearms, and to prohibit the possession of certain ammunition.

www.govtrack.us

Never heard of Skopos Labs. Eventually we'll know if the bill passes. And stop pretending that your DODGES are answers.

 

[Utilitarian]

That interpretation basically sounds like another way of saying "you have the right to bear arms unless we feel like taking it away."

Due process applies. Gun rights are taken away from individual (criminals) of the People all the time. Right wingers would have us believe that the People may not be infringed in the keeping a bearing of Arms by the police power of a State for their own security.

Only well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union not gun lovers as unorganized militia of individuals of the people. Our First Amendment is first not Second. And, would legislators feel any need to enact gun control laws if it weren't for the safety issues caused by those who are specifically unorganized and unconnected with militia service well regulated?

When considering the arbitrary limits placed on gun rights by various states already (like magazine limits), if the Court had gone with your interpretation, about half of the states would have laws prohibiting anyone outside of law enforcement from having guns.

What sparked the Heller and McDonald cases to begin with were very restrictive laws in DC and Chicago. They effectively had gun bans in place before these rulings.

So, you may believe that due process would apply, but clearly, that did not apply to DC or Chicago before Court intervention.

 

[danielpalos]

Infringe:
act so as to limit or undermine (something);
encroach on.
undermine
erode
diminish
weaken
impair
damage
compromise
limit
curb
check
place a limit on
encroach on
interfere with

For all of you who stood firm and vowed to do the "pry my cold dead hands" thing, tell me about your plan now that you know a little more about their plan. After you sell your home to pay the fines for noncompliance, they are still going to make you comply...

And to those who voted for this, having no protection while opening our borders, don't think for one minute that the men who just broke into your house and are armed, are going to ask you if you are a Democrat before they raped your daughter, you are sadly mistaken.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

That interpretation basically sounds like another way of saying "you have the right to bear arms unless we feel like taking it away."

Due process applies. Gun rights are taken away from individual (criminals) of the People all the time. Right wingers would have us believe that the People may not be infringed in the keeping a bearing of Arms by the police power of a State for their own security.

Only well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union not gun lovers as unorganized militia of individuals of the people. Our First Amendment is first not Second. And, would legislators feel any need to enact gun control laws if it weren't for the safety issues caused by those who are specifically unorganized and unconnected with militia service well regulated?

When considering the arbitrary limits placed on gun rights by various states already (like magazine limits), if the Court had gone with your interpretation, about half of the states would have laws prohibiting anyone outside of law enforcement from having guns.

What sparked the Heller and McDonald cases to begin with were very restrictive laws in DC and Chicago. They effectively had gun bans in place before these rulings.

So, you may believe that due process would apply, but clearly, that did not apply to DC or Chicago before Court intervention.

This is what should have happened:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Infringe:
act so as to limit or undermine (something);
encroach on.
undermine
erode
diminish
weaken
impair
damage
compromise
limit
curb
check
place a limit on
encroach on
interfere with

For all of you who stood firm and vowed to do the "pry my cold dead hands" thing, tell me about your plan now that you know a little more about their plan. After you sell your home to pay the fines for noncompliance, they are still going to make you comply...

And to those who voted for this, having no protection while opening our borders, don't think for one minute that the men who just broke into your house and are armed, are going to ask you if you are a Democrat before they raped your daughter, you are sadly mistaken.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Except that isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about the part you left out:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Is H.R.127 infringing? Where's the part of the Constitution that says the government has the right to dictate what weapons and ammo the people are allowed to bear? Or to fine and imprison those who do keep and bear arms? How does the government call up a militia if the militia has nothing to defend WITH?

If you think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were important to Washington and the others, note this.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is the only right that comes with this warning:
Above all, this one is not to be screwed with.

 

[HenryBHough]

Sheep aren't allowed to have guns and so you dine on lamb chops.

Cattle aren't allowed to have guns and so you dine on steaks.

Only unanswered question is what will dine on YOU aren't allowed to have guns?

Predatory Liberal Elites?

After all, they are....in their dogma....very, very special.

They do have a point. Special like the spaz kid that's so much fun to watch eating ice cream.

 

[Utilitarian]

This is what should have happened:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

I guess that depends on what "maintenance and regulation" entail. Also, defending the nation and defending the state aren't the same. Sometimes, the people have to defend a nation against an oppressive state.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Infringe:
act so as to limit or undermine (something);
encroach on.
undermine
erode
diminish
weaken
impair
damage
compromise
limit
curb
check
place a limit on
encroach on
interfere with

For all of you who stood firm and vowed to do the "pry my cold dead hands" thing, tell me about your plan now that you know a little more about their plan. After you sell your home to pay the fines for noncompliance, they are still going to make you comply...

And to those who voted for this, having no protection while opening our borders, don't think for one minute that the men who just broke into your house and are armed, are going to ask you if you are a Democrat before they raped your daughter, you are sadly mistaken.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Except that isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about the part you left out:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Is H.R.127 infringing? Where's the part of the Constitution that says the government has the right to dictate what weapons and ammo the people are allowed to bear? Or to fine and imprison those who do keep and bear arms? How does the government call up a militia if the militia has nothing to defend WITH?

If you think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were important to Washington and the others, note this.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is the only right that comes with this warning:
Above all, this one is not to be screwed with.

Except that isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about the part you left out:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I believe you're uninformed of the decision of Justice Scalia in Dist. of Columbia v. Heller (2008) which clearly states the following and is settled caselaw;

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
~~ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER. ~~

Amendment II is not sacrosanct by any means, nor has it ever been as Scalia noted in multiple references from Blackstone through today!

 

[The Irish Ram]

^
Infringement...

 

[Smokin' OP]

The Bill:

Text - H.R.127 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act

Articles/Information about the Bill:

Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act (H.R. 127)

FightHR127.com: Stop HR 127 - Gun Licensing, Registration & Partial Ammo Ban

Pro Gun Group Says H.R. 127 Gun Control Bill Is 'Insanity on Steroids'

Congressional Bill H.R. 127- To Provide for the Licensing of Firearms and Ammunition - FosterFollyNews.com

Videos about the Bill:






OP Commentary:

Eleven or so miles as the crow flies from where I sit typing out this post criminal maniacs are "quaking" it up on the streets of Charm city free of any federal, state or local laws prohibiting them from murdering each other and innocent bystanders with every modern firearm imaginable, from handguns and submachine guns to semi and fully automatic rifles and carbines. Every single day I open up my Windows 10 news feed and find there, glaring back at me, new reports of killings down in beautiful old Baltimore—often within mere blocks of such bastions of civilization as Johns Hopkins University campus and the Inner Harbor, a world renowned tourist attraction. The factual truth is no level of government imposed "gun control" will ever stop or even slow down the Baltimore murder rate or number of daily shootings.

Despite the above undeniable reality, people like myself—veterans, former law enforcement and otherwise upstanding, law abiding citizens must jump through nearly impassable bureaucratic red tape hoops in order to simply transport our legally owned firearms to our local ranges in order to use them. And that's the sad state of affairs here in Maryland even before H.R. 127 makes its way through our Congress to President Biden's Resolute Desk. As it stands criminal maniacs, such as those daily murdering Americans on the streets of every major U.S. City, already are empowered with greater Second Amendment rights than American citizens who have never broken gun laws. With the introduction and likely passage of H.R. 127, We The People will have next to no legal ability to own firearms and/or use them to defend ourselves, our communities or our families.

The situation seems ultra clear, both from a gun owner's viewpoint and any American Citizen possessed of the capability for basic reasoning. Criminal maniacs—drug dealers, human traffickers, narco-terrorists, gangbangers and other human scum—will all have the protection of our federal government to carry on with their rampant destruction of human life with any firearm they choose to steal and shoot, whilst Americans who have always abided by our civilization's rule of law will be taxed and punished out of our Second Amendment right for the "crime" of merely wanting to own, oh no, a gun.

H.R. 127 is a clear and overt effort by our federal lawmakers to disarm, catalogue and demonize all law abiding American gun owners, from generational hunters to target shooters and even the little old lady who lives alone in the ghetto and seeks a gun for protection. H.R. 127 is a direct attack on all decent American Citizens and another front opened in our government's war against We The People.

Sure as hell sounds like some American hating scumbags are trying ton infringe . When the facts sat the founders said : "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" . Our god giver rights ! Wow , democrats sure are dumb!

"God" gave you those rights?
Why doesn't every one in the world have those same rights?
Those "rights" must be in the bible right?
So, it took almost 1800 years after his "son" was born to make that proclamation?
Teabaggers are the dumb ones, thinking "God" gave them "rights".

 

[danielpalos]

Infringe:
act so as to limit or undermine (something);
encroach on.
undermine
erode
diminish
weaken
impair
damage
compromise
limit
curb
check
place a limit on
encroach on
interfere with

For all of you who stood firm and vowed to do the "pry my cold dead hands" thing, tell me about your plan now that you know a little more about their plan. After you sell your home to pay the fines for noncompliance, they are still going to make you comply...

And to those who voted for this, having no protection while opening our borders, don't think for one minute that the men who just broke into your house and are armed, are going to ask you if you are a Democrat before they raped your daughter, you are sadly mistaken.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Except that isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about the part you left out:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Is H.R.127 infringing? Where's the part of the Constitution that says the government has the right to dictate what weapons and ammo the people are allowed to bear? Or to fine and imprison those who do keep and bear arms? How does the government call up a militia if the militia has nothing to defend WITH?

If you think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were important to Washington and the others, note this.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is the only right that comes with this warning:
Above all, this one is not to be screwed with.

Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

This applies to the unorganized militia:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

 

[danielpalos]

Sheep aren't allowed to have guns and so you dine on lamb chops.

Cattle aren't allowed to have guns and so you dine on steaks.

Only unanswered question is what will dine on YOU aren't allowed to have guns?

Predatory Liberal Elites?

After all, they are....in their dogma....very, very special.

They do have a point. Special like the spaz kid that's so much fun to watch eating ice cream.

The natives used to dine on buffalo.

And, our First Amendment is First not Second.

 

[danielpalos]

This is what should have happened:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

I guess that depends on what "maintenance and regulation" entail. Also, defending the nation and defending the state aren't the same. Sometimes, the people have to defend a nation against an oppressive state.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States. And, well regulated militia are a State's sovereign right secured by our Second Amendment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Anyone voting for such a bill is guilty of treason and should be executed immediately.

Fucking executed. Dead. Fucking disemboweled and beheaded.

This is violence toward the people.