Obama administration criminalizes gun ownership

By Bob Kemp

In early America a gun was an essential part of survival. In fact, owning a gun and knowing how to use it was considered an obligation to one's self as well as to one's family and community. The people in many respects were responsible for their own self-defense from the very beginning of when this land was settled. The gun was considered then, as now, a tool. Then it was a tool of freedom and survival. With this tool the early settlers were better able to put food on the table and protect their families and communities from dangers that were all around. Today it is no less a tool of freedom. It is a tool of freedom from becoming the victim of a home invasion. It is a tool of freedom on the streets from rapes and muggings and wanton violence that is so pervasive in our country today. Having a loaded 12-gauge shotgun next to my bed gives me a feeling of security I would not have otherwise. Knowing my wife knows how to use our 12-gauge eases my mind during those times she is home alone. Firearms are also a recreational tool for the shooting sportsman, and are still used in the 21st century to put meat on the table, some for pleasure and others out of necessity. If you do not believe me, simply go north to Alaska, or some other part of our nation where still today people living in remote areas are dependent on their firearms to provide food. Being able to do so gives a person a sense of independence from our techno-world, and reminds us of another time in our history. I remember being invited to a friend's home for supper to partake of a duck dinner. My friend was very proud of the duck on the table and I enjoyed listening to him talk about his hunting experience as much as I enjoyed the meal and hospitality.

Cora Weiss is one of those people that hate such things as the Second Amendment. She is a career peacenik and president of the UN affiliate The Hague for Peace. While addressing the UN in June 2000, she said, "There are only three documents that you need...to be an informed, effective member of an organized civil society: The Charter of the United Nations, the International Declaration of Human Rights and The Hague Agenda of Peace and Justice for the 21st Century". Did ya notice she didn't mention the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution? Weiss belongs to those that do not believe ordinary citizens should have the right to arm themselves. They want have us all to surrender our weapons in the name of peace. Here's a history lesson; what happened in Rwanda in 1994 when the UN disarmed the Tutsis and then supported the government genocide?

Governments disarm their population solely for the purpose to easily enforce their tyrannical policies without fear of revolt from the peasants. Just look to the Bolsheviks, the Nazis and Khmer Rouge. My wife has Cherokee blood in her veins. She is very sensitive to the subject of a people being able to defend themselves. Ask the Native Americans what they would tell their grandfathers if they could when the federal government tells your people that you must disarm. Disarming only means one thing, and that is surrender. It means you must submit to a power greater than you. A conquering army always demands the weapons of the defeated. The liberals want to disarm Americans (for our own good) but before they can do that they will have to re-write the history books and purge from our collective memories what history has taught us about what happens to a people when they give up their ability to defend themselves.

Dr. Suzzana Hupp is a survivor of the tragedy that unfolded at the Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas in 1991. A madman drove his truck through a plate glass window of the restaurant, exited the truck and began shooting people at random. Her parents were among the victims that day. Her testimony is sobering and effective. Two years after the shooting she testified before Congress about that day and how upset she was at the time that under the law she did not have the right to carry a handgun to defend herself or her family. If we allow the government to outlaw in incremental steps the right to gun ownership, then only the criminal element will possess them. I know that is an old argument, but it is no less legitimate today as when it was first made many years ago. Do free Americans want to live in a country...in a world, where only the government and criminals have firearms? I believe our forefathers would and have warned against such a thing as this. They would tell us it is incumbent upon this generation to make certain our freedoms and liberties are protected. They understood what it was like to live under a tyrannical government; a government that would have continued to apply pressure and take away liberties had it not been for the brave colonists that stood up for themselves and said "No more." This is why there is a Second Amendment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvTO-y-B2YM





In England and Australia gun ownership has become increasingly difficult. I have provided a link to a news story about this also. In this video, the common man warns again and again to not let what has happened in these two countries happen to the U.S. We need to heed their warnings now before it is too late.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnRCyKnrZnc





Mr. Obama's nominee to run the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has a public record of anti-gun sentiments. David Michaels is a George Washington University professor and the chief of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy. This organization is funded in part by George Soros.

Michaels is proposing a workplace "safety" regulation which would prohibit law-abiding gun owners from carrying their weapons into their places of employment, or even on the property at all...including the parking lot. What he is doing is advocating that gun ownership and the carrying of legally registered guns is a public health menace.

According to Walter Olson at www.Overlayered.com "That's by no means irrelevant to the agenda of an agency like OSHA, because once you start viewing private gun ownership as a public health menace, it begins to seem logical to use the powers of government to urge or even require employers to forbid workers from possessing guns on the company premises, up to and including parking lots, ostensibly for the protection of co-workers."

This is not the first time Michaels has been outspoken on the subject of gun control. In 2007 he condemned proposals in both Georgia and Florida that would have allowed employees to carry their guns to and from their places of employment for protection. Michaels is expected to bring major changes if approved to head up OSHA. Michaels wrote OSHA "badly needs a change in direction and philosophy" and he thinks it should include a "Campaign to change the workplace culture of safety."

If Michaels is approved and he implements the changes he is expected to, this will affect many, many businesses. I personally know of two business owners that keep firearms in their offices for protection of themselves, their employees and their property because of the area their businesses are located in. Gun shop owners for the most part wear their hand guns on their body for obvious reasons. The list goes on and on. Many states have their own laws concerning this issue and some may think the state laws would trump the federal laws, but this is not the case. According to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal law always trumps state law when the two laws are in conflict with each other. So Michaels could write a new regulation stating it is illegal for any business to allow guns in the workplace or in the parking lots. And for what it's worth, Attorney General Eric Holder supported the Washington D.C ban on handguns before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the case.

H.R. 45

The Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act, also known as H.R. 45 is another concern for Second Amendment advocates because it is another attempt by the Obama administration to strip law-abiding citizens of the right to gun ownership. The anti-gun camp is attempting to make it next to impossible to own a gun with this legislation.

Here are the facts on H.R. 45:

First of all, there has been a lot of hype that H.R. 45 will require gun owners to report on their tax returns their gun inventory and if they fail to so, they would be subject to fines and arrest. This is not true. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) originally introduced legislation several years ago that would require just such a thing, but that bill died because it never had much support. The current H.R. 45 contains nothing resembling Rush's bill. So the rumors about this should be laid to rest so we can concentrate on what is in the bill.

H.R. 45 will forbid any person from owning any handgun or semiautomatic firearm that accepts a detachable ammunition feeding device, (except antiques), without a license. Under the legislation, a person who is seeking a firearm for any reason must first apply for a license to own one. In the application process, a person must provide the attorney general the following 1) a current passport-sized photo 2) name address, date of birth and birthplace 3) any other alias the applicant has used 4) a clear thumbprint 5) a statement that the individual is not a person prohibited by state or federal law from obtaining a gun 6) certification that the applicant will keep the gun safely stored away and out of the reach of minors 7) a certificate showing the applicant has passed a written firearms examination of the safe storage of firearms, safe handling of firearms, safe use of firearms in the home and risks associated with use, legal responsibilities of firearm owners and "any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate." 8) Authorization 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 the applicants signature.

The bill forbids the sale of a firearm with a detachable clip directly from one person to another; they must involve a licensed and authorized gun dealer or collector, who will make a federal record of the transaction. The transaction can only take place between individuals that have submitted the above outlined application and have been licensed by the fed's to be gun owners. Did you catch the part about passing a mental exam in the bill? That's item number 8. The bill will also mandate the attorney general to conduct surprise inspections during regular business hours "of any place in which firearms or firearm material are manufactured, stored or held, for distribution in commerce, and inspect those areas where the products are so manufactured, stored, or held." Just what are they looking for?

What this bill does is it criminalizes the lawful gun owners, putting them under the strictest of supervision in everything concerning their firearms. Never mind the 200,000 laws that are already on the books concerning guns, the fed's now want to micromanage every aspect of gun ownership to the point that the hassles involved with gun ownership will at some point appear to the gun owner to not be worth the trouble to own a firearm. And that is the goal of the anti-gunners. They can't get enough support yet to confiscate our guns, so they will make us so miserable that we eventually will voluntarily turn them in like they did in England and Australia. The laws are supposed to target the criminals that are trying illegally to get guns, not the honest and responsible gun owners that obey the law. In my family, we have had loaded guns in our homes for protection, hunting and sport going back at least 100 years. Never has there been an incident with anyone in my family. Now suddenly the fed's going to tell us we are not responsible enough to own a firearm. The absurdity is ridiculous and the backdoor method to get our guns out of our hands so the government can take away more freedoms is insulting to our intelligence to say the least. If the bill does pass, Democrats will likely lose control of their chambers in upcoming mid-term elections in 2010. The House leadership knows this, so there is a chance it will not pass. Never-the-less, Washington needs to hear from us on this loud and clear.

One of the things that led up to the war for independence from England was that King George had ordered the British army to confiscate the firearms of the colonials. The colonials would not sit for that; thus was fired the shot that was heard around the world. Is American history about to repeat itself?

© Bob Kemp