Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Hr 347

  1. #1
    Regular Member quarter horseman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Allegan co Michigan, USA
    Posts
    345

    Hr 347

    From what I have read this has passed all BHO has to do is sign it, this is not good for OC, CC, and the people of this great country

    http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/...2hr347-SUS.pdf

    This ia a WH petition for this bill that tramples on our 1st and second amendment rights

    https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petition...dment/5N6gzG57

    I have also contacted my Rep who voted yea, please contact yours too.
    Last edited by quarter horseman; 03-05-2012 at 02:01 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member quarter horseman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Allegan co Michigan, USA
    Posts
    345
    Justin Amash from MI 3rd district is the only one who gets it, the only one to vote nay
    http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/congress-..._orig=politics

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    It seems that the law contains less ambiguity or room for interpretation. The language between the two is the nearly the same but is rearranged/combined and less wordy.

    The provisions for where violations will be prosecuted has been removed.

    The only down side is the removal of the below:

    (d) None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.


    What seems to be the issue with this rewritten law?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by quarter horseman View Post
    Justin Amash from MI 3rd district is the only one who gets it, the only one to vote nay
    http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/congress-..._orig=politics
    What was written in the article is borderline hogwash. mere fear mongering. If you take the time to read the existing law and compare to the new proposed law, some of the 'concerns' have no merit. But, it is WND, so it should not comes as a surprise.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  5. #5
    TWG2A
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    It seems that the law contains less ambiguity or room for interpretation. The language between the two is the nearly the same but is rearranged/combined and less wordy.

    The provisions for where violations will be prosecuted has been removed.

    The only down side is the removal of the below:

    (d) None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.


    What seems to be the issue with this rewritten law?

    "What seems to be the issue", you ask? Well, it's a good thing you asked, or this thread would be even shorter than it already is....

    The "issue" is that it's the same as saying "I promise that I will never take your guns away, as long as our Second Amendment is in place."

    Simply remove the Second Amendment, THEN take your guns.

    Duh.

  6. #6
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    I can see where this bill COULD be used to stifle the 1st ammendment, but I see no impact on the 2A. The reason is, as with a lot of "criminal acts" these days, there is an additional charge "if armed".

    Do I like it? No, I do not think it is necessary, or necessarily good. It will give the SS an opportunity to flex their muscle anywhere someone starts a protest where a "protected person" may be.

  7. #7
    TWG2A
    Guest
    "The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
    ~Ayn Rand

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •