Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: If Congress can defund the 2nd Amendment, it can defund Obamacare. Thomas Mullen, TWT

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    If Congress can defund the 2nd Amendment, it can defund Obamacare. Thomas Mullen, TWT

    "In fact, Congress defunds enacted laws all the time. Congress has defunded § 925(c) Exceptions: Relief from disabilities every year since 1992, for example. This is a law passed by Congress and signed by the president, just like the Affordable Care Act. The law provides a mechanism for convicted felons who have served their sentences to override the prohibition against convicted felons possessing firearms.

    [...]

    The Exceptions law helps mitigate the federal government’s war on the 2nd Amendment. Current federal law prohibits anyone convicted of a felony “in any court” to possess firearms (18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The only felonies excepted are offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices.” (18 U.S.C. § 921(a) (20)(A).

    The courts interpret that exception very narrowly. In Dreher v. U.S., 115 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 1997), The U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit found that a conviction for wire or mail fraud does not fall under the exception. Dreher was found guilty of billing clients for services not rendered. He is ineligible to own a firearm. The exception by no means encompasses all non-violent or even all white collar felonies.

    In other words, even Martha Stewart is prohibited for life from owning a gun, due to Congress’ defunding of § 925(c).

    http://communities.washingtontimes.c...it-can-defund/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    "In fact, Congress defunds enacted laws all the time. Congress has defunded § 925(c) Exceptions: Relief from disabilities every year since 1992, for example. This is a law passed by Congress and signed by the president, just like the Affordable Care Act. The law provides a mechanism for convicted felons who have served their sentences to override the prohibition against convicted felons possessing firearms.

    [...]

    The Exceptions law helps mitigate the federal government’s war on the 2nd Amendment. Current federal law prohibits anyone convicted of a felony “in any court” to possess firearms (18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The only felonies excepted are offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices.” (18 U.S.C. § 921(a) (20)(A).

    The courts interpret that exception very narrowly. In Dreher v. U.S., 115 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 1997), The U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit found that a conviction for wire or mail fraud does not fall under the exception. Dreher was found guilty of billing clients for services not rendered. He is ineligible to own a firearm. The exception by no means encompasses all non-violent or even all white collar felonies.

    In other words, even Martha Stewart is prohibited for life from owning a gun, due to Congress’ defunding of § 925(c).

    http://communities.washingtontimes.c...it-can-defund/
    Um, I'm not sure how the Congress can "defund" the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment simply says that the federal government (and the States, when the SCOTUS says the Right is fully incorporated) may not infringe on the God-Given or natural Right to keep and bear arms. There is no "funding" that can be "defunded."
    Air Force Veteran
    NRA Life Member
    VCDL Member
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety, Personal Protection
    Maryland Qualified Handgun Instructor
    Certified Instructor, Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc.
    Member, Mt. Washington Rod & Gun Club
    National Sporting Clays Association Certified Referee

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    Perhaps the author will explain it to you.

    http://www.tommullen.net/contact-2/

    I'm sure that he thought his article a sufficient argument.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    Um, I'm not sure how the Congress can "defund" the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment simply says that the federal government (and the States, when the SCOTUS says the Right is fully incorporated) may not infringe on the God-Given or natural Right to keep and bear arms. There is no "funding" that can be "defunded."
    Federal law provides a provision by which someone convicted of a federal felony can petition for "relief of disability". It is a good and valid law still on the books. Since 1992, all funding appropriation bills have contained language prohibiting the use of any federal funds for the purposes of doing the investigations required by the law to grant such relief. Therefore, for all practical purposes, if you are convicted of a federal felony (other than one of the excepted felonies) you can never own firearms again unless you get a presidential pardon. This was challenged at some point and the court ruled that since Congress explicitly directed no funds be used for the purpose it had the same effect as repealing the law (that provides a means of seeking such relief) except that so long as the original law is on the books the prohibition on the use of funds must appear each time a funding bill is passed. If Congress were to ever pass a funding bill that did not contain the prohibition on the use of funds, then one could sue and force them to process your relief-from-disability paperwork.

    Depending upon how the judicial landscape changes in coming years I could see this being challenged again on 2A grounds instead of due process grounds.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    That is not "defunding the 2nd Amendment."

    Rhetoric like this makes us look like nutjobs, and that hurts the cause for the 2A.

    Be rational. Let the antis be the nutjobs.

  6. #6
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    That is not "defunding the 2nd Amendment."

    Rhetoric like this makes us look like nutjobs, and that hurts the cause for the 2A.

    Be rational. Let the antis be the nutjobs.
    Agreed - just explaining the details for those not familiar.

    If you're opposed to Obamacare it's good to be familiar with this example of "legislation by appropriation". The liberal mouthpieces kept rambling about Obamacare being the law of the land and you can't just not fund it. Not so, as the longstanding de-funding of the relief from disabilities procedures (which the libs came up with and no doubt are very much in approval of) indicates.
    Last edited by BrianB; 10-28-2013 at 07:08 PM.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I wasn't thinking that you thought it was. I was responding to the title and the OP. I know that you have your head (and granny Winters wig) screwed on straight.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

Posting Permissions

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