Barack Obama carefully avoided advocacy of new gun control measures during his presidential campaign, but that does not imply that there is the slightest likelihood of his vetoing any gun control legislation emanating from the new Congress.
Alan Korwin warns about H.R. 1022, the renewal of the (so-called) Assault Weapons Ban, introduced by gun control fanatic Carolyn McCarthy and 67 co-sponsors in February 2007. Korwin predicts that, in the new Congress, the same bill will include a much more spectacular feature.
Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Bradys plan to introduce shortly.
I have an outline of the Bradyâ€™s current plans and targets of opportunity, Iâ€™m working on getting that news out asap after these ban lists, probably be ready in the next few days. Itâ€™s horrific. Theyâ€™re going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. Theyâ€™ve made little mention of criminals. …
Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will:
Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any â€œsemiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.â€ Note that Obamaâ€™s pick for this office (Eric Holder, confirmation hearing set for Jan. 15) wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home.
In making this determination, the bill says, â€œthere shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.â€
In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.
That presumption can be challenged only by suing the federal government over each firearm it decides to ban, in a court it runs with a judge it pays. This virtually dismisses the principles of the Second Amendment.
The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesnâ€™t have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose — is that devious or what? And of course, â€œsporting purposeâ€ is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.
WorldNetDaily takes Korwin’s posting and accompanies it with a big brass band.
A perfect storm is developing for Second Amendment opponents that could allow President-elect Barack Obama’s choice for attorney general â€“ Eric Holder â€“ to “ban guns at will” despite the 2008 affirmation from the U.S. Supreme Court that U.S. citizens have a right to bear arms.
And this particular threat is only the first of what will undoubtedly be many.