ObamaCare Provision May Forbid Gun And Ammo Registration!

reply to post by Signals


there is no more registering of firearms here in Canada as they already have a list of all those who buy ammo ,it is called an F.A.C. the registry is gone yet they still have a list of all of the legal gun owners up here thru that little card F.A.C. WHICH MEANS THAT THERE IS STILL A LIST OF ALL OF THE LEGAL GUN OWNERS up here .they just hid it saying the registry is gone . lol lol lol

reply to post by Signals


... in the end only we will stop illegal unconstitutional registrations (and other BS!)... via civil disobedience.

Senate amendment 3276, Sec 2716, part c “Protection of Second Amendment Rights” Government cannot collect: “…any information relating to…(A) The lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition

See the problem. "the LAWFUL ownership..."

Make a law against it, and it's no longer "lawful".

Can someone post a link to the actual law / section on a .gov site .. I tried to find it but all I get are either summary pages with no additional links or "Errors" on the webserver .. weird.

reply to post by davjan4


I believe you are right with your interpretation but that's the good thing actually - because the courts need to decide how it would be interpreted ..

However there is always one superior law that can't be easily touched :-) and if they try, well .. last time that happened, didn't look very well on the people that tried it.

reply to post by Signals


The lawful ownership.......They will make owning a gun illegal so this will not help one little bit. Reid is a progressive and guess what you can not trust a progressive.




Fear and apathy are the tools of the progressives.

This was simply a response to several incidents that happened in 2004-2007 where doctors were asking children who were admitted under their care for cretin reason questions pertaining to whether or not their parents own guns.

These stories have surfaced again and been re-posted recently leading man people to think this is a recent development. In fact it was not and I don't remember the actual reason the doctors were using to justify their questions but is seemed benine to me if I recall.

It will have no effect on the current situation as it only pertains to the government where healthcare questioning is involved or information is gathered for medical purpose. Also as others have mentioned, it only applies to legaly owned firearms and will only prevent this information gathering in a medical setting.

The problem then is what is a "lawful" firearm....laws being subject to change (altho the Second Amendment is supposed to protect against laws that "infringe" on rights).

Originally posted by WaterBottle
There should be a law stating you cannot add unrelated provisions to a bill.

and the bill for such a law like this, would have some pork to give someone a bunch of tax payer money or something.

the irony hurts. but it is the basis of our entire government!
we have been told for years its a little trick to help us actually get things done. though no one reads bills and its easy to pass anything you please.

Originally posted by vind21
This was simply a response to several incidents that happened in 2004-2007 where doctors were asking children who were admitted under their care for cretin reason questions pertaining to whether or not their parents own guns.

These stories have surfaced again and been re-posted recently leading man people to think this is a recent development. In fact it was not and I don't remember the actual reason the doctors were using to justify their questions but is seemed benine to me if I recall.

It will have no effect on the current situation as it only pertains to the government where healthcare questioning is involved or information is gathered for medical purpose. Also as others have mentioned, it only applies to legaly owned firearms and will only prevent this information gathering in a medical setting.

This happened to me as far back as 1999 .......and there is nothing benign about prying into this area of someone's life.....not in a "free" society.

Originally posted by davjan4
Senate amendment 3276, Sec 2716, part c “Protection of Second Amendment Rights” Government cannot collect: “…any information relating to…(A) The lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition

See the problem. "the LAWFUL ownership..."

Make a law against it, and it's no longer "lawful".

The lawful part is covered. Check out the 2nd amendment to the Constitution, it's in there!

reply to post by ajay59

Technically it isnt the ARMS that can be made Illegal it is the people who can possess them who are banned: ie, violent felons and mentally ill. Other than that "DTOM" please.

reply to post by Signals


Seeing as the PATRIOT acts nullified constitutional rights (it didn't, because it can't...but yet, it did anyway), EOs or legislation can do the same. Unfortunately the President (be it Bush or Obama, or any to come) as well as the military, do not care to defend the Constitution. That said, I don't expect guns to be banned. Gun control generally just means more control over who can get their hands on guns, not whether guns can be owned. I really don't expect any bans except maybe on large-clip weapons.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by ajay59

 

Technically it isnt the ARMS that can be made Illegal it is the people who can possess them who are banned: ie, violent felons and mentally ill. Other than that "DTOM" please.

I was thinking in terms of "the right of the PEOPLE" part. I know, I know, the argument but the word people stands alone without adjective or adverb. They basically have to make you a "non people" to exclude anyone.

reply to post by Signals

I was under the impression that this particular amendment to Obamacare only forbids DOCTORS and Medical Personnel from Collecting information on guns and ammo for the purpose of registering them into a federal data base....

reply to post by ajay59

Violent Felons have voting rights restricted and the Mentally Ill can have their freedom restricted as well (in a sense non-persons in terms of "freedom"). "People" would be the "collective" interpretation in that case.

I fully expect to see an old argument to rear it's head once again to diminish Obama's "claim to the throne". That being, since none of his documentation has proven to be authentic, the question of his eligibility to pass anything OR right to be POTUS or even king!

reply to post by ajay59

AS I understand it his birth place isnt even relevant to the question of his being eligible as a "natural born" citizen (and there is a lot of evidence to support that he was born in Kenya).:
1) his mother was not of the age of majority (< 18 yo) and therefore his citizenship is determined by the father's which was of Kenya (a british protectorate at the time).
2) he renounced his "US Citizenship" (obtained falsely?) by applying for citizenship in Indonesia (which does not have dual citizens)...and he never applied for US Citizenship after his mother divorced his step dad (Soetero who adopted "Barry"). Undisclosed college applications (esp for aid to foreign students) might shed light on this.
It might be time to revisit the issue if he starts dropping Executive Orders like candy wrappers to a kid on Halloween night.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


I truly believe that this very issue is the "ace up the sleeve" of the Obama opposition. How many outstanding lawsuits are on the dockets over Obama's eligibility now, I forget?

Talk about double standards! Is this the guy you want telling you that YOU don't need protection?






What really makes him or his family any more human than the rest of us?