NY Set to Pass 'Toughest' Gun Bill

foxnews

Jan. 14, 2013: New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, center, speaks during a news conference announcing an agreement with legislative leaders on New York's Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act in the Red Room at the Capitol. (ap)

ALBANY, N.Y. –  Days after calling for an overhaul of gun control in New York following the Connecticut school shooting, Gov. Andrew Cuomo worked out a tough proposal on gun control with legislative leaders who promised to pass the most restrictive gun law in the nation.

The measure passed the Senate 43-18 on the strength of support from Democrats, many of whom previously sponsored the bills that were once blocked by Republicans.

The Democrat-led Assembly gaveled out before midnight and planned to take the issue up at 10 a.m. Tuesday. It is expected to pass easily.

"This is a scourge on society," Cuomo said Monday night, one month after the Newtown, Conn., shooting that took the lives of 20 first graders and six educators. "At what point do you say, `No more innocent loss of life."'

"It is well-balanced, it protects the Second Amendment," said Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos of Long Island. "And there is no confiscation of weapons, which was at one time being considered.

"This is going to go after those who are bringing illegal guns into the state, who are slaughtering people in New York City," Skelos said. "This is going to put people in jail and keep people in jail who shouldn't be out on the street in the first place."

"This will be the toughest gun control package in the nation," said Sen. Jeffrey Klein, leader of the Independent Democrat Conference that shares majority control with Republican senators. "All in all, it is a comprehensive, balanced approach that will save lives," Klein said in an interview.

Cuomo said he wanted quick action to avoid a run on assault rifles and ammunition as he tries to address what he estimates is about 1 million assault rifles in New York state. He made it a centerpiece of his progressive agenda in last week's State of the State address.

Republican Sen. Greg Ball called that political opportunism in a rare criticism of the popular and powerful governor seen by his supporters as a possible candidate for president in 2016.

"We haven't saved any lives tonight, except one: the political life of a governor who wants to be president," said Ball who represents part of the Hudson Valley. "We have taken an entire category of firearms that are currently legal that are in the homes of law-abiding, tax paying citizens. ... We are now turning those law-abiding citizens into criminals."

The governor confirmed the proposal, previously worked out in closed session, called for a tougher assault weapons ban and restrictions on ammunition and the sale of guns, as well as a mandatory police registry of assault weapons, grandfathering in assault weapons already in private hands.

It would create a more powerful tool to require the reporting of mentally ill people who say they intend to use a gun illegally and would address the unsafe storage of guns, the governor confirmed.

Under current state law, assault weapons are defined by having two "military rifle" features spelled out in the law. The proposal would reduce that to one feature and include the popular pistol grip.

Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family would be subject to a background check through a dealer. Also Internet sales of assault weapons would be banned, and failing to safely store a weapon could be subject to a misdemeanor charge.

Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.

In another provision, a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally would be required to report the incident to a mental health director who would have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her.

The legislation also increases sentences for gun crimes including the shooting of a first responder that Cuomo called the "Webster provision." Last month in the western New York town of Webster, two firefighters were killed after responding to a fire set by the shooter, who eventually killed himself.

Legislators wouldn't comment on the tentative deal or the provisions discussed in closed-door conferences.

"It's a tough vote," said Senate Deputy Majority Leader Thomas Libous of Broome County. "This is a very difficult issue depending on where you live in the state. I have had thousands of emails and calls ... and I have to respect their wishes." He said many of constituents worry the bill will conflict with the Second Amendment's right to bear arms while others anguish over shootings like at Newtown, Conn., and Columbine, Colo.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/15/bill-called-toughest-gun-control-package-in-nation-passed-by-new-york-state/#ixzz2I3icqW9F

Former Dem Gov: “The good thing about Newtown is, it was so horrific”

Tim Brown

Read at Freedomoutpost >> 

Can Barack Obama Ban Guns By Executive Order?

freedomoutpost

Tim Brown

This week Vice President Joe Biden alluded to Barack Obama possibly using executive order to impose gun control. Biden said this during a meeting surrounded by several gun control groups and gun violence victims. The question on many people’s minds is, “Can this actually happen?”

First, let’s understand what an executive order actually is. It is supposed to be an order delivered by the President to those under his authority, sort of like the CEO of a company giving direction to those under him. According to the National Archives:

Executive orders are official documents, numbered consecutively, through which the President of the United States manages the operations of the Federal Government.
The text of Executive orders appears in the daily Federal Register as each Executive order is signed by the President and received by the Office of the Federal Register. The text of Executive orders beginning with Executive Order 7316 of March 13, 1936, also appears in the sequential editions of Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

Robert Longley at About.com also confirms this is how executive orders work and adds, “Thirty days after being published in the Federal Register, executive orders become law. While they do bypass the U.S. Congress and the standard legislative law making process, no part of an executive order may direct the agencies to conduct illegal or unconstitutional activities.

Executive orders are not to be used to bypass the legislative branch, but they are to be used simply under the executive branch and do become a law under that authority. Typically these are used for the purpose of:

1. Operational management of the executive branch
2. Operational management of federal agencies or officials
3. To carry out statutory or constitutional presidential responsibilities

At least that is what they are supposed to be used for. The Constitutional authority for presidential executive orders are found in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which reads, “The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America,” and Article II, Section 3 which states, “The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed…”

So there is authority granted to the President and that has been recognized even by our first President, George Washington, who signed his first executive order in 1789. He was not alone. Many of the founders, who became President, such as John Adams, James Madison, and James Monroe issued one executive order each. While President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued 3,522!

So the question we have to deal with is “Is it possible that Barack Obama could sign an executive order to impose gun control?” The answer is, “Yes, it is possible he could sign such an executive order.” The issue though, is whether or not such an executive order would be upheld by the Congress or the Supreme Court. Congress may pass a law that alters an executive order, and they can be declared unconstitutional and vacated by the Supreme Court. A recent Congressional response to an executive order can be found here.

One wonders, after the ruling from the Supreme Court in 2012 on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), how they would rule on an executive order regarding the Second Amendment. Fox News’ 19′s Ben Swann says they would probably not allow it to stand.

Swann asks, “Is the President attempting to issue an executive order on gun control, violating Second Amendment rights?”

The example would be that if Obama signed and executive order to ban what he calls “assault weapons” or rifles with high capacity magazines, that order would have to go before the Supreme Court. The issue before the Court would then be for them to decide what weapons Americans have rights to. We can see a glimpse into how they have ruled in the past in at least two cases that have dealt with this issue (not the executive order).

The most recent Supreme Court decision was District of Columbia vs. Heller. The legal contention was whether banning handguns in Washington D.C. was a violation of the Second Amendment. In that case, the Court ruled that it was a violation. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion:

“the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

All of that sounds great. However, within the opinion, Scalia also referenced the 1939 Supreme Court case United States vs. Miller, writing:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

But wait, he does clarify what he means in the following paragraph:

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Some may argue that AR-15′s and Ak-47′s are dangerous, but aren’t all weapons? After all, isn’t that part of the definition of a weapon, that it’s dangerous? Could this apply to a tank or a rocket propelled grenade launcher (RPG)? Perhaps, but from Justice Scalia’s writings it does not apply to rifles, such as the AR-15.

How about “unusual?” Well, considering that millions of gun owners own semi-automatic rifles, which the Left refers to as “assault weapons,” and that they are even sold at your local Wal-Mart hardly makes them unusual.

Should Obama seek to push through something along these lines, there is no doubt that it would be a long, tedious process in court. With that said, let me interject that if conditions were made right, then perhaps the Supreme Court and even the Congress might just go along with it. What do I mean? Given that FDR’s Executive Order 9066 was the order that directed the interment of more than 120,000 Japanese Americans, many of whom were U.S. citizens, we should not be asleep at the wheel on this issue. In the heightened state of acting on emotion following the attack on Pearl Harbor, it seems this was a clear violation of the Constitution. This is why so many people oppose the National Defense Authorization Act and it is why citizens must always be alert and sober to what happens around them.

Eric Holder: Gun Owners Should 'Cower' in Shame Like Smokers

NB Staff

State suspends gun carry permit for TN man who made viral video

msnbc

A Middle Tennessee firearms trainer who made an ominous comment about killing people in a YouTube video that gained national attention this week, has had his handgun carry permit suspended Friday by the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security.

James Yeager, 42, had his permit suspended based on a “material likelihood of risk of harm to the public,” the department said in a statement.

Col Tracy Trott of the Tennessee Department of Safety said it didn’t take him long to reach a decision after viewing the comments on the Internet.

“I watched it twice to make sure I was hearing what I thought I heard,” Trott said.

“It sounded like it was a veiled threat against the whole public. I believed him. He had a conviction in his voice, and the way he looked into the camera, I believe he’s capable of a violent act,” Trott said.

Yeager told Channel 4 News he is aware of the suspension, and his attorney will handle his statements going forward.

The department said Yeager has the right to seek a review of the decision.

Man’s YouTube video gains national attention

James Yeager is a man with an impressive resume, including time as a small-town police chief and serving in security in Baghdad, but he said he spoke in anger when he made the video.

“I’m telling you, if that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot,” Yeager said in a video on his YouTube page.

He was reacting to a recent comment from Vice President Joe Biden that the Obama administration may take executive action to pass control measures.

“I’m not going to let anyone take my guns. If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people,” he said in the YouTube video.

Yeager pulled the comments from YouTube after receiving backlash, and he said Thursday he didn’t mean what he said.

“I was angry when I made the video and probably should have metered my words better. I am not plotting to kill any officials or anything like that,” Yeager told Channel 4 News.

Yeager runs Tactical Response, a training center in Camden, TN, that specializes in weapons and tactical skills. The door of the business notes the staff is trained to kill.

The well-armed clientele was already making neighbors at the strip mall nervous, and then they heard the video.

“The guy needs to chill it. You know, you make those threats, and you’ve said that and now you come around the wrong person, you get hurt like that,” said John Eaker, who owns a nearby pawn shop.

“He may get more than he asks if he keeps running that yak on the Internet, you know,” another neighbor said.

Yeager said he knows he’s considered a radical in his views, but he’s is not backing off comments that he will defend his right to bear arms in spite of getting death threats by email.

“It will be time to shoot people when the Constitution is set on fire,” he told Channel 4 News. “If somebody comes to take my guns, I will shoot them.”

According the Tennessee Department of Safety, Yeager is not a certified instructor. When asked about that, he said he allowed his license to expire.

The state also said Tactical Response is not a department-certified school.

Keep reading on msnbc >>

“I’m gonna start killing people” if Obama issues exec order

Read on Americablog >>

Sandy Hook Massacre Timeline

TheAlexJonesChannel

NRA ’disappointed’ with gun task force; recs coming by Tuesday

 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Read >>

Holder in 1995: 'Brainwash' people against guns

(BREITBART) Breitbart.com has uncovered video from 1995 of then-U.S. Attorney Eric Holder announcing a public campaign to ”really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”

Holder was addressing the Woman’s National Democratic Club. In his remarks, broadcast by CSPAN 2, he explained that he intended to use anti-smoking campaigns as his model to “change the hearts and minds of people in Washington, DC” about guns.

“What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/holder-in-1995-brainwash-people-against-guns/#Vvh226kb8u5mlPM3.99

Obama’s Gun Task Force Member Has Son Convicted Of Planning School Mass Murder

freedomoutpost.com

Freedom Outpost/ Tim Brown

Well the hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me. In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, Barack Obama established a task force, headed by Vice President Joe Biden, to come up with solutions to end gun violence. However, one of the members of Biden’s task force has a son that has been convicted, not just charged, but convicted, of planning a mass murder at a high school in Massachusetts in 2004.

President of the National Assocation of Police Officers and Boston Police Officer Thomas Nee is the member in question. His son, Josephe Nee, was convicted in February 2008 for planning a Columbine-style ambush at Marshfield High School in 2004.

According to Boston.com:

Authorities learned about the plan in September of that year, when Nee went to police with two classmates and told officers that Kerns was planning a massacre at the school. Nee told police the plan involved taking ammunition and explosive devices into the school, securing the school’s exit doors with bicycle locks, and shooting students and staff.
Police arrested Kerns the following day.Police didn’t arrest Nee until a month later, after friends of Kerns implicated Nee as the mastermind of the plot. The two youths were once close friends; Nee even lived at the Kerns’s home for a month during the spring of 2004.

Kerns’s father, Ben, said that the boys had a falling out and that he believed Nee was trying to frame his son.

Nee's son, Joseph Nee/ secretsofthefed.com

A grand jury returned indictments against Nee and Kerns in October 2004, charging both with conspiracy to commit murder, promotion of anarchy, and threatened use of deadly weapons at a school. Kerns and Nee pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Boston.com also reported of the first incident where Nee was seen with a .40 caliber Glock in his waistband by a female student as she was getting off the school bus and how she had heard Nee talk about “how the school was going to be shot up.” Apparently the firearm was his father’s service weapon.

Boston Police plan to contact authorities investigating the alleged Columbine-style attack plot at Marshfield High School to determine if a gun that one suspect allegedly showed to another student was a .40-caliber handgun issued by Boston Police.
A female student told Marshfield Police that Joseph T. Nee, one of the two suspects in the case, pulled what she thought was a black, .40-caliber handgun from his waistband as she was getting off a school bus this past spring and told her “how the school was going to be shot up,” John P. McLaughlin, an assistant Plymouth district attorney, said at Nee’s arraignment Monday.
Nee is the son of Thomas J. Nee, president of the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association, the city’s largest police union. Boston police officers carry .40-caliber Glock handguns, according to a department spokeswoman.
Yesterday, Boston Police Lieutenant Kevin Foley said news reports that Joseph Nee was carrying a .40-caliber handgun “was really the first we’d heard of that particular allegation.”

Nee isn’t the only questionable person serving on the task force. Attorney General Eric Holder is also on board, despite the ongoing investigation into gunwalking at least 2,500 firearms into Mexico which has left hundreds of people dead on his watch, including two federal agents.

UPDATE: Nee was sentenced to six months in prison for his role in the plot, as was Kerns. Again, from Boston.com:

Joseph Nee was handcuffed today moments after being given a sentence that will keep him in prison for six months for his role in plotting a Columbine-style ambush at Marshfield High School in 2004.
Nee sat silently as the Plymouth Superior Court clerk outlined his fate: The total sentence spanned 2 1/2 years and included 2 years probation. Judge Charles M. Grabau ordered Nee to spend 9 months of that in the Plymouth House of Correction, but gave him credit for 92 days he has already served. The remaining 21 months of the sentence was suspended.

talk-polywell.org

Nee’s lawyer, Thomas Drechsler, vowed to appeal. His client faced up to 20 years in prison. Nee, who has been free on $20,000 bail since January 2005, was taken into custody.
The sentence came after a four-day bench trial that included testimony from a dozen witnesses. Nee was acquitted of two other charges: promotion of anarchy and threatened use of deadly weapons at a school.
Kerns was tried and found guilty of threatening to use deadly weapons and conspiracy to commit murder. In November, he was sentenced to 10 months in jail. He is being held at the Plymouth House of Correction.

In 2010, even after serving the six months, Nee was appealing his conviction.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/biden-gun-task-force-member-has-son-convicted-of-planning-school-mass-murder/#ixzz2HXyDgdWJ

Gun control by Decree

The White House and the nation's leading gun lobby will meet face-to-face Thursday amid an intensifying effort in Washington to craft new gun control measures, in what could be a testy session.

 

Read >>

Biden: 'Executive action' can be taken on guns

www.wnd.com 

(POLITICO) Vice President Joe Biden indicated Wednesday that the president will be able to take executive action to combat gun violence as he kicked off one of several meetings this week in response to the Newtown shooting.

“We’re here today to deal with a problem that requires immediate action, urgent action,” Biden said at the start of a meeting with leaders from gun control groups and several victims of gun violence.

“The president is going to act. There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet, but we’re compiling it all … as well as legislative action, we believe, is required,” he said.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/biden-executive-action-can-be-taken-on-guns/#pCj6G1YxK7PijfhH.99

Alex Jones Goes Ballistic Debating Gun Control With Piers Morgan: ’1776 Will Commence Again If You Try to Take Our Firearms!’

Read on theblaze >>

‘In the Third Reich…No One Saw That Coming Until It Was Too Late’ — Who Issued This Warning About Gun Control in U.S.?

theblaze

Jason Howerton The former U.S. Marine who penned a blistering letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in response to her strict gun control proposals is continuing to speak out in defense of the Second Amendment. Appearing on “Fox and Friends” Monday, Joshua Boston warned that history repeats itself, saying in the “Third Reich” no one “saw [gun control] coming until it was too late.”

Boston also referenced the former Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin and how he implemented gun control in order to expand his power. “[I]t’s something we’ve seen happen time and time again in history,” he added.

Perhaps the most memorable portion of Boston’s letter to Feinstein read: “I am not your subject. I’m the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I’m the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I’m the flesh and blood of America. I’m the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American.”

Watch Boston’s segment on “Fox and Friends” via Fox News/Mediaite below:

Keep reading on  theblaze >>

Obama to 'ban guns' by excecutive order

cgreene34

OBAMA BLUEPRINT FOR DISARMING AMERICANS

foxnews

imabpogtewv.soclog.se

The blueprint for how Americans would be disarmed during a declared civil emergency is contained in an Army manual that outlines a plan to confiscate firearms to prevent them falling into the hands of rioters or dissidents.

Given the imminent introduction of Senator Dianne Feinstein’s draconian gun control legislation, which would instantly criminalize millions of gun owners in the United States if passed, concerns that the Obama administration could launch a massive gun confiscation effort have never been greater.

In July 2012, the process by which this could take place was made clear in a leaked US Army Military Police training manual for “Civil Disturbance Operations” (PDF) dating from 2006. Similar plans were also outlined in an updated manual released in 2010 entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations.

Read more at wnd.com >>

Obama's secret plan to reclassify your guns

WND/ President Obama, congressional Democrats and even some Republicans plan to push new gun-control legislation in the 113th Congress, but defenders of the Second Amendment fear Obama is poised to enact the restrictions through the Executive Branch if Congress is not cooperative.

John M. Snyder heads GunRightsPolicies.org and has worked for organizations from the National Rifle Association to the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. 

He said Obama and his allies have already chartered what regulatory course to pursue through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF.

“We have some confidential information that he may order the ATF to reclassify certain models of semi-automatic firearms as Title 2 guns under the Gun Control Act of 1968,” Snyder told WND. “What this would mean is that people could not obtain these without going through a terribly difficult process that includes registration of each firearm and paying a severe fee for the ownership of each one.”

Snyder said an even more drastic approach from Obama would be to try to ban semiautomatic weapons altogether.

“Also, there is the possibility that the administration could try to declare that semi-automatic firearms are fully automatic firearms or machine guns under this Title 2, in which case they would be banned because of an amendment that’s on the books, the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Snyder is referring to what’s known as the Hughes Amendment, which forbids the acquisition of any new fully automatic weapons or machine guns.

The possible strategy is not a new idea, according to Snyder. He said liberal groups have advocated the move for years, but Democrats have been reluctant to pursue it because of the massive public backlash that will ensue.

“This is an ongoing project of theirs, and they use a lot of these tragedies to try to advance their cause in a public relations sense. So far they’ve been unable to do that,” said Snyder. “It appears that the public is catching on to them and they know what their game plan is, generally speaking. So a lot depends on their frustration, the political situation at the time and a number of other factors, too.”

Even if the Obama administration were to bypass Congress by imposing new regulations, there is still one card left for pro-Second Amendment forces to play: The House of Representatives could remove funding for the ATF or abolish it completely. But would the House GOP actually do that?  Snyder is confident it would.

“I wouldn’t be surprised. I think the House is really furious with the president,” Snyder said. “The Republicans would like to cut budgets of the federal government because they think the federal government is taking too much money and spending too much money, and a good place for them to cut would be in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.  If there is strong enough public support against the activities of the federal government, the House of Representatives will develop a plan to slash the budget of the agency. I think it’s a real possibility.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/obamas-secret-plan-to-reclassify-your-guns/#X6UuZXdPoOXIc6dL.99

‘No Ma’am’: Letter From US Marine To Dianne Feinstein Goes Viral

‘No ma’am’: Letter from U.S. Marine to Dianne Feinstein goes viral

Cpl Joshua Boston (photo source)

The following letter, written by U.S. Marine Joshua Boston and headlined “No ma’am.,” was posted in the CNN iReport on Dec. 27 with the included note from the producer and photo. It has struck a nerve with many and is being circulated around social media venues like Twitter and Facebook.

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/dianne-feinstein/2013/01/02/no-ma-am-letter-us-marine-dianne-feinstein-goes-viral?cmpid=NL_FiredUpFoxNation#ixzz2Gw4LguBi

Why THIS IS NOT NEWS: Anti-Gun Senator Shoots Intruder

tatoott1009

Lawmaker: Tweak Constitution to affirm gun rights

WND/ Taylor Rose

Sen. Dianne Feinstein/ metroactive.com

WASHINGTON – A state lawmaker in Montana is proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution to deal with the suggestion from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that would require Americans to register their guns, and critics say, would even lead to their confiscation.

Feinstein’s idea has been labeled “treason” on a White House petition site, and has earned the ire of Rep. Jerry O’Neil, R-Columbia Falls, who told WND he’d like to see some changes made to protect state’s rights and the rights protected by the Second Amendment.

He said he’s starting to push for the state of Montana to press for the adoption of two new constitutional amendments to protect firearm ownership and national sovereignty.

“I am asking for the Montana legislature to request an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to amend the Commerce Clause,” he said.

He said in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution the word “among” would be replaced with “between” so that it reads, “Congress shall have power …to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and interstate commerce between the several states, and with the Indian tribes…”

“States have the right to do what they wish inside their own borders,” he said.

And referring to firearms, he said, “It gives the states the right to make whatever guns they want so long as they [firearms] stay inside the own borders.”

Are you interested in self-defense? Check out all these DVDs and books in WND’s Superstore.

Additionally, O’Neil said, in reference to national sovereignty and more specifically the Small Arms Treaty, he wants Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution to be amended, with the insertion of “subject to this Constitution” to therefore state “The president…shall have the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, subject to this Constitution, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”

O’Neil said the insertion is essential thanks to the growing power of international treaties and due to the fact that too often, in his opinion, international treaties are implemented and used to override the U.S. Constitution.

O’Neil said that with these changes, the government “cannot amend the Constitution via fiat.”

Under Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution, state legislatures can submit proposals for amendments to the Constitution and it is O’Neil’s hope that the Montana legislature will take up his ideas.

Feinstein’s move was a reaction to the school shooting in Connecticut in which 20 children and six adults were victims. O’Neil said, “The Connecticut shooting came at an opportune time for her.”

He added, “Sen. Feinstein has been working on an assault weapons ban for at least eight years.”

Keep your gun rights: Sign new petition

“It will not make a significant dent in the murder rate of the United States,” he said.

O’Neil attributes this move to restrict firearm ownership to an ever-increasing control-oriented state, saying, “It appears the people who want more control over their citizens, want to limit their access to weapons.”

In fact, politicians in New York already have started discussing gun restrictions, registration and confiscation.

O’Neil has been in public service in Montana since 2001, where he served as a state senator until 2009, when he switched over and became a representative in the Montana House.

He is widely known for his ardent defense of civil liberties, limited government and constitutionalism. He has become known more recently for his request to be paid in gold and silver coins to guard himself against a potential collapse of the U.S. dollar.

The pushback from the state was just one headwind Feinstein was facing as a result of her precipitous decision to attack the Second Amendment.

Another front was on the White House website forum for citizen petitions.

There, it took only hours for thousands of Americans to sign onto the request to “try Sen. Dianne Feinstein in a federal court for treason to the Constitution.”

It explained, “The Constitution was written to restrain the government. No amendment is more important for this purpose than the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was written so the power could be kept with the citizenry in the face of a tyrannical government. It was well understood the Constitution acknowledged certain rights that could not be limited by government.”

The petition continued, “Sen. Dianne Feinstein has made it clear she does not believe in the Constitution or the inalienable rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. She is actively working to destroy the 2nd Amendment with her 2013 assault weapons ban. For this reason we the people of the United States petition for her to be tried in federal court for treason to the Constitution.”

Feinstein’s actual proposal would “ban the sale, the transfer, the transportation and the possession” of certain weapons, the California senator said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Not retroactively, but prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets.”

It would ban scores of firearms, including military-style “assault” weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices. It also calls for the creation of a federal register that would require millions of gun owners to be fingerprinted and photographed.

The following is a summary of the legislation posted on Feinstein’s official senatorial website:

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/lawmaker-tweak-constitution-to-affirm-gun-rights/#FJykTw0yjd8DXmXJ.99