Gun Grabbing Senators Look To Resurrect Gun Control


Socialist gun grabbers were dealt a tremendous blow just a couple of weeks ago, in part due to pressure by American patriots letting Washington elected officials know that they would not go quietly into the night towards tyranny. There were also principled men who stood their ground on the Second Amendment, resulting in all of Barack Obama's gun control agenda biting the dust, which also resulted in Obama acting like a spoiled little brat (That alone was worth it). However from the ashes of the dead gun control bill and its big government control amendments, it looks as if senators didn't quite get the message from the American people, or the Constitution for that matter, and are trying to resuscitate gun control.

The New York Times reports,

Talks to revive gun control legislation are quietly under way on Capitol Hill as a bipartisan group of senators seeks a way to bridge the differences that led to last week's collapse of the most serious effort to overhaul the country's gun laws in 20 years.

Drawing on the lessons from battles in the 1980s and '90s over the Brady Bill, which failed in Congress several times before ultimately passing, gun control supporters believe they can prevail by working on a two-pronged strategy. First, they are identifying senators who might be willing to change their votes and support a background check system with fewer loopholes.

Second, they are looking to build a national campaign that would better harness overwhelming public support for universal background checks — which many national polls put at near 90 percent approval — to pressure lawmakers.

Because of this Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Patrick Toomey (R-PA) have been talking about pushing their bill again by manipulating its language. "We're going to work it hard," Manchin said.

Their bill gained only four Republican senators support.

However, more bi-partisan legislation is being looked at. A completely separate anti-gun trafficking bill is being talked about by Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Charles Grassley (R-IA). While Ayotte and Grassley voted against the background check bill, they are discussing ways they might support this bill which allegedly would criminalize the shipping or transfer of guns to someone who is barred from possessing a firearm. Excuse me, but one, isn't that already criminal? Two, does the federal government really have that authority under the Constitution, or is that the prerogative of the states? Three, what other language will be stuffed into this piece of legislation that we're not being told about? And finally, would this then be retroactive to bring to justice those in the Obama administration that have knowingly signed off on, or were involved in any way with, Operation Fast and Furious which put thousands of guns into the hands of criminal Mexican drug cartels and has left hundreds of Mexicans and at least two federal agents dead?

"I think trafficking can be the base of the bill, the rock on which everything else stands," Ms. Gillibrand said. "I also think it's complementary to background checks because, let's be honest, criminals aren't going to buy a gun and go through a background check. So if you really want to go after criminals, you have to have to do both."

Oh I see, so criminals aren't' going to go through a background check to buy a gun, but they are going to make you aware that they are getting someone to purchase one for them or have it shipped to them, correct? Is this the logic being used? Not only is the logic faulty, but the constitutionality of the federal government's authority to implement such legislation seems to be lacking here as well.

Ayotte says that she will continue talks with Gillibrand but sees their agreement might be closest on expanding mental health care, something I've warned conservatives over and over about and we have seen what that kind of thinking does. Again, the federal government has no constitutional authority concerning arms legislation or restriction.

"There's a lot we have agreement on in terms of enforcing our current system," she said. "And so I certainly think we should look for the common elements, including the mental health piece, which I support as well, and try to move as much of that as possible forward."

As Vice President Joe "Shotgun" Biden summoned a group on Capitol Hill on Thursday to talk about continuing to attack the Second Amendment, one of the attendees said,"It's not a question of really changing their minds for or against this policy. It's demonstrating that it's safe to do the right thing and politically unsafe not to."

Since the idea is to make the bills that were shot down more "palatable," it appears to me it's kind of like putting candy sprinkles on dung. It may make it look more appealing, but in the end it's still dung. The same is true here. It doesn't matter how much you manipulate the language of the bills, it's still outside the authority of the federal government and that's all one really needs to know on the issue.

Remember who the senators were who helped to shoot down gun control and call them, email them and fax them to encourage them in this new onslaught against the ability to keep and bear arms legally in the United States.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.






  • kbcab

    I have the solution to gun control , and I live by this rule , always use both hands , it gives great control...

  • Destry

    What is it about our elected representatives? They don't understand the clear language of the constitution: " Congress shall make no law..." and "...shall not be infringed." It's really simple to understand and those that continue to try passing legislation that is contrary to those simple mandates are in clear violation of their oath of office and should be summarily removed form office.

  • Gr8dane

    Gun control is government control - perhaps these same individuals should re-read (assuming they ever did) the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    These same individuals (they do not deserve the recognition of their post) took an oath of office which clearly stated that they would "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies - foreign and domestic"

    Yet sadly how does one protect and defend our Constitution and Bill of RIght's from the same liars and sell-outs who are supposed to represent the people of the USA?

    Isn't it time to get off our collective butts and recall or impeach these traitors? I think it is - send a message they cannot ignore.

    If they will not listen to their constituents or the people of the United States it is time for them to be removed from office and brand them for the traitors they are.

  • http://www.facebook.com/joe.zimmerman.77 Joe Zimmerman

    Gun grabbers better grab their butt because the will be kicked hard if they even look at my guns ,,,,,

  • http://www.facebook.com/ronald.allen.77 Ronald Allen

    Write your senators that voted for more gun control and ask them to resign so we can get someone in office that has integrity.

  • jcgreen2

    And no matter what unconstitutional restrictions they may come up with in Congress or the Whitehouse, we will not comply with them anyway. They are wasting their time even trying. As others have stated here, anyone from the government coming to my home to confiscate my guns, better bring an entire army... and lots of body bags!

  • jcgreen2

    Also the "90%" figure the traitorous anti-gunners keep quoting (supposedly of how many Americans support their cause) is completely bogus! There is no way that is true... not even close! I know only a handful of citizens who support the wrong side of this debate. The vast majority of Americans know we must protect our God-given, unalienable, Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Hence, the Senate's defeat of their misguided effort to disarm law-abiding citizens. As long as they keep lying to the American public, they are shooting themselves (pardon the pun) in the foot.

  • jcgreen2

    Once Congress votes down a bill in the current session it should not be allowed to be brought up again. We know these evil people in the Senate will never stop trying disarm every American... purely so they can have total control over the populace. It has absolutely nothing to do with the safety of children. What they want to do will actually make all citizens of the entire country less safe. We must fight them at every turn and do our best to get every anti-gun legislator run out of office as soon as possible! They are traitors to liberty! And they are our real enemy!

  • http://www.facebook.com/CookerT David Cook

    The first person who tries to take away my firearms are in for a big surprise. After serving my country in Viet Nam and serving my community and state as a Law Enforcement Special agent I think I have earned my right to keep and bare arms and I'll be damned if I'm ever going to allow someone from my Government to infring on my constitutional rights no matter what it is. DOJ ripped off two of my finnest firearms when I lived in California just prior to my move to South Dakota. Both were merely display rifles in glass cases never to be fired. One was given to me for being officer of the year and the other was a gift to my father for his service in WWII in the Pacific theater against the Japanese. I was a Police Officer not a gang member and I just can not fathum at the time why these guns from the American Historical Foundation and were stamped (California Legal) were taken from me. I later found out that the Supervisor for DOJ put both of these expensive and fine firearms over his personal dest for display. I found this out from several friends who saw them and later told me about it but too late for me to appeal the seizues. Don't let this happen to you because it will never happen again to me without a fight.

  • Suffolk Property Inspector

    whats the definition of insanity. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Maybe all of government should stay out of "WE THE PEOPLE" and put their efforts to strengthen this country and economy

  • kent

    Need a background check on all politicians !!!!!! Their past lives are ridiculous !! Dig deeper into their qualifications,,,,,,,, look how ADOLF OBOZO has crept into power !!

  • LittleMoose

    This is what socialists do, they get bills passed and don't enforce them. Then they complain that there is too much gun violence and pass another bill they don't enforce. Eventually they get to the point that the only way to stop gun violence is to confiscate all of the guns from law abiding citizens. Unfortunately that won't stop gun violence either but they think it will stop an upraising of the people when the government gets too oppressive.

  • armydadtexas

    Find out who these senators are that wish to VIOLATE our 2nd Amendment by Name and State. Then start the largest Grass Roots campaign in US History to remove them from Office. Start with the jerks who headed this last attempt, beginning with Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Patrick Toomey (R-PA). These two need to understand there are consequences for VIOLATING your oath of office. Attempting to INFRINGE on the 2nd Amendment is an attempt to INFRINGE on the United States Constitution and will not be tolerated.

  • CactusG

    This is what I don't understand. If you commit a felony you lose your second amendment right. So why would you want felons easier access to guns?

    • Old Wolf

      Actually, that's a modern invention. It occurred in the 1968 Omnibus Crime bill. Up until that time, you did not lose your rights in most states, and such is in direct violation of the 1866, and 1871 Civil Rights act, which, if it were enforced as intended, would have prevented the Jim Crow era, as well as the requirement for the 1960 civil rights act, as it was more inclusive, and had far more teeth.

      It was written in direct response to disarmament attempts in the south, as well as deprivations of property, liberty, and life under color of law. The 1968 Crime Bill was written in direct response to the 1960 Civil Rights bill, in order to prevent the people who already had the right from carrying arms.
      Given that we have no right to police protection, and numerous court cases have stated this, and that we have an absolute right to self-defense (again, according to numerous court cases) a challenge could be made pursuant to title 42, section 1983 of the US code, as well as title 18, section 242, were someone to initiate such action.
      In other words, when congress made it a felony to strip any rights from any person, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom, their intent was to protect those very things which the 1968 firearms act attacked. A constitutional amendment was placed to prevent the stripping of those privileges and immunities, you may have heard of it... the fourteenth.
      Even the slaves had the right in extremis to self defense. It was one of the 'badges of slavery' to have special laws, depriving them of their rights, which was forbidden under the 13th. But all across recorded history, the right to carry weapons has been limited under the excuses of public safety or any other excuse. In Blackstone's time, it was protection of the game.
      The first thing governments have always done when tyranny has started was to attempt to deligitimize criticism and resistance by outlawing the things that allowed it. The 'least restrictive' answer to this is to ensure that those who commit murder are kept in jail, or hung. In the words of Miranda v. Arizona, where rights guaranteed by the constitution are involved, there can be NO rulemaking or legislation to get around them.

    • CactusG

      Old wolf I do understand your point of view, but as a society don't we have a moral obligation to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals?

    • Old Wolf

      No, actually. Criminals are only criminals so long as they are engaged in a criminal act, and being punished for that act. If they engage in future criminal acts, they run the equal risk of being killed for them, or reimprisoned forever.

      The primary problem becomes creating openings within the rights. It goes back to the issue of separate law for separate persons, or attainder, as it was spoken of in the Federalist papers.

      We cannot, as a society, deprive people of fundamental rights.

      "The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less informed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding. They very rightly infer, therefore, that some thorough reform is wanting, which will banish speculations on public measures, inspire a general prudence and industry, and give a regular course to the business of society." -- Federalist 44 on bills of attainder.

      We have a moral obligation to protect ourselves, and others, and an absolute right to that power of self-defense.

      Depriving others of rights implies that you have more right to their rights than they do, and no right in your own, should other people choose to take it. It's the ultimate end of democracy and anarchy, where the rule of numbers and force becomes the law, rather than the law restraining the necessity of that force, by providing other recourse.

      The answer to a misuse of a right is not the deprivation of the right, for the right is theirs. It is either the prison, or the gallows. There is no right to protection by police outside of the prison, so how can we claim to deprive the method of the exercise of an 'inalienable' right, a right for which there is neither authority, nor just means to remove it save in execution?

    • CactusG

      I disagree with you about that. When you commit a crime against society and your found guilty of that crime you lose your rights to that society. There are consequent to your actions. If you don't want your right to own a gun taken away then don't commit crimes.

      Now I do think it shouldn't be taken away for life. I believe if you've turned your life around and became a law abiding citizen after 10 or so years, that right should be given back.

    • Old Wolf

      May I inquire how you intend to enforce such a deprivation? Should it be under color of law, title 18, section 242 would apply.

      "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."
      There's more to this than you are yet aware. Those rights are rights of citizenship, and congress cannot revoke that citizenship. (Trop v. Dulles). Moreover, Congress extended those rights to all persons as a vested property interest that cannot be revoked. (Insular cases under the treaty powers with Puerto Rico).
      If persons offend again, the people have the right to put them away or kill them. Your rights end where another's begin.The problem comes in that the state can define nearly any action into a felony, including the most innocuous. It, for instance, is a felony to collect an eagle feather, whether or not you knew it was such.
      The original allowance for the deprivation of rights can be found under Blackstone's commentaries on the laws of England, the consequences of conviction. Attainder was one of the consequences of conviction, but it is forbidden to all powers of the state under article 1, section 9, along with the stripping of the rights of humanity via the corruption of blood. It was only used for executable offenses, and usually for treason. It was the only power by which rights could be stripped, and is forbidden from the federal government, and the legislature, under article 1, section 9.
      It was also commonly at the time looked at as a means of instituting separate law under the bills of pains and penalties inclusion, and was one of the powers that maintained slavery.
      The intent was to prevent a class of 'lords' who had rights, and a class of lessers, by requiring them to be under the same, general law.
      The state has the power to suspend the right while the individual is in prison. The state has no mandate, nor any requirement to protect the individual, however, when they are outside of prison, even on probation.
      "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public." (Lynch v. NC Dept. Justice)

      The acts forbidden by both the statute, the international treaty, and the constitution under the 14th amendment are the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities of citizenship, and likewise under article 4. There's a great deal of interlocking law on this subject, from the attainder issues to the issues under monroe v. pape, and the powers themselves coming from the people, according to Yick wo v. Hopkins.

      If you are a person in these United states, by federal law, you must have those rights if you are outside of custody. If you are not a 'person' and outside custody, you have been unlawfully converted into something else, in violation of the 13th amendment, and in violation of international treaty including the 1957 Supplementary Convention for the Abolition of Slavery, The Slave Trade, and conditions like slavery.

      The purpose of the statute, and the associated title 28, section 1343 and title 42, section 1983 code was to create recourse if any person was deprived of those rights, and to ensure that such deprivation could be punished. The 14th amendment was passed to ensure that this law was the law of the land.

      It bears no codicils, requires no racial component, has no exceptions. It is, and remains the law of the land.

      And its purpose was stated that anyone bearing these rights could never be made a slave again, by Shellabarger.

      As vested rights, the only means by which they could be divested would be to divest them via attaint.

      It's a multifaceted issue, and the society still has the option of having the jury sentence the individuals whom the juries judge to be dangerous to life in prison, without possibility of parole, or death.

      At this point, a larger problem seems to be that prison is not about rehabilitation, but about a place to be punished. It is a brutal, and antisocial environment that reinforces the criminal thinking that got them there in the first place, rather than giving them the ability and the reasons to reintegrate and make peace with the society. It has become an institute of lower learning, extending and propagating the criminal mindset, at the lowest common denominator.

      A through reform is wanting, but it would require stopping treating them as warehouses, and dealing with the tendencies that made the Milgram prison experiments so brutal.

      You are welcome to disagree, but I at least thank you for being polite about it... it's an unusual courtesy these days. I would recommend seeing to Monroe v. Pape - 365 U.S. 167 (1961) and reading it. It's a good illumination of parts of the intent of the law. Also strongly recommend reading Dred Scott v. Sandford, which was the reason behind the wording of the law, and the 14th amendment.