110th U.S. Congress (2007-200
H.R. 1096: To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans
HR 1096 IH
110th CONGRESS1st Session H. R. 1096To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESFebruary 15, 2007
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILLTo restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.

• Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

• This Act may be cited as the `Second Amendment Protection Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF 1993 LAW PROVIDING FOR A WAITING PERIOD BEFORE THE PURCHASE OF A HANDGUN, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM TO BE CONTACTED BY FIREARMS DEALERS BEFORE THE TRANSFER OF ANY FIREARM.

• Public Law 103-159 is repealed, and any provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF SPORTING PURPOSES DISTINCTION.

• (a) Section 5845(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
  • (1) by striking `which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes'; and
    (2) by striking `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes'.
  (b) Section 921(a)(4)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes'.
  (c) Section 921(a)(4) of such title is amended in the 2nd sentence by striking `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes'.
  (d) Section 921(a)(17)(C) of such title is amended by striking `a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes,'.
  (e) Section 923(j) of such title is amended by striking `devoted to the collection, competitive use, or other sporting use of firearms in the community'.
  (f) Section 922(r) of such title is amended by striking `of this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes'.
  (g) Section 925(a)(3) of such title is amended by striking `determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes and'.
  (h) Section 925(a)(4) of such title is amended by striking `(A) determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes, or determined by the Department of Defense to be a type of firearm normally classified as a war souvenir, and (B)'.
  (i) Section 925(d)(3) of such title is amended by striking `and is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes'.
  (j) Section 925(e)(2) of such title is amended by striking `provided that such handguns are generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes'.
  (k) Section 922 of such title is amended in each of subsections (a)(5), (a)(9), and (b)(3) by striking `lawful sporting purposes' and inserting `lawful purposes'.

SEC. 4. REPEAL OF THE CHILD SAFETY LOCK ACT OF 2005.

• (a) Amendments to Title 18, United States Code-
  • (1) Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (z).
    (2) Section 924 of such title is amended--
    • (A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking `(f), or (p)' and inserting `or (f)'; and
      (B) by striking subsection (p).
  (b) Repealer- Section 5 of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note; 119 Stat. 2099) is repealed.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

• The provisions of this Act shall take effect immediately upon enactment.

Now this is a bill that I support 100%. Write to your elected officals and tell them to support this one.

Ron Paul is an elected offical that still takes the oath he took to uphold and defend the Constitution and the bill of Rights at heart.

I'm not against a instant check in theory, but there are problems that would have to be addressed first.

1. To be effective, The criminal Database would have large enough to cover nationwide and not just in state. That would mean all gun resellers would have to be connected to a SECURE central computer mainframe. It would also put out of business all Internet resellers.

2. Some sort of biometric or fingerprint system would have to be used to prevent people using false OR STOLEN id's.

3. It would have to have a full background check for people not born in the United States. To prevent terrorists or international criminals from getting weapons. Again, biometric ID needs to be required.

4. Somekind of background check would have to be required in order to prevent manic depressives, mentally or emotional ill patients from getting guns.

I happen to know something about computer databases. The task and cost for creating such a database plus the cost of hooking up every major retailer in the country would be tremendous. Right now the US is way behind much of the western world in terms of internet connectivity. the task to hook up every one involved would be gigantic, it would require installing new fiber optic cables everywhere.

And even if it could be done I would defintly foresee some constitutional issues arising.

Very interesting mmarsh.

No doubt that if it is in the pipeline, the technology and infrastructure will come in time. This type of gun control seems very sensible to me. I just hope that the cost does not all run downhill to the individual shooter as no doubt other services will use it too.

I have a 50/50 view on background checks.

I do support that to a limit. It comes down to two things. Time and the mark of the beast.

I do not want to government to go and make me do finger prints and dna test to buy a new firearm. As of right now. Florida runs you through FDLE (state version of the FBI). Most checks take about five minutes because most folks have no past. But some get screwed because of their names.

Do you know how many folks named Jorge Lopez or Carlos Perez are in Florida?

There a millions of them. So one ruins it for all.

In the end, nothing stops criminals from bypassing the system.

It's called a Straw Purchase. Someone with a clean background goes and buy said firearm for criminal. Happens all the time. Every gun store has signs saying that doing a straw purchase will land you in jail by the BAFTE for 10 years. Folks still do it because some folks are criminals.

So once again, why are you going to hurt the law abiding community with such a hurdle for buying a new firearm?

So you believe the Federal Goverment has the right to forbid gun ownership in the case of Americans convicted of certain crimes?

Yes and no....

I believe that once you serve your time for certain crimes you do have the right to regain your rights. But that is the problem, most criminals do not become rehabilitated. They do not want to be productive members of society.

I also believe that once you break the law and become a felon you have lost your rights because you didn't care about other peoples' rights.

It comes down to this, if said criminal has truly been rehabilitated and wants to be a productive member of society and proves it than yes. Said person should have their rights restored.

BUT!!!!!!!

It does not apply to criminals like sexual predators, murderers, career criminals, other true scum of the Earth. If you rap sheet is long than the bible. Tough luck, you lost your rights a long time ago.

If you're a guy that got busted for stealing a TV, did your time, learned from your mistakes, and truly wants to correct the mistakes in your life and become a productive member of society. You should be given the right to prove that you should get your rights back such as that to own a firearm and vote. But you need to prove it bigtime.... This is not going to be some blank check like welfare. Sadly, if this happens folks like Hiltery Clinton will turn it into a mess by giving child rapist a get out of jail free card.

Constitution of the United States

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Just wondering then, if the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is to be taken at face value, what would give the Federal Governemt the right to restrict gun ownership at all?

Hence why I said I'm 50/50 on that. Criminals do not follow the rights of their fellow citizens just like the government does sometimes.

I cannot find anything in the United States Constitution which specifically allows the Federal Goverment to take the right to keep and bear Arms off any American, convicted of a crime or not.
I see where a Weapon may be taken away in the Fifth Amendment, along with ones Liberty, as in the case of going to jail, if the Weapon is to be counted as property.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You believe the Federal Government has the right to impose a lifelong sentence, even after one is released from Prison (thus regaining ones Liberty) after serving his or her time?... in some cases.

Well, if it was not part of the original sentence than it is illegal. But if it is part of the original than it is legal.

If you are sentenced to thiry years in prison plus a life of probation afterward than that is legal. If you are setenced to thirty years in prison and nothing more. After two years of being released they come up to you and say that you are now under probation that is illegal and against the rights of the people.

I see where you are going with it and I understand it. The law in that regard is kinda tricky. if they sentence you with one thing and you serve your time fine. But if after you get out they charge you again and sentence you again for the same crime that you already served time for that is illegal.

Basicly, the stripping of one's right must be done when the person is sentenced. If it is done after the sentence has been served it is illegal. Hence why federal law states that Felons cannot own firearms. It is law that is served while the subject is being sentenced. If it was served after the subject served his/her time. It would be illegal.