HR 1446

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr1446

Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021

most likely a house vote next week!!

The House is in the process of showing that "full libtard" isn't enough these days. The stuff coming out of there in 2021 is anti-America on steroids. This bill is but a small piece of that. Madison weeps.

Man I hate trying to parse legal language sometimes. So it appears that now if you have a hold on a NICS check the FFL has to wait 10 days and if still a hold, the person can file a petition through the FFL to get the hold released and if after a further 10 days it is still a hold they can take possession?

I am having a hard time trying to understand what it is doing.

Appears to have a better chance of getting thru house. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8

That link says it has a 5% chance of passing. It never ceases to amaze me what these people are able to come up with while having no actual understanding of the firearms world.

Doesn't matter. Does not apply to citizens who are not located in the States as defined by the statute.

Title 18, Chapter 44 §921. Definitions

(a) As used in this chapter—


(2) The term "interstate or foreign commerce" includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone)

Chauchat said:

Doesn't matter. Does not apply to citizens who are not located in the States as defined by the statute.

Title 18, Chapter 44 §921. Definitions

(a) As used in this chapter—


(2) The term "interstate or foreign commerce" includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone)

Click to expand...

That is a misunderstanding of the term "includes" in laws. "Includes" is additive; it adds whatever is listed afterward to the definition, in addition to the pre-existing definition fior the purpose of the particular statute. Maryland is still within the legal definition of "state" for this bill, even if it's no longer effectively functioning as a multiparty representative democracy anymore.

Noooooope. This one sentence turned the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 from one being potentially unconstitutional into the constitutionally congruent GCA of 1968. The first Act did not show jurisdiction in relation to the powers of the Congress enumerated in Article I. To wit.

17 To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

So the legal term "includes" excludes everything else. Is the District of Columbia one of the fifty signatories to the Constitution of 1787? No. It is a creation from it. Are the possessions and territories any of the souverign States that created the second govenment of the united States? Again, no. They are no more so than the Old Northwest Territory or the lands of Kentucky that were ceded from Virginia to the Congress. Of course we know Porto Rico is definitely not a souverign state of the Union though certain rotten $%&*$$# want to change that.

There are many examples in the Statutes At Large where the intent of the Congress of the United States, Assembled shows they know the difference but yet they used the same consturtion in other statutes.

Here is Title 26 Income Tax §7701a9 and 10

§ 7701. Definitions(a) When used in this title, where not other-wise distinctly expressed or manifestly incom-patible with the intent thereof—

(9) United StatesThe term ‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

(10) State The term ‘‘State’’ shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

The Congress has no jurisdiction in the fifty States except where the congress has been delegated authority. Like inside the fence at Meade or Andrews. And this is why Annapolis is working so hard on violating the first organic Law of the Union. The Declaration of Indpendence. Because they know congressional acts do not hold sway over the duly elected government of State of Maryland created by the people.


| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr8

HR 8 as well, so Maryland's new law on private transfers may go national.

MD Shooter Envy said:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr8

HR 8 as well, so Maryland's new law on private transfers may go national.

Click to expand...

No, HR8 has no provisions for C&R licenses. MD long gun transfer bill at least has provision to exempt C&R to C&R and FFL to C&R

Filibuster will stop this nonsense

rockstarr said:

Filibuster will stop this nonsense

Click to expand...

In case you haven't been paying attention, Joe Manchin is already wavering on his "not abolishing the filibuster" stance.

Mad Queen Nan must be weighing heavily upon him.

Seriously, the passage of this bill probably hinges upon Manchin and Sinema, the two so-called "moderate" Democrats from 2A friendly states.

If this bill passes the Senate, you can bet that background check processing will slow to a crawl now that the FBI can legitimately sit on a check basically forever.

Ponder_MD said:

In case you haven't been paying attention, Joe Manchin is already wavering on his "not abolishing the filibuster" stance.

Mad Queen Nan must be weighing heavily upon him.

Seriously, the passage of this bill probably hinges upon Manchin and Sinema, the two so-called "moderate" Democrats from 2A friendly states.

If this bill passes the Senate, you can bet that background check processing will slow to a crawl now that the FBI can legitimately sit on a check basically forever.

Click to expand...

Stop with the doom and gloom. The filibuster isn’t going anywhere. They wanna see a revolt, that’s their pathway.

Democrats know what that means when they lose power.

rockstarr said:

Stop with the doom and gloom. The filibuster isn’t going anywhere. They wanna see a revolt, that’s their pathway.

Democrats know what that means when they lose power.

Click to expand...

They wont lose power they now know they know how to rig elections and the courts wont do shit about it.

rockstarr said:

Stop with the doom and gloom. The filibuster isn’t going anywhere. They wanna see a revolt, that’s their pathway.

Democrats know what that means when they lose power.

Click to expand...

How long have you been saying "Oh, that'll never happen." Look where we are now.

5 Republicans in the house voted for this crap bill. 2 Democrats actually voted against it! This bill could have been killed in the House if Republicans had actually done their jobs.

My view isn't "doom and gloom" it's vigilance. Assume nothing.

How's about a frigging term limit for house and senate? Why are they not working on that?

Michigander08 said:

How's about a frigging term limit for house and senate? Why are they not working on that?

Click to expand...

Term limits were enacted under the Clinton Administration...and overturned as unconstitutional. The reasoning is that the voters are the arbiters of term limits.

The only way to do so is to pass a Constitutional amendment limiting terms...and that's not likely to happen.

Michigander08 said:

How's about a frigging term limit for house and senate? Why are they not working on that?

Click to expand...

TheOriginalMexicanBob said:

Term limits were enacted under the Clinton Administration...and overturned as unconstitutional. The reasoning is that the voters are the arbiters of term limits.

The only way to do so is to pass a Constitutional amendment limiting terms...and that's not likely to happen.

Click to expand...

Only way to do this will be with a Convention of States.

https://conventionofstates.com

If the Senators were appointed by the States like originally were instead of elected by the masses two things would happen; 1. Big money would be out of the election - they would have to spread around to 435 congressmen instead of a handful of Senators each election cycle. and 2. Senators would vote in the interest of their State because they could get recalled or not get reappointed when their term is up.

rockstarr said:

Stop with the doom and gloom. The filibuster isn’t going anywhere. They wanna see a revolt, that’s their pathway.

Democrats know what that means when they lose power.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure there’s no revolt coming any time soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

snallygaster said:

Pretty sure there’s no revolt coming any time soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

A political revolt , not an actual revolt. I should have specified.