"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." ~~Thomas Jefferson

"Who will protect us from those who protect us?"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. ~ Thomas Jefferson

"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." ~~Goethe

31 January 2021

How did I miss this...?




1st Session

H. R. 127

To provide for the licensing of firearm and ammunition possession and the registration of firearms, and to prohibit the possession of certain ammunition.

January 4, 2021

Ms. Jackson Lee introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


To provide for the licensing of firearm and ammunition possession and the registration of firearms, and to prohibit the possession of certain ammunition.

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 “Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act”.

SEC. 2. Licensing of firearm and ammunition possession; registration of firearms.

Read it all here. 


How did I miss this?  Introduced by Ms. Jackson Lee on the 4th of January.  2 days before the Troubles in DC...

I actually saw comments about "HR 127" on a friend's fb post this morning.  Someone commented to him that "...the people will revolt".  That had my attention.  I really hope it goes nowhere because, quite simply, the psychopaths now control both houses of the congress and the White House.   They Powers That Be still have 7,500 National Guard troopers standing by in DC.  To protect them.  And, IMHO, if it did become law, Americans would comply.  Because that's what we do.  Regardless, it is obvious that gun control efforts are on the horizon.  They won't let up.

Promises made, ya know...  Masters to keep happy.

Anyway, take a few minutes and read the whole thing.  It is interesting.  Remember, it is your family, your friends, and your neighbors who get behind legislation like this.  They take the time to write the letters and to make the calls and to knock on the doors.  And as politically naive as they are, they go to the polls and vote.  It is why we are where we are,  I'm sure they're cheering Jackson Lee as some kind of hero, in certain quarters.

Mandatory registration, taxes, liability insurance, mental health examinations...  These things would affect you, if they were to become law.  

Please read the bill.

This shit is real.  

It's the first step in satisfying the biggest wet dream of those on the Left.

Write the letters, make the calls.  If you don't, who will?  Don't let up.  The Grabbers won't...

Find your Senator: https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact 

Find your Congress Critter:  https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative 

It wouldn't hurt to find your State Representatives and contact them as well.  Establish a relationship with them.  Correspond regularly.  Know what's going on.   Educate yourself.

Be polite, but firm...

Stay safe.


Peteforester said...

Quite a while back I made the decision that if something like this became law, I'd become an outlaw... on paper, anyway. After all, passage of a law like this would be unconstitutional, meaning that the legislators themselves would be the actual outlaws...

...This isn't macho bluster, here. This is my stand...

Blue said...

Pete... I hear ya. Sadly, it isn't Unconstitutional until the Supremes say it is so... :( I do believe that passage of this bill would have severe consequences. I can't even say "unintended" consequences because, well, so many have shown their true colors. They are attempting to create a new country. America is to be put away on a shelf, done, over... Stay safe.

Anonymous said...

Gotta disagree. When a thing is Unconstitutional ON IT'S FACE, it is in fact the sworn duty of all sworn to law enforcement to REFUSE to enforce the ILLEGAL "statute", as doing so would make THEM perpetrators of felonies. Though it may no longer be true ( I think most school systems discarded required Civics class more than a decade ago ( I was a '77 HS grad, took such, it did make an impression-back then ) would realize just how many violations of law are written into that stupendously poorly conceived bill to include many that are clearly vengefully intended to make the citizens in question targets for (antifa) criminal attack . If local LEOs did NOT refuse, it would be time for Citizens to abolish their authority for anything other than previously routine service. If they proved still unwilling to me muzzled, then the Police State would have declared a condition of war against the non uniformed citizenry, something they DO NOT have authority enough to do. The over reach would not be tolerated by some number of the citizenry, and, yeah, it would then be "on", in the vernacular of our day. I'm am NOT advocating ANY of this,but simply pointing out that it IS predictable.

B P said...

Blue, where did you get that proposition? Since my first year of law school and throughout my practice, the stance I have seen courts consistently take is that they find what the law already was. Judicial activism pays only lip service to that standard, but they do pay it: the pretense is still that the law was already so, and they just declared it.

Blue said...

Anon, BP... I hear what you are saying. I agree with you. My point was simply that legislation sometimes becomes law and is later deemed to be unconstitutional. If it is later deemed unconstitutional, it was likely unconstitutional when it was written and put into place.

I was simply saying that if this bill somehow became law it would be enforced as written until such time as the Supremes said it was not constitutional. (They would more likely strike parts of it and let other parts stand, complicating it even further) If it is clearly not constitutional to begin with, why are our esteemed legislators proposing it to begin with?

Further, the definitions of "constitutional" change over time. The 2nd, for example, was never seen to be an "individual right" until recently, even though we all knew it was. (humor) And the 2nd has not changed, just been reinterpreted (finally interpreted?) by the Supremes. No?

Correct me if I'm wrong but, I believe the Constitution was written in such a way that the authors believed a normally educated person would be able to easily and correctly discern it's true meaning?

And I don't think most LEOs refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws. They aren't lawyers. If a law is on the books they have to assume that it has been through the legislative process and is, therefore, legal. To be otherwise would be to allow (demand?) that LEOs police based on their opinion or feelings regarding the constitutionality of the law. We wouldn't need courts anymore... (again, humor) I think that the vast majority of them do as they are told to do, and will continue to do so. History bears that out. A recent example would be Katrina in NOLA. Cops and National Guard went door to door confiscating privately owned weapons. They did as they were told, without question. And then the Boston Marathon bombing saw Law Enforcement going door to door, forcing people from their homes, as part of their investigation strategy. Their investigations became more important than the right of the people to be secure in their homes. They were forced out by men with guns who threatened arrest or violence for non-compliance. And here in Iowa it isn't uncommon to have several local law enforcement agencies get together and conduct a "Safety Inspection" at a closed interstate truck weigh station. As they go from vehicle to vehicle asking the occupants if they have any illegal guns, alcohol, or drugs in their possession their faithful K-9s go along with them. At what point does an inspection become a search? Logically, when you have a drug/bomb/search trained K-9 as part of the safety inspection team, it becomes a search. That is the only purpose of the dogs. To find those things that they are trained to find. My friends at the Polk County Sheriff's office tell me that yeah, the dogs make it iffy, but there isn't a judge in the state who would throw it out. I'm not a lawyer so I guess I just need to trust the cops. I know that they would never lie to me. (humor once again)

Anyway, I think our world is too complicated. Simplicity is always better.

As always, I appreciate your input and am willing to listen to anything you may be willing to talk about. I don't believe that this legislation will see the light of day. Not in it's entirety anyway. In my mind it's clearly not constitutional. I do believe that parts of it will be pushed to become law.

Also, BP, if you don't mind sharing your opinion... I've always wondered how the 2nd can be a States Rights issue, that it can be defined, legislated, regulated, and restricted at the State level, but the other rights listed in the BOR cannot. I've never understood that. I thought that States had to defer to the US Constitution unless the US Constitution didn't talk about it? Thanks.

I've probably said something here that I shouldn't have and probably missed something that I shouldn't have...

selsey.steve said...

I can foresee many thousands of very unfortunate boating accidents coming up, possibly raising the level of many lakes.

Grog said...

Not replying for BP, as I don't know who this person is, but there is a wealth of information in the link on a variety of topics of law, for your perusal, Blue. I've been reading there several years, and while I'm not a lawyer, I have improved my understanding of the history of the conditions some 200 plus years ago.


Blue said...

Grog... Thanks for the link. Interesting indeed. But, if Publius is correct, there are so many things that are wrong ;)


selsey.steve... undoubtedly. :)

Blue said...

Grog... The link to "anchor babies" at the Publius blog caught my eye... I distinctly recall being taught in HS Civics that a Natural Born Citizen was defined as a child born to an American citizen father and an American citizen mother. The part of the 14th that states "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" certainly takes Harris out of the mix as being eligible to be President as neither of her parents were subject to the jurisdiction of the US Government. At the time of her birth they were simply "passing through", neither had applied for green cards, work permits, etc at that point. I believe that her mother actually moved on to Canada after that, never becoming a Naturalized citizen. Apparently Natural Born and Naturalized now mean the same thing. I know, I know... I'm old. LOL. It is amazing what a government could do to an uneducated, unquestioning citizenry...

Blue said...

Grog... Thanks for sending me down that rabbit hole... Ms. Martin is apparently either revered or reviled with not much in between. So far, I like her!

Grog said...

Heh, down the rabbit hole we go, dum de dum de dum, oh eee oh.


Yeah, there's a lot of like or dislike and very little inbetween for her. Never met her, but I like her also, she pulls no punches in analyzing and explaining.


B P said...

Blue, I'd be happy to. Originally, no part of the Bill of Rights bound the states. The First Amendment didn't prevent a state from banning all press, for example. "Congress shall make no law" meant just that. That's not to say that a state could do so, but the First Amendment wasn't among the things stopping them. The entire notion of applying the Bill of Rights to the states got going after the Civil War, and it was done through the 14th Amendment. The process is called "incorporation." That was McDonald, for the Second Amendment. So, the Second Amendment started to apply to states on July 9, 1868, as determined on June 28, 2010.

To illustrate, if you have McDonald with Heller going the other way, then the rule is that there is a collective right to keep and bear arms, and both the federal government and the states must respect that. If you have Heller with McDonald going the other way, then the rule is that there is an individual right to keep in bear arms, and only the federal government must respect that.

The Second Amendment isn't unique in that states infringe on it, only in the degree they get away with it. Look at the mess we are presently in, concerning freedom of association. Look at freedom of religion under Gavin Newsom. It's not new, either. There are developed tests and breakdowns for how courts decide that governments get to restrict the things they are explicitly told they cannot restrict. Restrictions on speech get one test if they are content neutral rules about "time, place, and manner", and another if they are based on content. Fundamental rights get strict scrutiny, generally, but the entire approach is about "balancing interests."

What makes the Second Amendment stand out is that it is the Rodney Dangerfield of fundamental rights: it don't get no respect. No respect at all. This shows in a number of ways, from the lack of legislative due diligence in researching what they want to ban (e.g. "the shoulder thing that goes up"), to the Hughes Amendment banning a category of weapons with a national average of less than a crime per decade, to the way advocates are treated. If you want a precedent breakdown, read Justice Thomas' dissents in Rogers vs. Grewal and Silvester v. Becerra. (Especially the latter: "If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene. But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court.") For a simple look, consider "why do you need a gun?"

O, reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man’s life is cheap as beast’s.

When someone asks why you need to do something, they are presupposing that you are to stop you if you can't establish that need. We do not get questions of "why do you need political speech?", because that right is respected as a right. If we even get asked "why do you need to listen to that kind of music?", we can recognize it as a red flag. However, it's commonly considered appropriate for the right to keep and bear arms. The constitutionality of a restriction is presupposed because the right is not respected as such. Their minds made up, the rest is merely rationalization.

Blue said...

B P... Thank you for taking the time to put that together. I appreciate it and it certainly helps. I realize that the law is not "rock solid" and I think that is probably a good thing in many cases. But not with the 2nd. LOL. I know that we are all just trying to get through this journey of life as peacefully as possible.

Anyway, again, thank you. I appreciate it. Have a great day.

Dan said...

The left has had that bill written, sitting in a drawer waiting for the coup to be completed. The coup was successful, now this and a buttload of other nasty, evil unconstitutional bills will be presented and almost certainly passed.