No Declaring Firearms on IRS Tax Return!

post by Dan Morris, Denton, Tx

[Thanks Dan for clearing this up. If this had been the case, don’t think many of us would have complied anyway. Americans and Guns—hard to get between, especially here in the South.]

When I received information which was outdated concerning having to declare firearms to IRS, I sent an urgent e-mail to my congressman. To say the least, I was steaming with anger. The bill (SB 2099) was submitted nine years ago by Senator Jack Reed (D- Rhode Island) in the 111th Session of Congress. It died a good death in the Senate and never was re-introduced. I’m surprised someone is sending it around as if it was something new. It was probably sent out by someone trying to fan the flames of panic or discontent. Perhaps it was sent out by some progressive to garner a reaction (hoax) rom gun owners and patriots. If so, it was in poor taste. At least, we can put this new rumor to rest. I nearly fell for it, but, my congressman had the calming answer. Thanks everyone.

The reply back from Dan’s representative follows:

Dear Mr. Morris:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about legislation that would require American gun-owners to declare their firearms on their tax returns, referred to by bill number SB 2099. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter.

I am pleased to tell you that this is quite simply not true. No such legislation exists in Congress. You will not be required to declare your guns on your tax returns. Further, I do not expect to see any such legislation introduced in the 111th Congress.

The origin of this rumor is found in a bill (SB  2099) that was introduced by Senator Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island) over nine years ago, which aimed to levy a tax on handguns. The proposed legislation never made any headway in the Senate, and was not reintroduced the following Congress or in any Congress since.

Please rest assured that in addition to being a fierce advocate for smaller, less intrusive government, I am also strongly opposed to any limitations on the United States Constitution’s Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners. You can be certain that I pay very close attention to any legislation that would affect the rights of gun owners.

Again, thank you for contacting me. It is an honor to represent you in Congress. Please do not hesitate to contact me again with any future concerns.
EMAIL.BEGINHIDE.MERGE

Sincerely,
Michael C. Burgess, M.D.
Member of Congress
MB/jd

High Court’s Big Gun Rights Ruling

post by Lee Ross on Fox News June 28, 2010

[All this in Chicago of course. They are trying to get our GUNS! Anyone, now, going to start thinking about what the Constitution says about over throwing a dictatorial government.]

In its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, the Supreme Court Monday extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 States. The decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and comes over the opposition of gun control groups, the city of Chicago and four justices. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying “the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner.”

The ruling builds upon the Court’s 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation’s capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 States. Today’s ruling also invalidates Chicago’s handgun ban.

Backgrounder—Washington—The Supreme Court appears poised to issue a ruling that will expand to the States the high court’s historic 2008 ruling that individuals have a federally protected right to keep and bear arms, following an hour-long argument Tuesday. If so, the decision would mark another hallmark victory for gun rights advocates and likely strike down Chicago’s handgun ban that is similar to the Washington D.C. law already invalidated by the justices.

Tuesday’s lively arguments featured lawyer Alan Gura, the same man who argued and won D.C. v. Heller in 2008. He now represents Otis McDonald who believes Chicago’s handgun ban doesn’t allow him to adequately protect himself. Gura argued the Heller decision which only applied to Washington D.C. and other areas of federal control should equally apply to Chicago and the rest of the country. “In 1868, our nation made a promise to the McDonald family that they and their descendants would henceforth be American citizens, and with American citizenship came the guarantee enshrined in our Constitution that no State could make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of American citizenship,” Gura told the Court. He argued the language of the Constitution‘s 14th Amendment forces the States to protect the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights, which was adopted in the late 18th Century, was then commonly viewed as only offering protections from the federal government.

It wasn’t until after the Civil War that the Supreme Court in a piecemeal fashion began to apply—or incorporate—parts of the Bill of Rights to the States. It has used the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause to incorporate most of the Constitution‘s first amendments but has not yet done so for the Second Amendment. Gura argued that another part of the 14th Amendment would be a better vehicle for the justices to make their ruling but there didn’t appear to be enough support from the bench on that front.

Chief Justice John Roberts was the most vocal advocate of using the Due Process Clause to extend the Second Amendment rights to the states. “I don’t see how you can read—I don’t see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment…was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant.” The discussion over liberty was a major philosophical theme of the arguments. Gura and National Rifle Association lawyer Paul Clement argued that the rights articulated in the Second Amendment are fundamental freedoms and would exist to all Americans even if there was no law specifically saying so.

James Feldman, lawyer for the City of Chicago, defended his city’s handgun ban and argued why the Heller decision’s Second Amendment guarantee doesn’t comport with the view that it represents a vital protection of liberty that needs to be expanded to the States. “[T]he right it protects is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” Feldman said. “States and local governments have been the primary locus of firearms regulation in this country for the last 220 years. Firearms unlike anything else that is the subject of a provision of the Bill of Rights are designed to injure and kill.”

[What an idiot! It’s not the guns that kill and injure. It’s those who improperly use them that kill and injure. Someone please educate this man. Where did he get his law degree? Through the mail!]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented in Heller and wondered why the right to bear arms was necessary to extend to the States. “[I]f the notion is that these are principles that any free society would adopt, well, a lot of free societies have rejected the right to keep and bear arms.” Later in the arguments Roberts disputed that notion. “I do think the focus is our system of ordered liberty, not any abstract system of ordered liberty. You can say Japan is a free country, but it doesn’t have the right to trial by—by jury.”

[This one is on OUR Supreme Court. These people are not there to make laws, they are there to enforce the laws handed down by our founding fathers. Who gives this person the right to decide that she will now make laws and decide what liberties free societies enjoy and what liberties we can’t? I’m warning you—we have to get rid of every single person in this government and start over or we are no longer free!]

Roberts was part of the five member majority in Heller and there’s a good chance Tuesday’s case will result in a similar 5-4 outcome. All of the members of the Heller majority are still on the Court and at least one of them would have to rule against extending the Second Amendment protection in order for the opposing side to prevail.

[These votes are wrong. They should not be so split like this when coming to our Bill of Rights! When are we going to act?]