“Firearms in Commerce: Assessing the Need for Reform in the Federal Regulatory Proces

[Bobk]

OFFICIAL HEARING NOTICE / WITNESS LIST:
September 7, 2010

NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing entitled "Firearms in Commerce: Assessing the Need for Reform in the Federal Regulatory Process" for Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

By order of the Chairman.


View a Hearing or Meeting

 

[matefrio]

Members of The Senate Judiciary Committee:
Democrats:
Patrick Leahy, Vermont, Chairman
Herb Kohl, Wisconsin
Dianne Feinstein, California
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin
Chuck Schumer, New York
Dick Durbin, Illinois
Ben Cardin, Maryland
Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island
Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota
Ted Kaufman, Delaware
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania
Al Franken, Minnesota
Republicans:
Jeff Sessions, Alabama, Ranking Member
Orrin Hatch, Utah
Chuck Grassley, Iowa
Jon Kyl, Arizona
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
John Cornyn, Texas
Tom Coburn, Oklahoma

 

[matefrio]

For what it's worth I got this from Cornyn back in July of this year. The others.... well, it's not really that pro gun.

[FONT]Thank you for contacting me about [/FONT][FONT] [/FONT][FONT]federal firearms laws. [/FONT][FONT] [/FONT][FONT]I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter. [/FONT]
[FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT]It is essential to safeguard the law-abiding citizen's constitutional right to own and use firearms designed for legitimate purposes such as hunting, target shooting, collecting, and self-protection. Restricting this right runs counter to the intent of our Founding Fathers, who expressly guaranteed that citizens would retain the right to keep and bear arms. [/FONT]
[FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT]As a former Texas Supreme Court Justice and Attorney General, I have firsthand knowledge of crime-fighting policies that work, and I believe that citizens' Second Amendment rights should not be restricted because of the actions of criminals. Rather, we must respect the rights of law-abiding citizens and focus our attention on the source of violent crime: criminals who use firearms to commit crimes. I believe that strictly enforcing the law and meting out longer sentences for career criminals and those who use firearms when committing crimes will reduce crime more effectively than gun or equipment bans, which primarily serve to take firearms away from law-abiding citizens. [/FONT]
[FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT]I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate, and you may be certain that I will continue working with my colleagues to protect our Second Amendment rights. Thank you for taking the time to contact me. [/FONT]
[FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT]Sincerely, [/FONT]
[FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT]JOHN CORNYN [/FONT]
[FONT]United States Senator
[/FONT]

 

[matefrio]

This could be a review of : S. 941 and H.R. 2296: The “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2009” if so it's a good thing.

NRA-ILA :: S. 941 and H.R. 2296: The ?Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2009?

 

[MR Redneck]

Mr. Cornyn is a great asset to Texans. His ideas about regulation and Criminal punishment are well rounded. When I hear a politician commenting on the exact same subject in the same manner that I do, I feel the man is in close relation to the public. NO ELITIST HERE!!!
Gun control isnt crime control.
Mr. Cornyn has served Texas well and as a former supreme court justice and and attorney general, he has the knowlege and experiance to promote the needs and desire of Texans.

 

[matefrio]

Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Got guns into national parks (as long as they follow state laws) and kept them there tacking it on to the credit card bill. He's a very pro gun Senator. I don't know the rest.

 

[Texasjack]

This Congress seems to have a 'reverse-Midas touch'. Everything they touch turns to s***.

 

[texas1willy2]

If I had to guess I think this has to do with the Montana case were they are challenging the federal government ultimately trying to reverse (basically everything) covered under the commerce clause.

I don't think they are only trying to address gun rights. There has been an on going battle to reign in the liberties congress has taken with everything they regulate under the commerce clause. Most feel congress has way over stepped in their interpretation of what the founders original intent was by taking just a few words out of context.
What was originally meant to regulate just a few items has been turned into almost everything imaginable.

By congress holding these hearings they may very well be trying to keep this out of the supreme court because if they lose this case all the dominos will start to fall.

FOXNews.com - Tenth Amendment Movement Aims to Give Power Back to the States

I think somebody on this board might have posted this video
YouTube - Wheat, Weed, and ObamaCare: How the Commerce Clause Made Congress All-Powerful