Kennedy 0 #1 February 18, 2005 H.R. 418 should be called the national ID card act, instead of the REAL ID act. Thursday, February 17, 2005 ----- "The U.S. House of Representatives passed a national ID bill last week that masqueraded as 'immigration reform.' ... In reality, the bill is a Trojan horse. It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to con a credulous Congress into sacrificing more of our constitutionally protected liberty." -- Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) ----- Rep. Ron Paul got it right. H.R. 418 is not about immigration control as much as it is about citizen control. Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 261-161 to send H.R. 418, the so-called "REAL ID Act of 2005," over to the Senate. The bill federalizes the issuance of drivers' licenses, an activity which until recently has always been a state function. Because no American will be able to fly, take a train or buy a gun from a dealer without a driver's license that meets the federal standards in the bill, H.R. 418 has effectively created a National ID card. The bill's future in the Senate is uncertain at this time, although Rep. Paul's office has told Gun Owners of America that House leaders are contemplating whether to attach H.R. 418 as an amendment to the tsunami relief bill. Lambasting the bill on the floor of the House last week, Rep. Paul noted that the legislation gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to expand the required information that goes into drivers’ licenses, including "such biometric information as retina scans, fingerprints, DNA information, and even Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) radio tracking technology." Should this happen, it would mean that the federal government "would know where Americans are at all times of the day and night," Paul said. Moreover, H.R. 418 requires the U.S. government to share our personal information with Canada and Mexico. Paul was flabbergasted. "There are no limits on what happens to the database of sensitive information on Americans once it leaves the United States for Canada and Mexico -- or perhaps other countries," he said. Paul wondered if crooked Mexican officials would soon be able to sell thousands of identity files, including our Social Security numbers, to alien criminals. Rep. Paul also informed his House colleagues about the dangers this bill poses to gun owners, noting that H.R. 418 contains no prohibitions against including "a person's appearance on a registry of firearms owners" in the National ID card. "H.R. 418 does what legislation restricting firearm ownership does," Paul said. "It punishes law-abiding citizens. Criminals will ignore it. "H.R. 418 offers us a false sense of greater security at the cost of taking a gigantic step toward making America a police state." If the President and Congress were serious about cracking down on alien terrorists, they would (for starters) get serious about securing our border. But while Congress funded an additional 2,000 border guards last year, the administration has stated it will only seek to add 210 new guards. And while Congress has enacted armed pilots legislation to combat the threat of terrorist hijackers, the administration has fought this proposal every step of the way. As it stands today, there are many pilots who simply refuse to jump over all the hurdles that the administration has erected for those pilots who want to carry firearms in the cockpit.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #2 February 18, 2005 Legislation introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives would prevent further abuse of our nation’s courts when frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding businesses seek to blame them for the criminal misuse of legally sold firearms. Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL) and Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) introduced HR 800 with strong bipartisan backing from 92 co-sponsors. In the Senate, S 397 has a total of 27 co-sponsors backing "The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act," introduced by Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) and Senator Max Baucus (D-MT). The proposed new law enjoys support from business groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Association of Wholesalers, as well as organized labor whose members’ jobs are endangered by such reckless lawsuits that are brought against their employers with the intention of bankrupting them. “Lawful and responsible members of the business community must be protected from this destructive effort. These lawsuits are meant to eliminate a segment of the manufacturing industry and the jobs of tens of thousands it employs, by forcing an enormous economic burden on innocent people forced to defend their good names against unwarranted accusations,” observed Doug Painter, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry. “These businesses not only provide materials our men and women in uniform need to win the war against terrorism,” Painter notes, “but also the goods that 40 million Americans use to enjoy recreational shooting and hunting with firearms. These shooting-related activities contribute approximately three billion dollars in activity each year to the nation’s economy.” The National Association of Manufacturers, representing 14,000 members with 18 million employees making all manner of products in America, sees the issue this way: "Today it’s handguns, but tomorrow it could be power tools, golf clubs or automobiles. Manufacturers of perfectly lawful, properly designed and well-functioning products can’t rationally be held liable for third-party actions that may result in harm to another." More than thirty states already have passed similar legislation to prevent unwarranted lawsuits attempting to blame responsible businesses and their employees for the acts of criminals. Federal legislation would prevent new suits from being filed or existing cases from proceeding when a judge determines that the defendants are not connected to the wrongdoing of criminals, and their product was not defectively designed or made. “This legislation would not stop legitimate lawsuits by someone who is injured by a defective product or against any business that knowingly breaks the law. Those kinds of actions are well-established and protected under our statutes and legal traditions. This new law is needed to stop predatory lawsuits that are intended to bankrupt an entire industry by turning upside-down centuries of legal tradition and jurisprudence in America that provides protection in our courts for the innocent,” explains Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of NSSF. Beginning in 1998, some three-dozen lawsuits were brought by municipalities and firearm prohibitionists to blame federally licensed firearm makers and sellers for the criminal misuse of products lawfully made and sold. “Our industry has been forced to spend more than $200 million dollars defending against these outrageous and patently false allegations, with no end in sight,” said Keane. NSSF itself, established in 1961 by the firearms industry to promote safety and the responsible use of its products, has been named a defendant in many of the lawsuits. NSSF created and funded a program called Project ChildSafe (www.projectchildsafe.org) to distribute nationwide more than 20 million firearm safety kits and gun locks. At the request of the Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, NSSF created a program to assist law enforcement in its mission to prevent and prosecute criminal purchases of guns, called Don’t Lie for the Other Guy (www.dontlie.org) and through these programs the firearms industry group is a partner in the federal government’s Project Safe Neighborhoods (www.psn.gov) program to prevent crime. “Everyone who works in manufacturing or sells manufactured goods should encourage their representatives in Congress to support this common-sense measure,” adds NSSF’s president, Doug Painter, “because it’s simply wrong and unjust to blame the manufacturer or retailer of a perfectly legal and properly functioning product when someone purposely misuses it. No one would seriously consider suing the manufacturer of matches when an arsonist starts a fire with one, so manufacturers in our industry cannot be held accountable for behavior we do not condone, criminal and irresponsible acts involving our products.”witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #3 February 18, 2005 They got away with the Patriot (sic) Act. What makes you think they won't get away with this?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #4 February 18, 2005 OK, 1. Glad to have you back...Without you an PK...I almost was bored. 2. What are the reasons a National ID is bad? I mean why not have a National Drivers license?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #5 February 18, 2005 Welcome back Kallend! Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #6 February 18, 2005 "I mean why not have a National Drivers license? " I have never understood why you guys have 'state licenses'.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #7 February 18, 2005 Because each state has local differences that are covered when a licence is issued. Here in Ohio U-turns are almost 100% illegal. You may only perform a Uturn at intercetions that are marked as such. In TX its the opposite. They are almost always legal. Each state is fee to determine their own speed limit and costs associated with tickets.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #8 February 18, 2005 Some people never learned "states' rights" or "limited federal government" in school.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropoutdave 0 #9 February 18, 2005 QuoteHere in Ohio U-turns are almost 100% illegal. You may only perform a Uturn at intercetions that are marked as such. Damn i'm gonna be locked up when I next come out to the states! I made about 15 U-turns just trying to drive round the Paris ring road once. ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #10 February 18, 2005 QuoteBecause each state has local differences that are covered when a licence is issued. Here in Ohio U-turns are almost 100% illegal. You may only perform a Uturn at intercetions that are marked as such. In TX its the opposite. They are almost always legal. Each state is fee to determine their own speed limit and costs associated with tickets. Thats still not a reason to not have a National DL. I have a FAA Pilots License....At some Airports I am allowed to do a mid field take off, left or right patterns...Hell I have been at one airport that will allow me to take off from the taxiway if its clear....It gets worse with the Helicopter. One Airport I am allowed to take off from the tiedown..At another I have to hover along the taxi ways all the way to the *end* of the runway, then use the runway to take off. (Like I NEED a runway???? I have been flying for 5 mins already). But different Airports have different rules and I have to know the rules when I am there.... There are more airports in any one state than there are states. If I don't know the rules, I fly by the most restrictive set I know. Don't know if a U turn is illegal? Dont make any and there will not be a problem. Speeding fines are different BY COUNTY here in FL. So that argument does not apply either."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #11 February 18, 2005 Amser Cwrw! Amser Guinness! Kallend is back! Ffewcin Saeson! Croeso!Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #12 February 18, 2005 QuoteBecause each state has local differences that are covered when a licence is issued. Here in Ohio U-turns are almost 100% illegal. You may only perform a Uturn at intercetions that are marked as such. In TX its the opposite. They are almost always legal. Each state is fee to determine their own speed limit and costs associated with tickets. so what....you still allow people from other states to drive in any other state. State specifics can still be relayed with the document. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
03CLS 0 #13 February 18, 2005 I don't know exactly what the details are, but does this need to change and go Federal? Put the national guard on the Mexico border before it's to late..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #14 March 3, 2005 QuoteWhat are the reasons a National ID is bad? I mean why not have a National Drivers license? Well, the best reason I can think of why not to have one is that most of the population doesn't want one. THey ought to just call is it a mandatory Natioanl ID card, and put that up for a vote in the congress. Instead they're building up these ridiculous doublespeak rules and hoping no one reads it.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #15 March 3, 2005 I too see no reason not to have a National ID. State licenses may be ISSUED by the state but they are valid anywhere....why not just make them issued by the binding authority for all states? Right now, police can access info on me from any state. It may take SLIGHTLY longer sometimes, but they can still do it. Why not just centralize the process anyway?Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #16 March 3, 2005 I don't see a reason to put another program in the federal governments hands... they seem to screw most of them up anyway... but I also don't see a reason to have uniform standards for issuing them, or registering to vote in federal elections for that matter... If a state wants to issue a DL to an illegal alien, that's their right (constitutionally - since it was not a power given to the fed gvt.), but that does not mean other states or the fed government should have to acknowledge it... if a state wants to let illegals vote in local elections, same thing, but it does not mean they get a say at the national level. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
