Skip to content

Obamacare actually bans gun and gun owner registration

January 9, 2013

 Dianne Feinstein is in the process of finalizing gun control legislation and as part of her bill she calls for the registration of all firearms as well as the registration and fingerprinting of all citizens who own the grandfathered weapons which the bill will ban.

  Perhaps Dianne Feinstein should have read the Affordable Care Act before she voted for it because, according to this article, Obamacare actually bans gun registration and the collection of information on legal gun owners:

that amendment (3276, Sec. 2716, part c.) says the government cannot collect “any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition

  Nancy Pelosi once said that the bill had to be passed in order to find out what was in it and I guarantee you that neither Dianne Feinstein nor Nancy Pelosi had any idea this amendment was actually in the legislation. Perhaps they should have talked to Harry Reid because he is the one who inserted the amendment into Obamacare in the first place in order to ensure that the NRA  wouldn’t oppose the legislation.

  The irony here is just too sweet! However what does the law mean when Joe Biden announced today that the president would use Executive Order in order to pass gun control legislation? What exactly does he mean by this and how far will Barack Obama go with an Executive Order? Those questions still remain to be answered, but one thing is certain; I wouldn’t put anything past Barack Obama at this point…..

20 Comments leave one →
  1. MaddMedic permalink
    January 9, 2013 7:51 pm

    Reblogged this on Freedom Is Just Another Word….


  2. January 9, 2013 7:58 pm

    I knew there had to be a pony in there somewhere!



  3. January 9, 2013 8:01 pm

    Proving once again; the Obama regime is one GIANT cluster fork… 😈


  4. Steve permalink
    January 9, 2013 9:53 pm

    I’m not so sure this is the silver bullet it sounds like at the outset. After reading that part of the law and many comments on it, it sounds as though the collection of data is only prohibited by the insurance companies and wellness program providers, not the gov’t, per se. Now, if you end up getting your insurance from the Feds then that might help you…maybe. I’m no lawyer and it reads like so much gobble-de-gook, but that’s what it looks like to me.


    • January 9, 2013 10:02 pm

      Interesting, I wouldn’t put it past Reid to pretend to protect gun rights to appease the NRA while actually hedging his bets.


  5. January 9, 2013 10:05 pm

    Reblogged this on The D.C. Clothesline.


  6. January 9, 2013 10:23 pm

    Reblogged this on bearspawprint.


  7. January 9, 2013 11:30 pm

    Reblogged this on dailyoddsandends.


  8. January 10, 2013 7:33 am

    The Constitution gives the rights of the Government to the Government.

    The entire Bill of Rights was designed to protect citizens from its own government. Why would the 2nd Amendment to be an exception?

    The Constitution states the rights of the Government. The Bill of Rights states rights to the citizens. When the Constitution was written, every male between 16 and 55 was a member of the militia by law. Thus, the militia is every male between 16-55. The second amendment gave the right of every male to possess guns without government “infringement”..

    Afroyim v Rusk 18 LED 2D 757 ; 387 U.S. 253 (1967) 387 U.S. 253
    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States . . . .” There is no indication in these words of a fleeting citizenship, good at the moment it is acquired but subject to destruction by the Government at any time. Rather the Amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it. Once acquired, this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship was not to be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the States, or any other governmental unit”.
    Blacks law dictionary. — A person with all rights.
    This means that the govt and the govt mobs cannot vote your right to own a gun away.


    • January 10, 2013 8:11 am

      I agree, the constitution is a limiting document not an empowering one and it is about time our elected officials realized this!


      • Jean permalink
        January 10, 2013 12:27 pm

        After 200 years, they figure it’s pretty safe, we’re toothless.

        Sackless, more like it.

        Until we actually hold their feet to the fire, they’ll dick us over, just as they have since the inception of the Constitution. (B.N., a coup d’etat on the Articles of Confederation).

        So we need a few “fringers” to go hold the tyrants accountable. They see a chance to profit from the bloodshed, while the sane people on both sides wish to avoid bloodshed.
        But they want bloodshed – so let them have plenty, up close and personal – like, they get to watch their families bleed out, before they get to see themselves bleed out. Lots of bloodshed, and should be done without guns – knives and explosives – to make the point. Repeat until they get the message.

        Which will be never. 😦



  1. 2nd Amendment Under Attack « Conservative Compass
  2. Teeing it up: A Round at the LINKs (GUNS and TAXES edition) | SENTRY JOURNAL
  3. NEW YORK is Beaking a Federal law???

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: