WATCH: Congressman Ominously Warns BOTH Parties Quietly Plotting to Take Your Guns

Rachel Blevins–The same congressman who warned in late 2017 that the United States government was waiting for the next mass shooting in order to pass sweeping gun control measures, is now claiming that those measures could be passed in the next week, but they will be slipped into a larger bill.

Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie warned that while members of Congress have suggested raising the legal age to buy guns or banning certain firearms, the real legislation is much worse, and it could be passed as early as next week.

“We’ve got about a week to act,” Massie said in a video he shared on social media. “I want to let you know what’s going on in Congress as far as gun control goes. You’ve heard a lot of ideas floating in the news—raising the legal age to buy a long gun, for instance—or a new assault weapons ban. Any number of bad things have been mentioned. But I wanted to boil it down for you.”

Massie referenced comments he made in December, when he warned of the provisions included in H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which states that its purpose was to amend the federal criminal code to allow a qualified individual to carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms.”

Packaged with that bill was H.R. 4477, the Fix NICS Act, which would amend the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to “require each federal agency and department, including a federal court, to certify whether it has provided to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) disqualifying records of persons prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm.” 

Massie noted that the Senate is proposing an almost identical version of the Fix NICS Act, which has been cosponsored by Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer—both extreme gun control advocates. It will allocate $625 million to expand the national background check database and will advance former President Obama’s goal to pressure other government agencies into increasing the number of names in the NICS database that are banned from gun purchases.

What you don’t know, and what virtually no one in Washington wants you to know, is that House leadership plans to merge the Fix NICS bill with popular Concealed Carry Reciprocity legislation, HR 38, and pass both of them with a single vote,” Massie said in December.

While it may seem like they are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to the Second Amendment, it appears that both Democrats and Republicans are working together to advance this legislation. The Fix NICS Act was originally introduced on Nov. 16, 2017, as H.R. 4434 and it was sponsored by Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar. Then on Nov. 29, 2017, an identical version of the bill with language added to commission a bump-stock study was introduced as H.R. 4477 and it was sponsored by Republican Rep. John Abney Culberson.

Massie noted that while there are a number of glaring problems with the Fix NICS Act, one of the most alarming is that “it compels administrative agencies, not just courts, to adjudicate your second amendment rights.”

“The bill encourages administrative agencies, not the courts, to submit more names to a national database that will determine whether you can or can’t obtain a firearm. When President Obama couldn’t get Congress to pass gun control, he implemented a strategy of compelling, through administrative rules, the Veterans Administration and the Social Security Administration to submit lists of veterans and seniors, many of whom never had a day in court, to be included in the NICS database of people prohibited from owning a firearm. Only a state court, a federal (article III) court, or a military court, should ever be able to suspend your rights for any significant period of time.”

Congress is now attempting to pass the Fix NICS Act by including it in H.R. 4909, the STOP School Violence Act, which it plans to pass next week. Massie warned that the constituents who call their representatives and express support for “stopping school violence,” will unknowingly offer their support for a bill that could allow unqualified government agencies to take away the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

5 Replies to “WATCH: Congressman Ominously Warns BOTH Parties Quietly Plotting to Take Your Guns

  1. Fact is, my rights do not come from government and it can not take them away with “legislation”. In fact, I don’t really care what government passes because it is NOT law. If whatever it passes inhibits me, I will find a workaround when that time comes.

    Truth is, government can only pass laws for itself. When those “laws” become crimes against my rights, they are ignored and my rights exercised.

    I have come to believe that all news, both liberal and our own “alt-right” independent news only serves to give the impression that government is omnipotent, but in the real world it has proven to be quite incompetent.

    Government rules on fear. Lose the fear and it can not rule you. Of course, always remain neutral and never harm another man or his property.

  2. There has never been a government that banned it’s own ARMED FORCES from “Keeping and Bearing” ARMS.
    Find one government in the history of humanity that felt a need to document a “RIGHT” for it’s ARMED FORCES to possess ARMS.
    Oppressive Governments are ALWAYS banning the People’S RIGHTS to arms.
    The claim that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to give Our ARMED FORCES a “right” to keep and carry ARMS is S-T-U-P-I-D.
    The only reason for the Second Amendment is to clearly spell-out the GOD GIVEN RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS to keep & bear ARMS.
    The only reason for the BILL(list) of RIGHTS was to codify INDIVIDUALS’ GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.
    Has there ever been a government that was not chock full of it’s “rights” up to and including declaring itself to be the Lord God Almighty?! (Rome, Egypt, Israel,etc)
    Does the 1st Amendment mean the GOVERNMENT is allowed to give speeches? Try shutting up any Politician. But THEY would LOVE to shut YOU up, hence the FIRST Amendment.
    Anyone who tells you the 2nd Amendment applies to the Army or State Militia, is telling you they think you are STUPID.
    There has NEVER been a government that felt it had to codify it’s army’s/soldier’s “RIGHT” to “Keep and BEAR ARMS” because there has NEVER been a government that refused to allow It’s own soldiers to KEEP and BEAR ARMS!
    The Second Amendment was written for the People, like the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights. This was confirmed by the SCOTUS in the DC vs Heller decision, where they stated that the “People” in the Second Amendment were the same “People” that are mentioned in the First and Fourth Amendment.
    The 2nd Amendment clearly guarantees the “right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms”, and certainly not “the Militia”.
    Why would “the Militia”, a type of army manned by citizen-soldiers as opposed to full-time “regulars”, need a constitutional amendment to guarantee they have the right “to keep and bear arms”?
    Is there any specific statement anywhere in the Constitution that the army Congress is empowered to raise has the “right to keep and bear arms”?

    Of course not. …………. That is assumed.
    “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” — Thomas Jefferson

    It is implicit in the nature of all kinds of armies —- be they militia or regulars, volunteer, conscripted, or mercenary — to be armed.
    They are all “armed forces”.
    They all “bear arms”.
    They all carry guns.
    That is what they do.
    It certainly no more requires an amendment to the Constitution to state that “the Militia” has the RKBA , than a specific statement that the army Congress is empowered to raise may be manned by armed troops.

  3. The police do NOT “have a duty” to protect you. “The Supreme Court has made it clear . . . A police officer can let the public take the risk, take [the risk] upon himself or put it on the individual who brings the danger in the first place. The police can and HAVE stand back and watch you be murdered and they are perfectly within “the rules”. That’s what law enforcement is for — to protect the community(the government). They have to protect themselves [first] to do that.” http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

    Someone please inform these “politicians” that banning guns means THEY assume ALL FINANCIAL DAMAGES resulting from ALL CRIMES.
    If “they” take your Means of self-defense then “they” TAKE ON
    (1) the burden of protecting every person 24/7
    (2) the FULL FINANCIAL RESTITUTION and Medical Bills of ANY person they fail to protect.
    (3) Replacement Repair and Pain & Suffering for ANY loss due to their failure to stop every burgler, thief, etc.

  4. I follow these proposed gun grabs with absolutely no concern & only a dull curiosity since I shall never disarm to any man, cop, judge, or president.
    Go ahead, make all of them illegal, I simply do not care.
    Mass defiance can nullify any laws

Join the conversation. Unlike most websites, we value your opinion. Leave your thoughts in the comments below.