School officials in Marietta, Georgia — a suburb of Atlanta — have asked a high school teacher to withdraw a controversial homework assignment.
A fill-in teacher at Kell High School in Marietta Monday handed out a social studies assignment asking students to compare President Barack Obama to Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin. Students were asked to find evidence to compare Russian efforts to transition from a capitalist country to a command country, to Obama’s effort to change the United States from a capitalist country to a socialist nation.
Cobb County School District spokesman Jay Dillon told WGCL-TV the assignment was brought to the principal’s attention and has been withdrawn. The teacher is still employed at the high school.
Sources and Citations: Online Athens, the Associated Press, WGCL-TV
Top Republican legal officials say the Obama administration is reneging on key duties such as border security while overstepping its role through health care mandates and tight regulation of the energy industry, a trend that has led states to heighten their defenses against federal intrusion.
As states brace for cutbacks from the sequester standoff between President Obama and congressional Republicans, several of their elected attorneys general contrast that gridlock — and not in a good way — with Mr. Obama’s precedent-setting use of executive orders and federal rule-making.
“You just see it all over the place. You see it in land management, you see it in energy development, ” Colorado Attorney General John W. Suthers told The Washington Times yesterday in a wide-ranging interview with editors and reporters. “It’s a pretty significant trend, I think.”
Colorado Attorney General John W. Suthers
The state officials, who are in Washington for the winter meeting of the Republican Attorneys General Association, bemoaned an administration that they say has failed to lead on issues that require the states to cede to federal supremacy, such as border security and immigration, while making it difficult for them to wield any influence with federal lawmakers who represent their states.
“We are seeing, I believe, an administration at the White House [that is] increasingly going around Congress and attempting to implement laws through the regulatory agencies, most particularly the [Environmental Protection Agency], in executive orders designed to shut down the traditional areas in which we create jobs and enhance our economy in Montana.” Montana Attorney General Tim Fox told The Times. “Oil and gas. Coal, for instance.”
Montana Attorney General Tim Fox
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said the Obama administration’s attempts to scale back coal production make his residents “very concerned.”
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey
Buoyed by his re-election in November, Obama set out an ambitious second-term agenda on climate change, saying in his inaugural address that the country must not “betray” its children and warning that “the path toward sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult.”
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott scoffed at assurances this month by Homeland Security Secretary Janet A. Napolitano that the southwestern border is more secure than ever. He pointed to the bullet-ridden buildings along his state’s border with Mexico, which is wracked by drug-cartel violence.
The White House and the EPA did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday on the Republican attorneys general statements.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott
You’re looking at the US-Mexico border and the traffic flowing through it daily
Mexican drug gang members captured and held hostage by a rival cartel
It’s just another day at the office for the ruthless Mexican drug cartels
The Republican attorneys general also homed in on Obama’s signature accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act, as Exhibit A among the list of federally imposed burdens. Among other things, Obama wanted the states to implement a substantial part of the act by expanding Medicaid, but promising to cover all the costs for only a short period. He also wanted the states to set and run statewide insurance markets.
Obama’s health care reforms also attracted legal challenges from Republican-led states across the country, until the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate to buy insurance. The justices also made the expansion of Medicaid enrollment optional for the states by saying the federal government could not yank existing funding from those that declined to expand the entitlement program.
Mr. Morrisey said states are grappling with “the pause before the big storm,” arguing that the administration is behind in its rule-making for a law that is “doomed to fail.”
Mr. Abbott said Texas is holding firm in its opposition to the Medicaid expansion, noting that it may be difficult to sustain its budgets if the federal government does not uphold its share of contributions to the program, which are supposed to scale down to 100 percent during 2014 to 2016 and to 90 percent by 2020.
“It’s akin to the line of ‘Hotel California’ — once you check in, you really can’t check out,” he said. “So if states opt in, they probably are not going to be able to extricate themselves from it in years going forward.”
The attorneys general said patients who show up at emergency rooms cannot be turned away and will cost the states anyway. But they remain skeptical of the law’s costs.
“When does the hemorrhaging stop?” Mr. Fox said. “At what point do we say that every federal program that might come down the road is not something we should embrace, because we don’t have the money to do it?”
Immigration officials said yesterday that they have released hundreds of immigrants who had been detained and are still awaiting deportation proceedings, in order to reduce costs in advance of the expected round of spending cuts known as the sequester, which starts to take effect on Friday.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano had warned two weeks ago that some immigrants awaiting deportation would be released in order to trim spending, and that such releases could pose risks.
“Under sequestration, ICE would be forced to reduce current detention and removal operations, potentially affecting public safety, and would not be able to maintain 34,000 detention beds,’’ Ms. Napolitano said in written testimony to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Congress has mandated that ICE – the U.S. Immigration and Customers Enforcement agency– maintain detention capacity for 34,000 people.
The decision to release some immigrants from detention shows the Obama administration has some degree of latitude in deciding how to implement the cuts.
Ms. Napolitano’s testimony indicated that, within the Department of Homeland Security, officials chose to reduce costs by releasing detained immigrants but made no mention of any plans to furlough ICE employees. Staff furloughs are a major component of cost reductions at other homeland security agencies, such as the Transportation Security Administration and Customs and Border Protection agency.
Gillian Christensen, an ICE spokeswoman, said Tuesday that officials reviewed cases and released hundreds of people “on methods of supervision less costly than detention’’ as the agency continues to seek their removal from the United States. She said the agency is prioritizing its remaining detention spaces for “serious criminal offenders and other individuals who pose a significant threat to public safety.’’
“…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government…”
The White House has responded to last year’s rash of secession petitions, and no, Obama has not agreed to allow any of the states to secede.
Jon Carson, the director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, said in a response released Friday that “as much as we value a healthy debate, we don’t let that debate tear us apart.”
“In a nation of 300 million people — each with their own set of deeply held beliefs — democracy can be noisy and controversial. And that’s a good thing,” Mr. Carson said. “Free and open debate is what makes this country work, and many people around the world risk their lives every day for the liberties we often take for granted.”
Petitions filed on behalf of each state seeking to secede peacefully from the union began popping up on the White House’s We the People website days after the Nov. 6 election. The website states that any petition receiving 25,000 online signatures within 30 days of posting will receive a review by the appropriate executive department and a reply from a White House staffer.
Mr. Carson’s post, titled “Our States Remain United,” came in response to nine petitions. Eight of those were filed on behalf of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.
The ninth petition called on the administration to deport “everyone that signed a petition to withdraw their state from the United States of America.”
At least one secession petition was filed on behalf of each state in the weeks following the election, but not all of the petitions garnered the requisite 25,000 signatures. Signers were not required to live in the named state, and they were permitted to sign multiple petitions.
The eight states represented in the petitions that did qualify for a White House response all were among those that seceded from the union in 1861, spurring the Civil War.
Mr. Carson touched on the Founding Fathers and the Civil War in his seven-paragraph reply to the petitions, noting that more than 600,000 soldiers died in the war and saying of the union that the founders “did not provide a right to walk away from it.”
“So let’s be clear: No one disputes that our country faces big challenges, and the recent election followed a vigorous debate about how they should be addressed,” Mr. Carson said. “As President Obama said the night he won re-election, ‘We may have battled fiercely, but it’s only because we love this country deeply and we care so strongly about its future.’”
Andrew Sullivan of Nebraska, who said he signed several secession petitions, argued that the White House response calling for unity was at odds with what he described as Mr. Obama’s efforts to split Americans into competing political factions.
“The president is entitled to his own words, but they don’t match with his actions,” Mr. Sullivan said. “Clearly his actions are dividing the country.”
The secession petitions emerged as an apparently spontaneous grass-roots reaction to the 2012 presidential election. No political party or movement, including the Tea Party, has claimed credit for organizing the effort.
The Texas petition had over 100,000 signatures and was the most popular petition on the entire site. It reads as follows:
The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the US suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it’s citizens’ standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.
Critics blasted the petitions as an unpatriotic and immature response to Obama’s successful re-election bid. I personally think it’s a splendid idea whose time has come, if not long overdue.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) raised the idea of secession back in 2009, but he has since made clear that he has no interest in it. Tennessee Rep. Zach Wamp (R) suggested in 2010 that some states might have to “consider separation from this government” should the leadership in Washington not change. ”I hope that the American people will go to the ballot box in 2010 and 2012 so that states are not forced to consider separation from this government,” he said.
American government agencies — state, local, and federal — made a record 13,753 requests to read emails or gather other information sent through Google’s Gmail and other services in 2012, more than half without warrants, according to statistics released by Google.
The total number of users about whom government agencies wanted information also set a record at 31,072, up from 23,300 in 2011, the first year Google began reporting the data. The discrepancy comes because government agencies request information on multiple users or accounts at the same time.
Most of these 13,753 requests, 6,542 of 8,438 in the latter half of 2012 alone, were done without a search warrant, Google data show. Google did not make available any detailed data prior to June 2012.
Google spokesman Chris Gaither said the company only started tracking which type of legal authority – subpoena, court order, or search warrant – was used in the latter half of 2012. Google issues biannual reports on the requests for user data it receives from government agencies from around the world, including ones in the U.S.
Google announced in June 2012 that it had 425 million active Gmail subscribers, making it the largest e-mail provider in the world. It also provides users the ability to store documents via its Google Drive service, phone service via Google Voice, YouTube, personal blogs via Blogger, as well as email hosting services for corporate clients through Gmail.
Google keep records of all email and other communication sent through its e-mail, telephone, YouTube, and other services, storing the information on cloud servers – a move that allows government agencies, local, state, and federal, to access some information without a warrant.
Federal law allows government agencies to access Google’s archived email and other data, including chat logs, YouTube user information, voice messages, and blogger information without obtaining a search warrant or establishing probable cause, and Google says that it complies with the vast majority of government requests for data.
From July-December 2012 Google provided user information in 88 percent of cases. From January to June 2012, it provided information in 90 percent of cases. Those figures were down from 2011 when it provided user information in 93 percent of cases.
The government can access data, including the content of emails sent or received through Gmail, because Google keeps records of all communications sent over its various services and stores the information on cloud servers, lowering the legal threshold government agencies need to access some of the data, including the name, Internet address, and telephone number of Gmail, YouTube, and other Google users.
The federal law that allows this is known as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) which says that opened email stored remotely – not on a computer’s hard drive – can be accessed without a warrant.
If the government wants to read the content of an email accessed through Gmail, hear a voicemail message sent over Google’s telephone service Google Voice, or read other private content, it must still obtain a search warrant under federal law.
However, information not sent in the body of an email or recorded in a voice message can be obtained by a simple subpoena – which does not require a government agency to show probable cause. Such information includes the name of an e-mail account holder, the IP address used when signing into and out of Gmail including dates and times, and other information you gave to Google when you created Gmail or other Google account.
Other types of information require a court order from a judge, such as the IP address of a particular email, email addresses of those you correspond with, and the web sites a person has visited.
A search warrant is required to read the content of an email stored on Google’s servers, as well access as internet search histories, YouTube videos, photos, and other documents.
Because all types of requests usually come through some kind of criminal investigation, Google does not notify users when the government demands to read their emails or access their account information. However, Google says that in cases where it is legally allowed to inform users, it tries to do so.
“We notify users about legal demands when appropriate, unless prohibited by law or court order,” Google says on its transparency website.
“We can’t notify you if, for example, your account has been closed, or if we’re legally prohibited from doing so. We sometimes fight to give users notice of a data request by seeking to lift gag orders or unseal search warrants.”
Google says it requires government agencies make a formal, written claim under ECPA before it will release any user data.
“The government needs legal process—such as a subpoena, court order or search warrant—to force Google to disclose user information. Exceptions can be made in certain emergency cases, though even then the government can’t force Google to disclose.”
Cites and Sources: Matt Cover, CNS News, Google, Android.net
When most Americans think of drones, they think of the government’s targeted killing of Al Qaeda operatives overseas.
Lately, the debate in Washington has been over the killing of Americans, like U.S-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was taken out by the CIA in September 2011. Pressed on the program by Congress, CIA director nominee John Brennan recently told lawmakers “this administration has not carried out drone strikes inside the United States and has no intention of doing so.”
But despite that pledge, there is every intention to expand the use of so-called mini-drones inside the U.S. Used mostly by local police and first responders, the Federal Aviation Administration has already granted 327 licenses, and it projects as many as 10,000 licensed systems by 2017.
“It’s really just an extra tool in the tool kit for first responders to use, and it’s more affordable than a lot of the manned assets that are out there,” said Gretchen West, executive vice president of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems.
West says most of these drones are small, about 20 pounds or less. They cannot be armed. They cost between $10,000 and $50,000, with typical flight times of about an hour or less.
“They would use them for specific missions such as finding a lost person or a missing child that’s lost in the woods, or for monitoring traffic, or potentially for crowd control. In the meantime, the firefighting community would be interested in using these to fly them over a fire and identify hotspots.”
But Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, said the constitutional issues are compelling. “They become a tool for generalized mass surveillance by the government,” he said.
Stanley warns of the potential for a tsunami of drones, cluttering a kind of digital wild West where the law is easily being outpaced by technology.
“There is some case law about aerial surveillance, but it’s not necessarily encouraging when it comes to protecting privacy. For example, the Supreme Court ruled that the police can look into your backyard even if you have a high fence, with no warrant. You have no 4th amendment protection there,” he said.
And this, according to Stanley, explains the move locally to establish rules. “That’s why we are seeing state legislatures all around the country propose and move forward on drone legislation — get some regulations in place. That’s why we’ve seen legislation in Congress.”
With Congress now requiring the integration of unmanned aerial vehicles into the already crowded public airspace, the drone debate hasn’t begun to address the conundrum of private users, which was made plain during a House hearing in January.
“What are we seeing also from the hobbyist world — are they running ahead of us heading towards a dangerous conflict?” asked David Schweikert, R-Ariz. “What’s going on there and are we about to see a clash of cultures of people going off on their own?”
Dr. Gerald Dilingham with the Government Accountability Office said this was new territory. “It is a different world, and how they are going to come together is to be determined,” he said.
Given the significant privacy issues, the Department of Homeland Security has only now set up a working group to study the impact of government UAVs on civil liberties, civil rights, legal and other policy issues.
Cites & Sources: Catherine Herridge, FoxNews.com
To those paying proper attention, this bill may just represent the final “warning shot over the bow” preceeding a full-blown mandatory federal firearms confiscation.
On January 13, 2013, H.R. 226, was introduced in the House of Representatives by Connecticut Democrat Rep. Rosa DeLauro. The bill will amend the 1986 IRS code and allow a credit if taxpayers “surrender” their guns to the government.
Cited as the “Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act,” the proposed legislation represents another effort to convince citizens that they must voluntarily turn in their guns as a civic duty and to do their part to reduce “gun violence” and protect children, as Obama has stated publicly.
The bill is yet more evidence that federal and state governments are now pulling out all stops short of door-to-door confiscation in their coordinated effort to disarm the American people.
Strikingly honest language included in the legislation specifies that the bill is part of the government’s “program to reduce the number of privately-owned weapons”. In short, a program to disarm the American people.
The bill contains an exhaustive list of so-called “assault weapons” that will garner a $2,000 tax credit when redeemed, including the much-demonized Bushmaster AR-15 allegedly used in the Newtown Sandy Hook massacre.
The bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means on January 14, 2013.
The inclusion of the IRS in the government’s attempt to grab guns is especially foreboding considering its effort to act as an Obamacare compliance enforcer. In July, a revelation was made by Texas Republican Rep. Kevin Brady that the tax agency planned to hire up to 16,500 new agents.
American taxpayers must reject such cynical enticements and stand together and support the Second Amendment against all attacks by Obama and Congress.
The latest foray against the Second Amendment and the founding principles of the republic commenced soon after the Sandy Hook incident on December 15 when California Democrat senator Dianne Feinstein exploited the tragedy to call for an attack on America’s “gun culture.”
“I hope and trust that in the next session of Congress there will be sustained and thoughtful debate about America’s gun culture and our responsibility to prevent more loss of life,” Feinstein said. “I will do another assault weapons ban.”
New York governor Andrew Cuomo jumped on the anti-Second Amendment bandwagon a few days later, on December 21, and proposed gun confiscation in the state. “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option,” Cuomo said. He was egged-on by notorious gun-grabber advocate and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, who also demanded Obama use unconstitutional executive actions against the Second Amendment.
On December 30, Feinstein said America needs to “bite the bullet” and restrict the gun rights of Americans following comments by president Obama that he would support draconian legislation aimed at the Second Amendment.
Over the next two weeks, the establishment media launched an intense anti-Second Amendment campaign and produced corporate polls in favor of “common sense” gun bans, and a flurry of pro and con pundits and commentators debated the finer points of stripping Americans of their right to own firearms.
On December 16, Obama and Joe Biden went on national television accompanied by a gaggle of children and pushed the federal government’s anti-Second Amendment agenda. Obama brazenly signed a number of unconstitutional executive actions during the performance instructing the government to roll back the Second Amendment.
Bill Summary & Status
113th Congress (2013 – 2014)
Latest Title: Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1] – 1/21/2013
Rep Cicilline, David N. [RI-1] – 2/15/2013
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] – 1/21/2013
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] – 1/21/2013
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-3] – 1/14/2013
Rep Huffman, Jared [CA-2] – 2/6/2013
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-13] – 1/23/2013
Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] – 2/6/2013
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. [CA-38] – 2/15/2013
Latest Major Action: 1/14/2013 — Referred to House committee.
Status: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Full Text: H.R.226 [113th Congress]
Introduced in House (01/13/2013)
There is one version of the bill.
[Congressional Bills 113th Congress] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office] [H.R. 226 Introduced in House (IH)] 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 226 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against tax for surrendering to authorities certain assault weapons. _______________________________________________________________________ IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 14, 2013 Ms. DeLauro (for herself and Mr. Grijalva) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means _______________________________________________________________________ A BILL To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against tax for surrendering to authorities certain assault weapons. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act''. SEC. 2. ASSAULT WEAPON TURN-IN CREDIT. (a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting before section 26 the following new section: ``SEC. 25E. ASSAULT WEAPON TURN-IN CREDIT. ``(a) Allowance of Credit.-- ``(1) In general.--In the case of an individual who surrenders a specified assault weapon to the United States or a State or local government (or political subdivision thereof) as part of a Federal, State, or local public safety program to reduce the number of privately owned weapons, on the election of the taxpayer there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter an amount equal to $2,000. ``(2) Year credit allowed.--The amount of the credit under paragraph (1) shall be allowed \1/2\ for the taxable year during which the assault weapon was so surrendered and \1/2\ in the next taxable year. ``(b) Special Rules.-- ``(1) Weapon must be lawfully possessed.--No credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) with respect to any specified assault weapon not lawfully possessed by the taxpayer at the time the weapon is surrendered. ``(2) Substantiation requirement.--No credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) for the surrender of any specified assault weapon unless the taxpayer substantiates the surrender by a contemporaneous written acknowledgment of the surrender by the Federal, State, or local governmental entity to which the weapon is surrendered. ``(3) Denial of double benefit.--The taxpayer may elect the application of this section with respect to only 1 weapon, and if such election is made for any taxable year, no deduction shall be allowed under any other provision of this chapter with respect to the surrender or contribution of the specified assault weapon. ``(c) Assault Weapon.--For purposes of this section-- ``(1) In general.--The term `specified assault weapon' means any of the following: ``(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof: ``(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR, ``(ii) AR-10, ``(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR, ``(iv) AR70, ``(v) Calico Liberty, ``(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU, ``(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC, ``(viii) Hi-Point Carbine, ``(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1, ``(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle, ``(xi) M1 Carbine, ``(xii) Saiga, ``(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800, ``(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine, ``(xv) SLG 95, ``(xvi) SLR 95 or 96, ``(xvii) Steyr AUG, ``(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14, ``(xix) Tavor, ``(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando, or ``(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz). ``(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof: ``(i) Calico M-110, ``(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3, ``(iii) Olympic Arms OA, ``(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10, or ``(v) Uzi. ``(C) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof: ``(i) Armscor 30 BG, ``(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12, ``(iii) Striker 12, or ``(iv) Streetsweeper. ``(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has-- ``(i) a folding or telescoping stock, ``(ii) a threaded barrel, ``(iii) a pistol grip, ``(iv) a forward grip, or ``(v) a barrel shroud. ``(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. ``(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition. ``(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has-- ``(i) a second pistol grip, ``(ii) a threaded barrel, ``(iii) a barrel shroud, or ``(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip. ``(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. ``(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has-- ``(i) a folding or telescoping stock, ``(ii) a pistol grip, ``(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine, or ``(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds. ``(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder. ``(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L). ``(K) A conversion kit. ``(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event. ``(2) Related definitions.-- ``(A) Barrel shroud.--The term `barrel shroud' means a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel, but does not include a slide that encloses the barrel, and does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel. ``(B) Conversion kit.--The term `conversion kit' means any part or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into a semiautomatic assault weapon, and any combination of parts from which a semiautomatic assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. ``(C) Detachable magazine.--The term `detachable magazine' means an ammunition feeding device that can readily be inserted into a firearm. ``(D) Fixed magazine.--The term `fixed magazine' means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm. ``(E) Folding or telescoping stock.--The term `folding or telescoping stock' means a stock that folds, telescopes, or otherwise operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of a firearm. ``(F) Forward grip.--The term `forward grip' means a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip. ``(G) Pistol grip.--The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip. ``(H) Threaded barrel.--The term `threaded barrel' means a feature or characteristic that is designed in such a manner to allow for the attachment of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(a)). ``(d) Termination.--This section shall not apply with respect to any weapon surrendered during a taxable year beginning more than 2 years after the date of the enactment of the Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act.''. (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by inserting before the item relating to section 26 the following new item: ``Sec. 25E. Assault weapon turn-in credit.''. (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 3 (Monday, January 14, 2013)]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
By Ms. DELAURO:
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following:
This bill is pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause I of
the United States Constitution, which states that Congress
shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts
and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all
Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the
Cites & Sources: Congress.gov, the Library of Congress, Infowars.com, the Thomas Registry