FCC directed to collect firearms intel during amateur radio license applications

[mtnbkr]

joshs
Something you guys might be or want to be aware of?

bolding emphasis mine.

Got this in an update about FCC plans:

"The FCC's legal staff is also considering inclusion of an additional question about the firearms that are present in the applicant's household, whether or not owned by the applicant, including the specific types of firearms, the total number of firearms and the quantities of ammunition for each regularly maintained in the household. Further, that legal staff is considering what levels of affirmative answer(s) to these questions should require the applicant and the application to be subjected to special scrutiny by FCC staff before a license otherwise issues routinely. The Biden Administration's directive states that because it is believed that a disproportionate number of right wing activists, supporters and racists now have or will be seeking amateur radio license to assure they have reliable tactical communications capabilities during future riots, public disturbances and insurrections and other illegal activities, having the FCC acquire this firearms information in a government database will make it easier for law enforcement in the future to identify such perpetrators of unlawful acts and to prosecute them. According to the directive, collection of this type of information does not violate the Second Amendment, and even if it did, the Second Amendment is likely to be repealed or held unconstitutional."

Chris

[joshs]

Do they have any sourcing info? The last line makes this look suspiciously fake. How could the Second Amendment be held unconstitutional? That doesn't make any sense. It's application could be narrowed (but most people think the Court is on the verge of finding a broader application of the Second Amendment, not narrower).

[mtnbkr]

Do they have any sourcing info? The last line makes this look suspiciously fake. How could the Second Amendment be held unconstitutional? That doesn't make any sense. It's application could be narrowed (but most people think the Court is on the verge of finding a broader application of the Second Amendment, not narrower).

I agree the last line is suspect. I've asked for a link to a verified source.

My source is an email in a local radio club's mailing list. The sender is a member (not some internet rando) and the email contains a much larger article outlining a number of planned changes (additional gender options, modification to the prohibition against felons, etc).

Chris

[mtnbkr]

Do they have any sourcing info? The last line makes this look suspiciously fake. How could the Second Amendment be held unconstitutional? That doesn't make any sense. It's application could be narrowed (but most people think the Court is on the verge of finding a broader application of the Second Amendment, not narrower).

Might just be an April Fools joke. Someone else on the thread commented, after their own initial reaction, "Oops! I forgot what day this is!"

I forgot what day it was myself.

:rolleyes:

Chris

[Caballoflaco]

https://youtu.be/xPhG4UKrXLo

[Stephanie B]

The tell that this is somebody yanking people's chains is the line "the Second Amendment is likely to be repealed or held unconstitutional." I know of no method that an amendment in the Constitution can be held to be unconstitutional. It's in the frigging Constitution.

[UNM1136]

The tell that this is somebody yanking people's chains is the line "the Second Amendment is likely to be repealed or held unconstitutional." I know of no method that an amendment in the Constitution can be held to be unconstitutional. It's in the frigging Constitution.

Couldn't like more than the one time I did...

pat

[mtnbkr]

The tell that this is somebody yanking people's chains is the line "the Second Amendment is likely to be repealed or held unconstitutional." I know of no method that an amendment in the Constitution can be held to be unconstitutional. It's in the frigging Constitution.

When I first read it, I interpreted that as a wish by someone in the FCC who didn't know any better. Still, the idea that they were even thinking about it was enough.

Chris

[Tensaw]

The tell that this is somebody yanking people's chains is the line "the Second Amendment is likely to be repealed or held unconstitutional." I know of no method that an amendment in the Constitution can be held to be unconstitutional. It's in the frigging Constitution.

As if this would give those in charge any pause at all. Not that I’m not onboard with this being a prank, but most of our current elected officials seem to have zero regard for the Constitution or even doing the job they were elected to do. In fact, trying to declare part of the Constitution unconstitutional is about what I would expect from some folks these days. Fits right in to the rest of their “logic”. :mad:

[Duces Tecum]

The tell that this is somebody yanking people's chains is the line "the Second Amendment is likely to be repealed or held unconstitutional." I know of no method that an amendment in the Constitution can be held to be unconstitutional. It's in the frigging Constitution.

Sorry Steph. The 18th Amendment banned drinking alcohol in 1919. The 21st Amendment restored sanity in 1933 by deleting the 18th from the Constitution.

Duces

[Stephanie B]

The tell that this is somebody yanking people's chains is the line "the Second Amendment is likely to be repealed or held unconstitutional." I know of no method that an amendment in the Constitution can be held to be unconstitutional. It's in the frigging Constitution.


Sorry Steph. The 18th Amendment banned drinking alcohol in 1919. The 21st Amendment restored sanity in 1933 by deleting the 18th from the Constitution.

Duces

That proves my point. The 18th Amendment was not held to be unconstitutional. The Constitution was amended.

[JAD]

That proves my point. The 18th Amendment was not held to be unconstitutional. The Constitution was amended.

So the Constitution was held to be unconstitutional?

[Stephanie B]

That proves my point. The 18th Amendment was not held to be unconstitutional. The Constitution was amended.


So the Constitution was held to be unconstitutional?

No, it was amended. There's no requirement to do or say anything other than supercede a provision. For example, the 20th Amendment changed the beginning of both Congressional terms and Presidential terms.

[Ed L]

Goddamned April fool's day shit.