From my cold dead hands alert. With Democrats rushing through their agenda in anticipation of losing their super majority they may not be able to wait to enact the gun control agenda their leftist supporters want until after the mid-term and 2012 elections, which was the strategy many people felt they were going to use. Back in October Gun Owners of America pointed out that the vague language in the health care bill could be used to get gun control measures enacted without debate:

It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities.  And, given Sebelius’ well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment — she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas — we presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm.  It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.

The ObamaCare bill already contains language that will punish Americans who engage in unhealthy behavior by allowing insurers to charge them higher insurance premiums.  (What constitutes an unhealthy lifestyle is, of course, to be defined by legislators.)  Don’t be surprised if an anti-gun nut like Sebelius uses this line of thinking to impose ObamaCare policies which result in a back-door gun ban on any American who owns “dangerous” firearms.

After all, insurers already (and routinely) drop homeowners from their policies for owning certain types of guns or for refusing to use trigger locks (that is, for keeping their guns ready for self-defense!).  While not all insurers practice this anti-gun behavior, Gun Owners of America has documented that some do — Prudential and State Farm being two of the most well-known.

The good news is that because homeowner insurance is private (and is still subject to the free market) you can go to another company if one drops you.  But what are you going to do under nationalized ObamaCare when the regulations written by Secretary Sebelius suspend the applicability of your government-mandated policy because of your gun ownership?

All of this is in addition to something that GOA has been warning you about for several months … the certainty that minimum acceptable policies will dump your gun information into a federal database … a certainty that is reinforced by language in the summary providing for a study to “encourage increased meaningful use of electronic health records.”

Remember, the federal government has already denied more than 150,000 military veterans the right to own guns, without their being convicted of a crime or receiving any due process of law.  They were denied because of medical information (such as PTSD) that the FBI later determined disqualified these veterans to own guns.

Barring that, the far left has already set an international gun grab in motion at the United Nations which will directly threaten your Second Amendment rights. Put aside ten minutes for this video, you’ll be glad you did:

Like I said, this is a from my cold dead hands alert because this is the line America cannot cross. Join the N.R.A. or G.O.A. now before your only option is to join a disarmed public completely at the mercy of government paramilitaries.

Infidels Paradise asks why the E.P.A. would need the 40 new Glocks mentioned in procurement order PR-DC-09-02080:

Posted Date : September 14, 2009

Procurement Office : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters Procurement Operations Division, (3803R)

Response Date: September 23, 2009, 4:00 PM EDT

NAICS code 332994 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Criminal Investigations Division intends to award a sole source firm-fixed-price Purchase Order to Glock, Inc. under the authority of FAR Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures for 40 Model G-19, 9mm frame handguns with finger grove and rail frames, Tijico night sights, extended magazine catches and 3.5lb/NY1 Trigger magazines. The Glock model G-19 is the Agency standard firearm and is the only pistol that fits our training, certified repair technician contracts, and equipment capabilities without a major change to Agency operations. Our agents are trained with the Glock pistol, and changing to another manufacturer would require transition training for each agent that could range from 1 to 3 days depending on the manufacturer. Additionally, our Agents are outfitted with holsters and magazine clips that are fitted to the Glock model firearm. Furthermore, EPA-CID has a large amount of spare parts for the Glock weapons and to retool these parts would require substantial expenditure for the Government.

NO SOLICITATION OR REQUEST FOR QUOTE WILL BE MADE FOR THIS PROCUREMENT. No contract will be awarded on the basis of offers received in response to this notice. All comments and questions regarding this procurement shall be addressed in writing to the Contracting Officer, Cara Lynch by COB on Wednesday, September 23, 2009. Telephone inquiries will not be accepted. The decision not to compete this requirement is within the discretion of the Government. Any response to this notice shall show clear and convincing evidence that competition would be advantageous to the Government in future procurements

The point of contact for this procurement is Cara Lynch, Contracting Specialist, at lynch.cara@epa.gov

The order answers the question. The E.P.A. does indeed have armed personnel who enforce environmental regulations. The E.P.A. in fact has a criminal enforcement program complete with their own “Special Agents” who are armed and authorized to enforce federal laws as well as environmental laws. The same environmental laws the E.P.A. is able to make up to suit prevailing political opinion.

They even have their own Most Wanted list of fugitives they’re chasing at the moment, consisting of Freon smugglers, mercury contaminated soil dumpers (though the new “environmentally friendly” light bulbs the E.P.A. wants you to use in your house are loaded with this hazardous substance) and one hardened Italian desperado who sold cars that didn’t meet American emission standards.

The E.P.A. both creates regulations and enforces them. This would be like the local police legislating and enforcing the law. Maybe I missed something, but is this Constitutional?