BREAKING: Congressional Dems Propose Licensing All Handgun Buyers

“‘States require licenses to drive a car or even to fish in local rivers, so requiring a license to buy a deadly handgun is a commonsense step that could save countless lives. This legislation will help states develop responsible handgun licensing programs,’ said sponsor Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who is running for an open Senate seat in Maryland.” Which is one of the only states in these here United States where such a proposal might be considered an electoral plus. Yet another going-nowhere gun control proposal from House and Senate Dems in a GOP-controlled environment. But the insidious aspect of this brainstorm is . . .

that it would be accomplished through Justice Department grants to the states, rather than establishing a national licensing scheme. Try these on for size:

The Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act authorizes a grant program at the Department of Justice to encourage states to establish permit-to-purchase requirements for all handguns, including at gun shows and with private sellers. This grant would help offset the costs associated with the development, implementation, and evaluation of these programs. To be eligible, states must require individuals applying for a license to meet the following criteria:

— Provide proof they are at least 21 years old and a lawful resident of the United States.

— Apply for the license at a law enforcement agency within the state.

— Submit to a background investigation and criminal history check.

— Submit fingerprints and photographs with their application.

— Be eligible to purchase a handgun pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

Congressional Democrats have clearly concluded that anti-gun battlespace preparation is the way to go in the run-up to the 2016 elections. We’ll see how far that gets them.

comments

  1. avatar Swarf says:

    Common sense is not one word. Your argument is invalid.

    1. avatar Michelle says:

      Was gonna say, “at least they got that ‘commonsense’ dogwhistle in there”… Really, the term (besides it becoming one word) is starting to look stupid and robotic.

      Somewhere, there’s a document that says “Include the term ‘commonsense’ in everything you do.” So that people carrying the party line can do a wordscan and assign it to their dogma.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Along with it’s other ‘whistle’ cousin:

        “Keep guns out of the hands of…”

        It’s a bit depressing knowing that they will never stop pulling this kind of crap.

      2. avatar Stinkeye says:

        Generally speaking, if something really is “common sense”, you don’t have to tell people that it is.

    2. avatar Rad Man says:

      “could save countless lives” = we have no idea how many lives, if any, could be saved.

    3. avatar KCK says:

      In line with this just today, CNN says that Connecticut’s licensing scheme since 1995 has succeeded in reducing homicide rate by 40 %. Somebody is going to run with this.
      Article appeared this PM

      1. avatar john says:

        John R Lott has already posted a pretty solid rebuttal to that study. I haven’t yet had a chance to read carefully through it all yet but the initial skim shows that the authors of that study used the same slight of hand that previous ones have to get the “best” numbers for their claim.

  2. avatar General Zod says:

    I suggest licensing all Democrat voters.

    1. avatar Swarf says:

      If only there were a viable alternative.

      1. avatar jerry says:

        Yeah, no alternative to voting for dems. I suppose you have Hillary 2016 embroidered on your favorite pair of panties.

        1. avatar Matt says:

          He didn’t imply voting for democrats, he responded to licensing of democrats. Pay attention.

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        The Democrats are HOPEless
        The Republicans are feckless
        The Tea Party gives a feck

        1. avatar AndyNC says:

          I’m not a fan of the Kochs, so no thanks.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          ^ you read that in a comic book?

    2. avatar Richard in WA says:

      Or all voters, period.

      1. avatar JasonM says:

        Better yet:
        DON’T license any voters, but require a license to vote.
        Nobody votes, nobody wins an election. Eventually all political office terms end, all lifetime appointees die, and there’s nobody to pass new budgets.

    3. avatar Joe R. says:

      Or, how about non-Conservatives

      If you live in a blue state, you may be part of the problem (and it’s looking more and more likely). IF YOU HAVE A (D) AFTER YOUR NAME, ARE A LIBERAL OR A RINO, THE PROBLEM IS PART-OF-YOU. You are permanently broken and your mom (one of your five dads that wears the dress more often than the others) owes us an abortion.

      1. avatar Rad Man says:

        Merely residing in a blue state makes me part of the problem? Then I sincerely apologize and will relocate immediately.

        1. avatar AndyNC says:

          It’s okay, don’t take it personally. They literally cannot think any further than this.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          You seem to think it’s ok to make it our problem. It’s your boy, it’s your baby. Communism didn’t start there, it moved-in. Socialism didn’t start there, it moved in. Sorry if all the things PLAGUING America come from where you feel like living/working/raising a family and your lifestyle eats up the time you could be using to clear that sh_t up for us. Come the next Civil War, or during the current war with China and Russia and ISIS, etc., etc., etc., we in the hinterland hope you aren’t inconvenienced (much) if we don’t turn an ankle rushing to save you and yours.

          >AndyNC – we can think plenty past this, we just need to repeat it enough here to help people like you think that far.

          Funny how Conservatives don’t b_tch when you call it out, and Liberalism is cool until we make you wear your own bumper stickers.

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          And, Rad Man – If you read it, it says “may.” You let us know if we should give up on you, or if there’s anyone back there left to save.

        4. avatar Jeff says:

          Let us ask Joe here what he does for a living and how easily he could uproot his entire family just to satisfy demographics

    4. avatar Joe R. says:

      MD is a pissant little state and they don’t represent U.S.

    5. avatar DisThunder says:

      Maybe I’m just being a little too optimistic, but this seems very stupid pool to be playing before elections. The country seems to be losing interest in new and shiny government fixes. Even if this thing wasn’t dead in the water out the gate, I have to wonder how many of those surprisingly numerous left-leaning folk that think they’re pro-freedom are going to sit this next one out. I think net-neutrality scared a lot of them out of their “D” lockstep this year.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        You don’t have to be a student of History to note that it happens toward the end of every Democrat president’s term. They always tangle into a ball of snakes hoping to garner enough $/position/power/influence/media buzz they can to hold themselves over until their next stint of power and the current prez is limited on handouts without excessive visibility (although this one doesn’t even care as much as the last one). Hillary just started spouting-off about how Republicans wanted to keep 1 million people from voting [that’s the ACORN / Illegal Aliens for the House of (D) Vote (or spin-offs thereof) $ grab], we will hear, in no particular order, from any number of DEM/LIBs of the “War on Women” [that’s the Planned Parenthood (or spin-offs thereof) $ grab]. We will get an earful of calls for Justice (something about how rich white folks send other races to war, and how we don’t care about America but we care enough to send $ overseas and fund our military) [that’s the NAACP and/or Anti-U.S. Military [pro-U.S. enemy contingency military] (or spin-offs thereof) $ grab]. We’ll hear from the Teacher’s unions/The Department of Education, along the same lines as the previous. We’ll get lambasted by the mid-far left representing LGBT/Communism/Satan, all to float their big blue boat until next time. If it doesn’t sound familiar, pay attention, look harder.

    6. avatar Richard says:

      That is an excellent proposal, but I think it is time to eliminate the democratic party. They no longer have any credibility and are now insane. They have no regard for the country or the American people and their only concern is gaining votes. They will support anything that can get votes, totally unconcerned with freedom or the good of the country or it’s citizens, they would be for “baby raping” if it offered votes. The Republican’s are far from perfect but at least show signs of sanity.

    7. avatar Silver says:

      None would pass the mental health check.

  3. I already have to do much of this if I want to buy a handgun here in PA, minus the crazy talk parts. Sigh. This stuff gets so old. None of this prevents anything.

    1. avatar L,John says:

      I’m confused David. I also live in Pa and go through a background check and done. Am I missing something?

      1. avatar mdc says:

        L, John. In PA it’s State Police with FFL on purchase and Shierffs office for CCL. This goof wants finger prints, background check meaning neighbors, work etc etc. More redundant cost and hassle and fees. They love fees. They run NCIC (National Check) AOPC (State) from both Agency’s. In PA.

  4. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Sorry, I stopped reading as soon as he said ‘common sense.’

    Like in the old Pee-Wee’s Playhouse skits…. its the magic word of the day and everyone has to scream every time you hear it. Only in this case it means stop reading because nothing that comes after those two words will be anywhere near what those two words actually mean.

    1. avatar Michelle says:

      If we had upvotes here I’d give you one.

  5. avatar Cubbie says:

    Analogy failure. You have to get a license to drive on public roads, not to buy a car. And such licensing has done wonders in lowering road fatalities and drunk drivers. /sarc

    1. avatar Michelle says:

      Same with hunting and fishing licenses. He mentions fishing — You don’t need a license to buy a fishing rod. Just to fish in a public water body. Just like you need a hunting license to take game …. not to buy the gun.

      1. avatar Art says:

        nor do you need a fishing license if you are under a certain age
        so is he opening up the purchase of firearms to anyone regardless of age?, because I purchased(or won in the case of my old favorite rod/reel) and used my fishing gear before I was of age
        to be honest, I mostly stopped fishing after I needed ‘permission’

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      This is a classic straw man argument. You will find NO mention of hunting, fishing, driving a car, or even riding a horse anywhere in the Bill of Rights and therefore a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right.

      Additionally, you would be hard pressed, though not for lack of liberals trying (poll taxes, anyone), to find any scheme for the licensing and taxing of the exercise of any of those rights protected by the Bill of Rights, EXCEPT for the Second Amendment. How is it that even SCOTUS cannot seem to see that this is pure and simple infringement, which is exactly what the 2A prohibits?

    3. avatar Paul G says:

      Legally, a license is only needed to operate a commercial vehicle on public roads, but everyone seems to forget that. We have been taught otherwise

      1. avatar mountocean says:

        I have been taught otherwise. Please elaborate.

        1. avatar Accur81 says:

          You don’t need a license, registration, or insurance to drive a privately-owned vehicle on private property.

        2. avatar Paul G says:

          Or public. Excepting for commerce.

        3. avatar Paul G says:

          Look into the scores of cases at state and federal levels iterating the right to travel via the conventional means of the times.
          That means driving a personal vehicle. Only a hardy few actually do so. A right needs no license. Sadly few of us, even law enforcement, know this, so those hardy few are oft inconvenienced or detained for using that right rather than acquiesce to relegation of the right into privilege.

        4. avatar Accur81 says:

          No offense to Paul G, but I wouldn’t take his advice regarding public roads. California Vehicle Code Section 4000 requires registration, 12500 requires a driver license, and 16028 requires insurance. These laws apply to both public and private vehicles driven upon public highways – basically anything on city streets or freeways. There are a host of additional laws that apply in CA, and most states require registration and a license for all vehicles driven on public roads. Some are optional regarding insurance.

          And yes, you can consider what I just said legal advice, or get it first hand from the 2015 CA Vehicle Code.

          A call to your state troopers office front desk or online search should allow you to obtain a copy of your states Vehicle Code for a nominal fee.

        5. avatar Paul G says:

          Bad legal advice. Look up the case law. I have posted it before.
          A real lawyer would know about it.

        6. avatar Paul G says:

          Ex Parte Stork (Cr. 1843)
          Supreme Court California 2/24/1914 and never overturned says otherwise in Cali.
          Also Beaman v DMV in 1960.
          Plenty more if you look.

        7. avatar Paul G says:

          The codes you relate apply to use of motor vehicles. A motor vehicle is specifically defined as one used in commerce. Driving to work is not engaging in commerce. Driving as your work is engaging in commerce.

        8. avatar Accur81 says:

          Ok, Paul G, bring that stuff into traffic court and see how well it works out for you. There’s one at 1945 S. Hill St. Los Angeles, CA 90015. Let all the defendants in Div 67 and 70 know. You’ll make a ridiculous amount of money if you can make what you just said work in court.

          Otherwise, I’d think the Ticket Clinic would be really interested in your advice.

        9. avatar Paul G says:

          I have seen it work in court. The biggest problem being the inconvenience created because too many asshole cops think they know the law.

        10. avatar Paul G says:

          I guess your point was that you have no valid counterpoint, so you resort to snark. Typical.

        11. avatar Accur81 says:

          Well, I know how the law is actually *applied.* At least in my neck of the woods. Further, I have to clean up the messes of unlicensed, uninsured, unregistered and unintelligent drivers. That’s more than 1,300 documented crashes since 2001 from fenders benders to fatalities.

          So I fully don’t give a rip regarding what lawyers say regarding traffic matters. Nor do I care about uber-libertarian opinions that drivers on public roads don’t need license or insurance. If I’m rear ended, yet again, I’d unapologetically appreciate the benefits of insurance coverage from the driver who hit me.

          So you may be technically correct, and you may think I’m an “asshole cop” (not that I care, you may be a great lawyer), but the case law you referred to doesn’t hold water in the courts I work in. By extension, it likely won’t hold water in other courts.

          I tend to classify things into things that work vs. things that don’t work. To me, you’re advice falls into the latter category. But if it works for you, best of luck.

        12. avatar Paul G says:

          I knew it. Just another cop who isn’t interested in the reality of the law, he thinks it is what suits him. They have names for people like that.
          By the way, that case law does work in the courts you work in. Sadly, too many people are unaware of the truth, and too many like you prefer it that way.

        13. avatar Stinkeye says:

          “Driving to work is not engaging in commerce.”

          If your employer is paying you money in exchange for your labor, isn’t that commerce? The product the employer is buying (your time and skills) is being transported to the point-of-sale (your workplace) – how is that fundamentally different than someone delivering a truckload of gravel?

          Now, if you’d said “driving to the park is not engaging in commerce”, that would probably be a better example.

        14. avatar Paul G says:

          No, driving to work is not engaging in conmerce. Nor is driving to a store. The actions one engage while at those locations are commerce, but getting yourself there is not an act of commerce. Then again, if you ride a bus or take a taxi, it is an act of commerce, and those drivers are subordinate to licensing laws.

        15. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “No, driving to work is not engaging in conmerce. Nor is driving to a store. The actions one engage while at those locations are commerce, but getting yourself there is not an act of commerce.”

          You claim you’ve seen it work in court, your quote, ‘many times’.

          Cite the court rulings. Post the links. I’ll keep it easy on you, just 10 of them.

          Let’s see the links.

          You sound like those ‘sovereign citizen’ folks that claim taxes don’t apply to them and know of ‘many times’ where they’ve won in court and can’t cite specific case law.

          Lots of them in prison.

        16. avatar Paul G says:

          Don’t misquote me.
          I have seen it work in court. Once. That was incidental, wouldn’t have known what happened had not someone explained. I was only there to support a friend.
          I never claimed otherwise.
          But it has worked for others plenty of times. You have the internet. Look for yourself.

        17. avatar Paul G says:

          Rght to travel is a right. One need not claim sovereign citizenship to exercise it.
          Ignorance of the law is problematic. So much so that some attack those who offer up a dose of truth.

        18. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “But it has worked for others plenty of times. You have the internet. Look for yourself.”

          YOU are the one claiming “it has worked for others plenty of times”.

          No mis-quote, YOUR DIRECT quote.

          I’m throwing the BS flag.

          Post the links.

          Put up or shut up.

        19. avatar Paul G says:

          And it has worked for people plenty of times. I saw it happen once, and have been in conversations with a couple LEO’S who were flabbergasted when it worked for people they arrested. I have presented case links here before, I think you can find some if you use the internet.
          I never claimed anything else. You might want to bone up on reading comprehension, in more ways than one. You misquoted me in your first statement.

        20. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “And it has worked for people plenty of times. ”

          You’re lying.

          Post the links or admit you lied.

          Your credibility here is now zero.

          I’m calling your lie out.

          Post the links.

        21. avatar Paul G says:

          Look up Charles Sprinkle. Ronald Reagan as governor conceded his right to travel. He exercised that right for 35 years, til his death.
          No lies, just no laptop anymore. Don’t know how to paste with a cheap tablet.

        22. avatar Paul G says:

          I have posted links numerous times in the past. The one practicing contempt prior to investigation is the one without credibility. That would be you.

  6. avatar Parnell says:

    Sounds like the NJ FID and Purchase Permit process that just killed the woman in South Jersey.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      This particular idiocy is being led by Connecticut Dems. The one RF hasn’t reported yet–another “smart gun” ploy, in 10 years every seller can only sell “smart guns”– is being led by Massachusetts Dems

  7. avatar Ralph says:

    There are “good” Democrats and both parties are the same, right? Right?

    You don’t have to be a farmer to know what bullsh1t smells like.

    1. avatar Jjimmyjonga says:

      Unfortunately, many many farmers in this country are (happy) recipients of USDA welfare, as well as beneficiaries of food stamp programs, which are heavily backed by (you guessed it) D’s and L’s.

    2. avatar Accur81 says:

      Weird, isn’t it? I keep reading on TTAG about all these Dems pushing for more gun control, and I keep hearing about Repubs rolling it back. Then I keep hearing about how there’s “no difference” between Democrats and Republicans. Maybe there’s a Democrat pro-gun POTUS hopeful that I’ve missed.*

      *not.

  8. avatar JD says:

    Driving an automobile is not a right protected by the Constitution. Bearing arms on the other hand is. Typical democrat looking for another way to control his subjects.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Speaking of which…I have been desperately trying to find somewhere the exact definition of “Fascist” but it seems to be an elusive quantity. Having thought about it considerably, and studied the subject to some length, I have come up with the following definition which can also be applied to Progressive Democrats:

      “We have decided what is BEST for you. If you know what is GOOD for you, you won’t argue with us.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        That’s not fascism — that’s government.

  9. avatar Paul53 says:

    Driving and fishing are privileges. Owning a gun is a right, like voting. You can’t tax or license a right. Otherwise, keep trying scooter.

  10. avatar Buster says:

    …and I should not have to “purchase” “permission” to catch a catfish to feed myself.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Only Native Americans have that privilege. So go fishing with Elizabeth Warren and you’ll be OK.

  11. avatar troutbum5 says:

    Oh good. One more law to be broken by criminals. That’ll fix the problem.

  12. avatar mdc says:

    Agree. In PA its ran thru State Police. Unlike N.J. it’s sits on the Chiefs desk and you get killed waiting on it. Because they are cowards and not American.

  13. avatar Parnell says:

    Why a photo? Is that to keep minorities from exercising their right of self-defense?

  14. avatar Mike says:

    So… another law to be disregarded by prosecutors?

  15. avatar Richard in WA says:

    Hmmm, so the exact requirements I’ve already submitted to to get my states Concealed Pistol License.

    I own just 3 firearms at the moment and I have submitted to 9 background checks in the process. Add in what I’ve had to do for work (includes a background check every 12-18 months) and we are up to 14 in the last 5 years.

    How many more times do I have to prove I’m not a felon?

    1. avatar Michelle says:

      I have a clearance. They probably know what I ate for breakfast all week.

      When I first got into guns, it kind of bewildered me that a background check had to happen every time you made a purchase, even if that other purchase was five minutes later. I always figured that it would be kept on file at the store and I’d be re-upped periodically. Kinda like they do with clearances.

      Pick up two lowers in two days… “Good job, you didn’t commit any felonies last night!” I guess that’ll be the case, until owning the guns bought previously suddenly becomes a disqualifying felony.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “I have a clearance. They probably know what I ate for breakfast all week.”

        If you have a clearance, your *entire* security background information is now in the hands of the Chinese who are claiming they didn’t do it.

        Take a look at this. It will make you sick.

        “It turns out the hackers, who are believed to be from China, also accessed so-called SF-86 forms, documents used for conducting background checks for worker security clearances. The forms can contain a wealth of sensitive data not only about workers seeking security clearance, but also about their friends, spouses and other family members.”

        http://www.wired.com/2015/06/opm-breach-security-privacy-debacle/

        1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

          Wired has had a pair of very interesting blogs for years, on security (mostly cyber-) and government admini-spansion (formerly named in honor of “form 27b-6” from Brazil. Since renamed because nobody got it. Sigh.)

      2. avatar Jeff says:

        Furries can get a clearance? I thought mental illness was a DQ

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Furries can get a clearance?”

          Nice furries can.

          Be nice, furries can bite…

          🙂

  16. avatar Higgs says:

    I think the caption on the photo should be changed to read –

    ” I am stacking the anti gun BS this high.”

    1. avatar 2AMexican says:

      YOU WIN!

  17. avatar Brick says:

    Dear idiots in Congress,

    This is how it is in NJ. It doesn’t work.

    Cited references:
    1) Newark
    2) Camden
    3) Trenton
    4) Atlantic City

    Nice try, go play golf or something.

  18. avatar Gunr says:

    What pisses me off is that of all the tons of bull crap anti gun legislation that I have seen, Not one of the proposals would exempt CCW permit holders!

    1. avatar Michelle says:

      Well, they’re under the impression that CCW would cause blood in the streets. Since there is no blood running in the streets, therefore, CCW holders don’t exist.

      1. avatar Gunr says:

        Thanks “Sunshine” I knew I had forgotten something>

  19. avatar Highwayman says:

    You know its funny that if you have a license to drive a car, you can drive that car to all states. However, if you are required to get a gun license per the law that they want to pass, you dont have the same courtesy of bringing a gun to all other states.

    1. avatar Richard in WA says:

      It might almost be worth it if there were A)a grandfather clause and B)reciprocity for all 50 states.

    2. avatar ihatetrees says:

      This legislation will help states develop responsible handgun licensing programs,’ said sponsor Rep. Chris Van Hollen.

      Actually, why not just use the ‘common sense’ licensing for driving??? It should be much cheaper…
      The GOP should propose a law making all state driver’s licenses the equivalent of CCW licenses. If you can drive a car, you can, if you chose, carry a handgun. That should address all the concerns of the controllers…

  20. avatar ValleyForge77 says:

    Like a damn broken record. That’s all the Dems have: more proposals for more gun control. To the point of ad nauseam. At what point are people (besides us of course) going to get totally sick of this one-trick pony? We have REAL issues to address, but you’d never know it if you listen to the Dems. It’s all gun control, gun control and more gun control. They are a one issue party anymore. It’s a disgrace and I know even the Libs I know are getting sick of it. This is not a major issue, but to the Dem politicians – it’s the only issue. How can they take away MORE of our freedoms. That’s all they have to offer – less freedom, bigger government, more spending, more debt, NO coherent foreign policy to even speak of… What a Joke.

  21. avatar JeffE says:

    Are you S$%&Ting me? This crap just gets more bizarre every day. I drove in town to buy groceries today, maybe these liberal ass wipes should have provided an armed military escort because I must need someone else to manage my day to day functions like wiping my ass when I drop a liberal!

  22. avatar Chris Meissen says:

    That sounds like a good proposal to me, provided that another lawmaker tacks on a rider making the exact same requirements are applied to voter registrations as well.

  23. avatar Trevor says:

    They know these bills are going nowhere, they are just trying to appeal to there base as 2016 approaches.

    1. avatar Michelle says:

      Their “base”, perhaps. But voters as a whole? Even Hillary’s wife said that it was a non winning issue.

  24. avatar Fuque says:

    These assholes are Just itching to make gun owners criminals…We need to Pass Fish and game legislation to create a Liberal hunting season….No bag limit.

    1. avatar Daily Beatings says:

      Hunting Liberals is nothing new.

    2. avatar LARRY says:

      Common sense is a flower that doesn’t grow in everyones garden. If the Government can convince the states that they can make revenue from it under this BS disguise they might fall for it. This is the same reason why this country was founded!

    3. avatar Silver says:

      My grandfather went to Europe to fight the German Progressives in the 40s. I miss the days when Americans fought fascists rather than voted for them.

  25. avatar BDub says:

    Nice bait and switch.
    STATES requiring a license to DRIVE a car ≠ FEDS requiring a license to BUY guns.

    How ridiculous would it be suggesting a permit/license to buy a car?

  26. avatar L,John says:

    We should all “panic”, go out and buy a whole mess of guns and a couple barrels of ammunition and send pictures of it all to the congressman. ????

  27. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I don’t need a license to buy or drive a car on my own land.
    And I don’t need a license to fish in my own pond.
    Geez!

    1. avatar CarlosT says:

      The main trick is getting the car there, but you can always have it delivered.

      As for the proposal, I’d almost say sure, with certain conditions:

      That permit also acts as a nationwide concealed carry permit that allows me to carry the weapon of my choice, loaded with the ammo of my choice, in magazines of any capacity. There would be a consistent set of carry rules and a very limited set of circumstances where carry would not be allowed.

      I should be able to purchase a gun and have it shipped directly to my home. I’m willing to accept the requirement that I specifically sign for it, but since you’re double-dog background checking me, I don’t see why there should be an issue with this.

      NICS checks are redundant for permit holders. Any waiting period is also patently ridiculous for a permitted person. I walk into a shop, I pay, I get my gun.

      If I gave it a bit more time, I could come up with more, but that’s a good start.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “The main trick is getting the car there, but you can always have it delivered. ”

        Chinook with a sling?

        Herk or C-17 pallet-parachute airdrop?

        Hmmm…

    2. avatar Jeff says:

      I have decided that I don’t need a tax stamp to possess an SBR or suppressor on my own private land, either.

  28. avatar Red In Texas says:

    He’s using the wrong arm.

  29. avatar KCK says:

    Breaking:
    CNN ONLINE reports the success of Connecticut’s firearms license law in reducing homicide rate.
    RF, NL, get on it.

  30. avatar GuntotinDem says:

    That would be our FOID card ya know until i had that boating accident

  31. avatar Mark N. says:

    “If we can’t register the firearms, we’ll register the owners.” Umm, hmm, yeah ok, and this will accomplish what exactly? Seems to me that it will have no effect on the black market, nor reduce the number of gang bangin’ juveniles running around with guns, since they can’t buy them now anyway. More security theater. Moreover, it seems to me that all of the states that want to demand that citizens get permits from the police to purchase guns already have such laws, and this bill does not make it mandatory that any other state is required to do so. So we have a lawa that will be passed that will do nothing but subsidized NJ and other similar states. Dumb.

  32. avatar Ray says:

    Will not comply.

  33. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

    Yeah whatever. What’s the common sense end result supposed to be? Are criminals going to submit to it or is this just another money making feel good scheme and call it common sense and responsible….none of which it really is.
    Chris Van Hollen need to be kicked in the nuts.

  34. avatar Cloud says:

    Sounds racist to me. After all of we can’t expect minorities to get an ID to vote we sure can’t expect the same for a gun purchase. Why do democrats hate black people so much?

  35. avatar MarkPA says:

    Looks to me like this is a good bill to which the Republicans ought to attach a long list of poison-pill amendments. E.g., once you get this permit you are free to buy NFA items OTC with no Hughes-Amendment limitation. As soon as your name clears the NICS database you get your card; they know where to find you if your prints come-back bad. You have national rights to OC or CC in all places, sensitive or not. No NICS check on subsequent purchases. No 4473 form on subsequent purchases. And so on.

    Let the Dems argue the demerits of each poison-pill amendment.

  36. avatar k42 in WA says:

    In WA, this would basically be the same as requiring every pistol owner to get their concealed carry permit first. That would probably have some unintended repercussions. It is obviously confusing a privilege (like driving or hunting) with a right (to own guns, as per 2A).

    They need to get better about offering some carrots with their sticks, if they want more people to vote for it.

  37. avatar BlueBronco says:

    It thing its time to start charging politicians $10 M per year to register their mouth and require them $250,000 permit every time they want to discuss infringing any of the Bill of Rights.

  38. avatar Kendahl says:

    We could turn this around with an amendment that the license authorizes holders to carry everywhere.

  39. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “But the insidious aspect of this brainstorm is . . .

    that it would be accomplished through Justice Department grants to the states, rather than establishing a national licensing scheme. Try these on for size:

    The Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act authorizes a grant program at the Department of Justice to encourage states to establish permit-to-purchase requirements for all handguns, including at gun shows and with private sellers.
    …”

    Lawsuit: The entire DOJ budget is unconstitutional, at odds with “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.”

    It matters little how that suit comes out. Casts bright light on the triple issues of constitutional authorities, administrative over-reach: agencies are constrained by the same limits which apply to the statutes authorizing them, and preemption by economic coercion.

    Somebody needs to get a press release on this angle out RIGHT NOW.

  40. avatar BillC says:

    The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

  41. avatar Dan says:

    OK if you want to use the logic of “Well you need a license to drive a car so you should get a license to own a gun” then the same logic applies if I have a permit to carry in one state then why isn’t it recognized in all 50 states just like my drivers license is honored in all 50 states.

    1. avatar BillC says:

      Or that driving is not a Constitutionaly protected right.

  42. avatar Vorpalis says:

    Comparing car registration and fishing licensing to gun registration is a false analogy. The purpose of car registration and fishing licensing is to generate revenue, not to control who can have a car or go fishing. Also, neither a car nor fishing is a means of self-defense.

  43. avatar Anonymous says:

    I think we should license all congressional dems whenever they feel the need to talk, print something, send an email, or go to church. License to speech. License to press. License to religion. If you are going to shit on one right – why not just shit on all of them?

  44. avatar Adrik says:

    I think that a political talking head said it best today, though about another matter: This is no longer Bill Clintons party, this is Nancy Pelosi’s party, Elizabeth Warrens party. The crazy people have taken over.

  45. avatar barnbwt says:

    “Just watch the bouncing ball, you hayseed gun owners…”

    Please read the proposed changes to ITAR and write the State Dept a comment on why they are a bad idea. Technical firearms data is not a national security threat, so it cannot be justifiably restricted for that purpose. Go to regulations.org and you’ll see the ITAR changes at the top of the list; easy peasy.

    1. avatar Will P. says:

      That one really doesn’t bother me at all. If you tell the Internet they CAN’T do something it just makes them want to do it even more. Over half the net is run by rebellious teenagers. The govt has tried to shut down a many a things on the net before and the net inturn gets pissed and hacks the govt websites and also makes whatever content it was even easier to get.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        We’re not talking copyright violations enforced by bored corporate lawyers; we’re talking about the State Department, here. Major blogs that continue to host technical discussions WILL be shut down (because our friendly kill-switch wielding feds have that power now, remember?) and examples made of prominent folks who seek to circumvent their authority.

        “You can’t stop the signal” is nice sounding, but when’s the last time you built a machine gun to ‘stick it to the man?’ Speech will be chilled by this new rule change, and the gun building and then shooting sports will suffer enormously for it. Moderators will shut down threads discussing build details not already well-documented online, or all build details entirely out of fear of apparent impropriety.

  46. avatar Will P. says:

    When I purchase a firearm I have to go through a background check process or present my Carry License, what is making a law to have a license going to do that that already isn’t. Also please inform the drunk drivers on the road that they can’t drive without a license as well, see how many people that has stopped? Also please inform the “straw purchasers” that they won’t be able to purchase thier blackmarket guns without said gun license…wait.

  47. avatar gsnyder says:

    The license would be a revenue builder, that’s it. More taxation without representation. Seems to me not having a license never stopped anyone from driving a car, or poaching deer, or fish, or clams, or picking cedar, or running a underground drug business. Is this man oblivious to the FFL and the NICS system? Seems to me if I go buy a gun from an FFL I am submitting to all these things already, and though I do not carry the document with me, I am by function licensed through the Federal Gov’t.

  48. avatar Nate says:

    I am so incredibly frustrated just reading this. Stop restricting our rights. I already have to wait 6months+, have references, etc. to buy a handgun in NY State because you need a damn carry permit to even touch a handgun let alone buy one. Pretty soon slingshots are going to need a permit that takes 2 years to get and requires a training course that is only available if you walk backwards on sunday at 2am and don’t look too scary.

  49. avatar Almost Esq. says:

    I say bring it on. This is not going to pass. The Republicans control both Houses. Even better this will only hurt the Dems chances in 2016. If they want to run on gun control, I say let them. They will lose, and lose bad. 🙂 Perhaps we will get to repeal the NFA as a result. One can dream…

  50. avatar Keith Prom says:

    yr/yr…..San Jose’s murder rate fell by 59 percent; Jacksonville’s fell by 31 percent; Indianapolis’ by 28 percent; San Antonio’s by 25 percent; and Los Angeles’ by 15 percent. No new permit laws here…
    Perhaps, as is always the case, is that a bad economy increases crime, and an improving economy reduces crime. No mention that he looked at that…

  51. avatar Mad Max says:

    Let’s press the Republicans to rewrite the bill and turn it into a national concealed carry permit bill to allow the permittee to carry anywhere (overriding State law with standardized rules) and function as the background check so the holder can purchase firearms from any dealer (regardless of the holder’s State of residence).

    I heard that Utah runs NICS checks on every permit holder monthly. A national permit could be managed in the same way. All the dealer would have to do is check the database to see that the permit was still valid.

    If the Government really had it together, the database could be updated with a Judge’s orders when someone was being prevented from possessing firearms by court order (evidently this frequently doesn’t happen now with NICS).

    I know, dream-on because I’m asking for too much but it would be fun to turn their bill inside-out on them.

    1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      Nice idea. I’d like to build on that a bit.

      Get the Repubs to rewrite the bill into not necessarily everything we’d like to have, or like to do to make a point, but rather “common sense” to flush the other folks out.

      We gotta “register” handguns because they’re dangerous? OK, there’s an always on database to check, and by federal law, anyone found with a gun 1) gets checked (which they’ll want) BUT 2) has to be immediately left alone once they are found to be registered.

      The Mrs. Grundy’s heads will explode. And it’ll never pass. More to the point, the talking heads who feed opinion to the swing vote will have to talk about “What is the problem withe “leave them alone?” if they’re legal?”

      Laws created to enable harassment of stuff they couldn’t get made illegal are obnoxious. Call out the sponsors for what they are. “I couldn’t get my way in the legislation, because nobody agrees with me once I get out of my paid, shill rallies. So, I’m gonna chip away at the edges, and bank on the other side getting tired or lazy. I’ll get my way by inches, coopting the administrative apparatus to do so.”

      Why do people get so P-O-ed at this ploy? It ain’t hard core anti-gummint sentiment. It’s the sleezy way they went about it. And they don’t get it, even still. Stuff you gotta pass through “maneuvers” stinks on ice. The job is to allow people to agree…

  52. avatar Roger Cain says:

    How odd that the people (liberals) who most often cling to the phrase “common sense” are the ones most lacking of it. Obama is the first azz-clown who comes to mind but he’s not the last.

  53. avatar MarkPA says:

    Make lemonade out of lemons!

    How about getting the NRA to lobby friendlies to propose amending this bill as follows:

    – rename it the “Carol Bowne Releif Act”;
    – Include a provision under the 2A, Heller and McDonald granting any holder of an order-of-protection an exemption from any State carry or purchase law (as does LEOSA for police and retired police). The order-of-protection becomes – effectively – a NJ Pistol Purchase Permit valid in any FFL and a national CWP. It waves any training requirement and waiting period under State law;
    – inclues a provision exempting the subject of the order from hollow-point prohibitions;
    – includes a provision exempting the subject from gun-free zones;
    – anything else we can think of.

    Such a package of amendments would probably constitute a poison pill (not that this bill has any chance of getting through both chambers anyway).

    The primary effect would be to make committee hearings on the bill a stage on which to hammer-away about the Carol Bowne incident and others like it.

    A secondary effect would be to put the Democrats on the spot to comment on the amendments to THEIR bill. “So, Rep. Van Hollen, what do you think of the package of amendments – titled the Carol Bowne Relief Act – offered by the Republicans? Do you think each of these proposals is constructive? Are you engaging across the isle to understand the rationale for these amendments? Then, go down the line of co-sponsors and Democrat leaders and solicit their comments as well.

    Ultimately, I’d expect the Democrat bill to die in committee whether or not our amendments were accepted in committee. Even so, the same package of amendments could be advanced as an independent bill proffered by Republicans.

    Such a Carol Bowne Relief Act is – of course – NOT what we really want. We want National Reciprocity. Nevertheless, a Carol Bowne Relief Act would be complementary to a National Reciprocity act. Bear in mind that Carol Browne would still be toast even if she had enjoyed National Reciprocity. For a victim in a position such as hers, she would have had to establish a pre-textual residency in PA, apply for a PA License to Carry Firearms, buy a gun in PA and then return to NJ to resume her normal activities. National Reciprocity is NOT good ENOUGH for an imminent threat faced by a resident of the Won’t-Issue States.

    1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      Nice.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email