We’ve finally gotten a look at Chuck Shumer’s proposed mandatory background check bill, and the truth is that this thing is ridiculous. The bill is overly broad, has some crazy penalties, and cracks the door WIDE open for government abuse. The full text of the bill is here, and since it’s in that terrible bill-speak legalese, I’ll try to summarize it for you . . .
The main provision of the bill is that any transfer of a firearm, no matter how fleeting, needs to go through an FFL and the transferee needs to have a background check performed through the NICS system. There are some exceptions, but they aren’t very good ones. Page 11 starts off the meat and potatoes for those following along at home.
In order to qualify for an exception to the rule of all transfers going through an FFL, the following requirements must be met:
- The temporary transfer takes place at the owner’s house
- The gun can’t be moved from the property
- The transfer must last less than 7 days
There’s also a poorly worded exception for hunting and “sporting purposes,” as well as gifts to family members. What that means is if you go on a trip for more than 7 days and leave your guns at home unattended with a roommate, its now a felony under this law. And if I’m reading this right, this applies if you leave your guns with your spouse, but don’t transfer them as a gift.
There’s also no exception for lending guns to friends for the afternoon on the range. I regularly loan out my older competition guns to friends who want to compete in local matches, as the guns can be expensive and its easier to figure out if competition shooting is right for you if you can give it a try. Under this new bill, that would be illegal.
It also appears that it would be illegal to hand a firearm to someone other than the owner, effectively killing range trips with friends.
I quote from the bill the definition of “transfer” includes:
shall include a sale, gift, loan, return from pawn or consignment, or other disposition
Broad much? The only exception appears to be handing a gun to a potential buyer to evaluate and lending guns at a shooting range but ONLY IF:
at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting range;
So, only facilities where the stated purpose in the incorporation documents is conservation (hunting) or firearms proficiency. And if you’re shooting on your own private property, or on BLM land, ANY lending of guns EVEN IN THE PRESENCE OF THE OWNER for recreational shooting would be illegal.
As one of the provisions designed to “alleviate the fears” of the gun-owning public, it looks like there’s a provision in here that permanently sets the price of all FFL transfer fees to the same amount. That number will be set by the Attorney General, which these days is still Eric Holder. The current speculation is that this FFL fee will be used to do what the NFA tax was originally designed to do — make buying or transferring a gun so expensive that almost no one can do it.
In addition to the transfer requirements, it also makes it a federal felony to fail to report a lost or stolen firearm. If the gun isn’t reported to the authorities within 24 hours, that’s a 5-year stretch in a federal pokey you just earned yourself.
The bill also specifically removes the ability for people with state permits to skip the NICS check. Currently in Texas, those with a concealed handgun license can purchase a gun without a NICS check as they’ve already passed a more stringent background check than NICS provides. This puts more strain on the FFL as well as the NICS system.
As written, this bill is a trainwreck. It creates felons out of people who may not have been aware that their roommate (on their month long trip through Asia) even owned a firearm, much less that there was one in the house. It allows the government to regulate the price of background checks, enacting a mandatory fee (read tax) to be paid every time you want to exercise a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and lets the government set the fee at whatever level they choose with no recourse. It also creates de facto registration through the NICS checks as well as the paperwork preservation requirements already in place.
You don’t have to pay a fee to vote, as the supreme court ruled that unconstitutional. But for Chuck Shumer, its okay to charge a fee to exercise your Second Amendment right. And he’ll tell you how much to pay.
At least his side’s being honest about their real intentions this time. This bill is clearly designed to gut firearms rights.
I will FLAME DELETE my self at this point…
Not much I can add on this that doesn’t use colorful colloquialisms for idiots, and depot rulers. I am above that I keep telling myself.
I am going to scream now, be back later!!!
Let the tarring and feathering begin.
Forget tarring and feathering, just hang the SOBs on the Mall for all to see and leave them there until they rot off of the rope.
Our founding fathers would be shooting by now…
Damn right about that!
Yes I believe they would.
Makes me wonder why we haven’t started…
Because we all live fairly comfortable lives, and we all believe this will resolve itself. Which is how Britain got to where it is today. We’ll see how things resolve.
I think the big difference is that Britain has a culture of subservience. The “commons” there are used to living under the noble boot. Not so over here. We are living in interesting times.
And, just as King George III, these elitist members of the ruling class sit safely in their offices in the State houses and Washington believing LEOs and even soldiers will take all the risks of enforcing their tyrannical laws.
This time, I wonder. Some will comply, Some will not. Some will enforce, Some will not.
+1. Or should I say, +.223?
More like + 30 x .223, or +10 x .223 for those in police states.
To paraphrase CSM Plumley – “By the time you need one, there will be plenty lying on the ground.”
NEXT: Chuck Schumer seeks bill requiring a license to operate a motor vehicle. In your driveway. On your computer screen.
And no automobile shapped poptarts or “vroom vroom” noises in schools will be permitted.
Somehow that seems less than fair as the minority Aldi’s robber got a little over 1 year for armed robbery with a sawed off shotgun. In other words, chuck you fu.k, Randy
under the new (proposed) maryland law one needs a safety class to get a firearm license, and a firearm to take a safety class . One can (theoretically) rent it from the owner on premises however, this would appear to mean that just to take the safety class, one needs a background check. gee, i wondered why the R were against it. (that last bit was sarcrasm).
Ask for the stars, compromise for the moon. Its despicable, no matter which side does it. Kill that bill.
So, nothing surprising.
The bill needs to be shot down.
i think the worse it is, the better. i guess.
+1. Just look at DiFi’s “nuclear” AWB. That bill was practically DOA.
There is another potentially huge problem with that bill. It makes no effort to define “transfer” (at least according to Mr. Leghorn’s summary). Would handling and inspecting a firearm at a private sale, gun store, or gun show be illegal?
I am very concerned about the the requirement to report lost or stolen guns. I train a lot of people regularly and have a lot of guns. It is entirely possible that I might lose or have a gun stolen without my knowledge.
I can also see this bill being stretched to require a background check just to train someone with your gun. The purpose of bills like this is to make it harder for non-shooters to get into the shooting culture. Thus killing shooting sports in the long run.
When you keep using stupid phrases like “shooting sports” you’ve already lost the fight.
The Second Amendment isn’t about duck hunting. It’s not about plinking at cans with grandpa, or “harvesting” a buck with a big set of antlers so you’ve got some bragging rights.
The Second Amendment is about WEAPONS.
It’s about the right of ordinary citizens to own lethal “military-grade” arms with which to threaten — and if need be to inflict — deadly violence on those who would illegally oppress us.
absolutely right. the bill of rights was written by men who had just finished fighting a war of independence using firearms. anyone with the most basic common sense knows they were talking about firearms for the overthrow of tyranny.
Thats absolutely right, and “to secure these rights, governments are constituted among men”, so when are these lying POS going to start securing our rights instead trying to take them away. NOMI!
I need to read the full bill, but regarding shooting at ranges, the language doesn’t indicate that the gun must be kept at the range during the shooting session, but “and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting range;” Doesn’t that mean that you can’t meet a friend at the range and let him shoot your gun while you’re standing there if you store the gun anywhere but the range? Without a range locker you’re not keeping the gun within the premesis at all times therefore no letting a buddy shoot…
Chuckie is an idiot, but he’s not stupid. He knows this bill has a snowball’s chance and it’s sole purpose is to gain him points with his constituants. As has been pointed out by RF and Nick on this site, the shear weight of alll the newly required checks would rapidly crash whatever system they managed to put in place anyway, which would effectively enact gun control since no one could get a NICS and so could not transfer a weapon.
Meanwhile, as also discussed here, THIS IS A POLL TAX! This bill and its provisions are unconstitutional on their face and in the unlikely event it did get passed the lawsuits and injuncctions would be filed before the ink from BHO’s pen was dry. You would think a supposed constitutional scholar would understand the implications of allowing the government to tax a right guaranteed by the consitution, but ideology does tend to make you blind to logic. “The ability to tax is the ability to destroy.”
If any government agency at any level is allowed to determine what level of education and training you MUST have and how much of a tax you MUST pay before you can buy, own, or use a firearm, then this is no longer a right the government may not infringe, it is a right the government has the privilage of giving or taking away, as the government sees fit.
Let the 2A go and the precident is set and no other of the Bill of Rights is safe from government intrusion.
If this law passes – as written, rewritten or even as a shell of the original proposal, it will be the absolute definition of tyrannical government.
Mr. Shumer would be wise to let this die in a committee – hell hath no fury like armed and pissed off patriots.
There is nothing more dangerous than a pissed off redneck with a gun-except perhaps 2.5 million pissed off rednecks all armed with guns on the White House lawn.
Call your Senators and say NO to this madness.
Sadly, for some of us, Schumer is our senator.
Then call other Senators make your voice heard.
“whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”
This bill would be struck down very quickly. Several fascist states, like New Jersey and Conneneticut, place destination restrictions on transporting a firearm in your car, even if unloaded and locked up. So you go camping and…wait, either you leave it at home and felony, or put it in your trunk and felony… there are so many legal problems like that, it isn’t funny.
Here is the thing, when your bill makes CA law look reasonable by comparison, you did something wrong. California requires background checks on most private party transfers, but besides the fact that I can drive around without restriction with guns stored in the car, the law explicitly allows me to lend firearms for up to a month (longer if for hunting and during the season), provided I don’t have reason to believe that the person is a prohibited person and I know the person. If I don’t know them, they can still borrow it in my presence. And the set transfer fee is $35, $25 of which is just the same background check fee we always pay. So really $10.
I’m a little thick…can someone illuminate me as to how this de facto registration? I’m honestly just curious.
I’d have to read it more in-depth, but the gist of it would be this seems to be building more toward a “gun-owner” registration than a “gun” one. Purely just speculation on my part, the registration part comes along when this non-functional mess can’t be implemented properly, so they go for some kind of “national gun owner ID card” and try to sell it as “streamlining” the process and making transfer and ownership “easier” on “responsible gun owners”.
And yeah, I totally made the air-quotes gesture on each one of those as I wrote them.
ATF form 4473 used for the NICS has fields for make, model, serial #, etc. of the weapon. If you have to run a background check, you have to tell “them” who you are and every weapon you buy. They aren’t allowed to keep records of this, but they do. And the store has to keep the records for ever.
While you are corrrect about that info being part of the form, make, model, serial number, the only info the dealer transmits to NICS is the type of gun not the serial number or make and model. Dealers keep the 4473 until they go out of business and then must ship them to the BATFE.
Or until the BATFE does a compliance inspection and copies all of the 4473s on hand — something that they have done repeatedly — and then takes those copies back to Martinsburg and turns them over to a private-sector contractor to upload the information to a “non-governmental” database. Something they have been doing to evade the law prohibiting the BATFE from creating a database of gun owners and their guns.
They’ve even been copying the information in C&R collectors’ “bound books” during inspections.
It’s registration BECAUSE – the only way to enforce a law like this is to have every gun in the nation attached to a human being.
Otherwise, how would you enforce it? There are millions of firearms in free states that do not require registration upon purchasing that can be privately sold, given away or lost without reporting to anyone… so if I have a rifle that the government doesn’t know I have, how do they prove that I sold it to anyone without a first doing the mandatory background check?
Nothing surprises me, that being said Shumer is a Jew and as a Jew one would think he would be the total opposite of what he is, considering their history.
You would think that, right? My wife was profoundly changed after a visit to the holocaust museum. My daughter asked why no one faught back. I had to explain that they couldn’t.
and bloomberg, and feinstein. oh, the irony.
They are all Jüdischer Ordnungsdienst. They believe that if they are part of the disarming nanny state, it won’t be turned against them.
Some of us live by the creed “never again” – See http://www.jpfo.org. I do have to say that I would be hard pressed to prevent the blue shirts from taking my “brother” Schumer away…
I am all for stopping the infringement of rights, but by actually reading this bill… it does none of what you mention, it provides for hunting, competition and range purposes, it says nothing about leaving a gun at home, while a roommate is there. in that case you are still ‘in possession’ of the firearm, its says 24 hours after you learn of its loss, not 24 hours from the time it went missing…and pretty much everything you said is wrong, WE ARE NEVER GOING TO WIN A BATTLE OF WITS WITH MISINFORMATION!!!
Nope…
Transfer incident to hunting, comp or range can only occur at the location. Meaning you have to be there with your friend to hand him the gun then take it back. He can’t do any of those activities without you.
Regarding the gun left in your house see page 12 lines 4&5. If your roomate and your gun are home and you’re not for more than 7 days, it might be a prohibited transfer.
You are correct about the 24hr theft/loss notification, it’s from when you find out, but Nick never said otherwise, you just misread him.
it is not a transfer of possession if it remains in your home, maybe and only if you were to actually to give it to them and say ‘here use this while I am gone”
loaning a gun for legal activities is fine under this bill, so long as the owner remains ‘in the area of its legal use’ AND what is wrong with this?
“If the gun isn’t reported to the authorities within 24 hours, that’s a 5-year stretch in a federal pokey you just earned yourself.” DIRECTLY implies that failure to report a missing gun in 24 hours will result in a crime, deliberately misleading!
>”it is not a transfer of possession if it remains in your home…”
It is defined in the bill as a “temporary transfer”. Why did they create a 7 day time limit?
>”…the owner remains ‘in the area of its legal use’…”
1. It’s a pain in the ass to have to follow your buddy to every range or hunting field she wants to go to.
2. ‘the area of its legal use’ is strictly defined and is an arbitray restriction on what are currently “legal” areas to hold a firearm.
The fact that we’re trying to make sense of this bill illustrates the problem: it creates a minefield of rules and is therefore onerous to law-abiding gun owners. There’s just no reason to create these complications if they’re unlikely to have a discernible impact on crime.
Jason I believe the terminology you want to research is “constructive possession”. Let’s say you have a concealed handgun license and your state deems it legal for you to have a handgun in your car. So you keep a handgun in your car. Guess what happens if you leave your mom in the car with the gun and you go into a store? If the police decided to check on your mom and saw the handgun on the driver’s seat, they will charge your mom with illegally carrying a concealed handgun because she had “constructive possession” of it while you were in the store.
Law enforcement and prosecutors could use the same tactic when a firearms owner leaves his/her firearms at their home with a roommate while away on vacation.
Agreed… After reading the bill text, at face value, it MAY not be quite as bad as the OP suggests…
Leaving your gun at home for more than 7 days isn’t a transfer as defined by the bill, so as long as you aren’t selling it, gifting it, loaning it, transferring it as property to your roommate before you go, it shouldn’t apply.
It would not apply if you lend your gun to a friend at a range or shooting competition as long as he gives it back to you before leaving the range. Although you would have to go with them, but wouldn’t you anyway?
It also makes an exception if you lend the gun to someone on the property around your home (that’s “curtilage”… had to look it up), but only for 7 days.
So maybe the good news we’ll have an excuse to get our .22 back from Cousin Eddie who’s been plinking from his RV parked in our front yard for the past week — sorry Eddie, after 7 days we have to get the Feds involved.
I go with Jason. Each of the exceptions must be read separately, not as if each one conditions any other. So you may trasfer a firearm to a friend for hunting as long as the transferee has a hunting license, and he possess it in a place where it is legal to hunt. And the duration allowed is the length of the hunting season. For going to and fro, the safe harbor transport law remains in effect.
I read tonight that the main sticking point is the record keeping requirement, and that, supposedly, the NRA will not oppose it if this requirement is dropped. MAIG refuses to lt that provision drop because it would, in their view, gut the background check requirement if you didn’t have to prove that you ran one before the transfer. But again, this only applies to the transfers taking place at an FFL; gifts and certain intrafamilial transfers, as well as bequests are exempt. So are hunting loans and loans at the range. So it is pretty much what we have in California already, where all PTP transfres have to take place through the auspices of an FFL.
Why are you trying to make excuses for this steaming pile of rights-infringing crap?
What does it take to pound some sense into your head? “Those who speak ill of us do not love us.” Schumer wants YOUR guns, and if he has to send armed police to your door to take them at gunpoint or kill you, well that’s quite alright with Chuck.
Finally. Someone who refuses to try and sugarcoat the truth. All the bans are trying to do is push the limits to see how much support they have. I for one believe at this time it is simply Prohibition all over again if they try an Executive Order to seize any and all arms from citizens. But there will come a day when compromises may rule and people will come to collect arms. On that day, it is the duty of the average American citizen to stand up and reply no when asked to give up their rights. Whether you believe in the ‘cold, dead hands’ routine or you just plain refuse, that is your duty because if you don’t, it is your children and children’s children who will ultimately pay the price for the compromise the government and you make. If you compromise on this, where does it end?
Probably won’t have to worry about it pal, this crap will never get past the house.
“It provides for hunting, competition, and range purposes”-SOOOO should we derive from this that you are okay with being limited in what you are ALLOWED to do with your own property? You trust your friend-yet now you need to take a day off to babysit him at the range, still feel comfortable with that?
The only way this makes sense is that there are so many poison pills that he knows this won’t pass which is what he wants. Hey, he tried, right?
Otherwise there is no way this is enforceable unless your Gestapo just ordered 1.6 billion rounds of ammo. Oh, wait…
Has anyone noticed that the Jews are at the forefront of the gun grab?
I also noticed that not one cat has spoken out against any of this, they must all be complicit. Gerbils, too, we have revieved ZERO support from Gerbils. I knew it would be a dark day when cat’s and gerbils start working together. And now that I think about it, everyone who has proposed major restrictions spoke English, we should look into that.
Alan Gottlieb and Alan Gura are on the other side, and they are not alone. I wouldn’t worry about ethnicity and religion in these matters – gun grabbers come from all over, as do defenders of the 2nd Amendment rights.
hey, nobody notices that Israelis round up Palestinians into ghettos either.
The “at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms ” text is VERBATIM, exactly the same, as the wonderful UBC bill (HB-1229) (Go look at it for yourself!) that just passed here in Colorado.
I *knew* our reps didn’t write these bills themselves out here! This seals it. Are you a state legislator that knows nothing about firearms? Need a bill written? Talk to Chuck!
Colorado was certainly the “test state” for this one. Expect mag cap language to come up next… Say it with me folks, “Readily Convertible.”
You think team obama was there to go skiing and eat Rocky Mountain Oysters? Everything they touch they destroy. The poll in CO are following orders and not thinking for themselves or listening to the people they are suppose to serve.
To be entirely honest, many of our state gun rights victories came through the power of an organization called the American Legislative Exchange Council. It was boilerplate language, written by ALEC, that became the backbone of CCW legislation and Stand Your Ground laws across the country.
The Democrats are simply picking up on a 15 year old GOP technique. Very poorly at that.
Your stupid and blind, Diane Feinstein must be a wonderful person. Shallow thinking is how we lose.
And as soon as it doesn’t cost any of them votes, they jump on the band wagon to. DO SOME RESEARCH INTO IT, I HAVE. NEED HELP? READ THE JEWISH TALMUD AND THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION… AND EDUCATE YOURSELVES
I’ll admit that too many of my brethren suffer from hoplophobia. My guess is that it is partly due to the victimhood culture that is reinforced through our heritage. But like another poster said, Gura and Gottlieb have done more good for our cause than all of the bad legislations banners have put together combined. You may want to educate yourself as to how the Russians put together that garbage of a racist document to justify the pogroms they so wanted to effectuate.
I’ve never understood how the story of Israel has been spun into one of victimhood. It’s a history lesson that ecapsulates the “bondage > spiritual faith > courage > liberty > abundance > selfishness > complacency > apathy > dependency > bondage” civilizational cycle quite vividly with an empasis on “spiritual faith” and faltering therefrom leading to the back side of the cycle. To hear God tell it, the same folks who might be victims would also be the victors, as they did it to themselves by turning their backs on Him, only to lose everything and turn back to Him, and those former blessings slowly restored. For those not so religiously inclined, you could capture the essence of the cycle by folks turning their backs on decency, civic virtue and even fundamental physical truths such as math. So it’s more a story of triumph over our common human frailty and perseverance than victimhood.
http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_copybook.htm
Oh, and a few jews run this very blog you commented on…
“READ THE JEWISH TALMUD AND THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION… AND EDUCATE YOURSELVES”
That’s an old anti-Jewish fraud. Here’s a good place for YOU to educate yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocols_of_the_elders_of_zion
What if a gun is owned by multiple people? It could then be transferred between multiple people without an FFL or NICS check. Also, if you are only selling part ownership, would a background check be required by law?
They’ve always left an out of that sort for corporations. The bosses always exempt their hired gunmen.
Leaving the 2nd Amendment to the side for a moment, what exactly is the Federal nexus or interest here? Do they think that the Commerce Clause stretches to cover purely in-state transactions between private parties?
yes, because it could have ‘possibly’ been an out of state transfer. even though it happened in-state. yeah, makes no sense but that’s how it works. the commerce clause interpretation is the achilles heel of this nation.
Do they think that the Commerce Clause stretches to cover purely in-state transactions between private parties?
I think you need to do some reading on the Commerce Clause. Look up Wickard v. Filburn and then get back to me.
I might not have liked how the Obamacare case turned out, but it does plan a Commerce Clause flag. I guess we’ll see.
Okay, I read about as much as I can stomach, and it stinks to high hell. Combine this with NBC touting “the NRA supports the background check law!”, this thing has disaster written all over it.
For those of you with a good eye for politics, give it to us straight: Is this piece of shit gonna pass?
It has no Republican support. It is being shopped around. What we have here is the proposal, what it will end up if not DOA, is anyone’s guess right now
Chris Cox calls BS on the nbc story that the NRA supports the bill.
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2013/3/statement-from-chris-w-cox-nra-ila-executive-director-regarding-inaccurate-nbc-story-alleging-that-nra-wont-oppose-background-check-bill.aspx
I would like to point out, that W. VA Senator Joe Manchin is helping Chuck Shumer with this bill. So, I say again, is he for the 2a, or he against it and how many times will he flip-flop?
I hope our friend from W. VA will be all over his butt once again
I would just like to point out that this passed Judiciary 10-8 along party lines earlier today. It will now see a floor vote in the Senate.
Anyone still support “universal” background checks???
Well, apparently Manchin doesn’t support it anymore.
Just checked Thomas, and Schumer introduced this with no co-sponsors.
Are you sure, because MSM is reporting that Manchin is shopping it to Republicans for support
I live in North MS and there is no ammo other than cheap ineffective rounds of .45, .22 short, and the occasional turkey round for 20 and 12 gauge (sorry- we’ve been out of 00 buckshot for some time). This is what happens when you elect anti-gun liberals to office. They say they’re making us ‘safer’ but I think the only way to stay safe is to use firearms as a ‘deterrent’ for crime. Once they come to take my guns, two things will be true. 1)I will not die with any rounds left and 2)I will die. My rights are more important to me than my life. Take a stand and show Washington that the American people will not bow down and take their laws with no voice. We are the army of law-abiding citizens who will protect this country when our government fails to do so. Welcome to America. Where do you want it?
This is what happens when you elect anti-gun liberals to office. They say they’re making us ‘safer’ but I think the only way to stay safe is to use firearms as a ‘deterrent’ for crime. Once they come to take my guns, two things will be true. 1)I will not die with any rounds left and 2)I will die. My rights are more important to me than my life. Take a stand and show Washington that the American people will not bow down and take their laws with no voice. We are the army of law-abiding citizens who will protect this country when our government fails to do so. Welcome to America. Where do you want it?
“The crazier it gets” is really a gamble.
Odds are that it wont get passed, but if it does, youre royally f^cked.
here’s a idea: mandatory sentencing to a federal prison for introducing bills that violate the constitution…
sound radical? now you protectionists know what its like!
Did anyone notice that Chuckie is giving the Honorable Mr. Holder an extra $100,000,000 a year to enforce this tyranny?
I am so sick of all these proposed punishments, disguised as public safety regulations, aimed directly at law abiding citizens so as to impede their ability to enjoy their hobbies, their pursuit of happiness, and more importantly their civil rights.
Wonder if they will forget LEOs like New York and make it a felony to issue an officer a sidearm.
I read everything in the bill that pertains to individual citizens (skimmed most of the bit directed at the states) and I noticed that they didn’t exempt temporary transfers to police officers during any sort of police encounter. I can just imagine an armed citizen stopped for something minor, the officer taking control of the weapon, and then arresting the citizen for transferring a firearm without using an FFL and conducting the required background check.
No Nick, the problem isn’t if the FFL fee is set too high. The problem is if it’s set too low.
What if Holder sets the fee at $500.00 or $1000.00?
A few issues to consider:
1) Jason above is wrong. He is not being lawyerly enough. The bill defines a “transfer” as many things, including a loan. In addition, a temporary loan does not run afoul of the bill if it occurs only (a) at a range that is incorporated and organized for (i) conservation purposes or (ii) to foster proficiency in firearms non-profit shooting competitions and (c) hunting related outings. The other posters are correct, you can’t loan out a firearm to someone without you being there if it’s not for hunting, or if the range’s incorporation documents don’t relate to conservation or firearm proficiency.
2) the 24-hour reporting requirement may be in contravention of the holding in Haynes v. U.S. In that case, the court held that a felon cannot be required to register a firearm, as that would go against his constitutional right against self-incrimination – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States. The way this law is written, it requires you to report a stolen firearm within 24-hour of your discovery of that fact. If you fail to do so, you are now a felon. The government can’t require you to incriminate yourself.
Tyranny continues unabridged, and Americans do nothing. For how long? Could this bill, effectively taxing and destroying the civil rights of gun owners, finally step past the line in the sand for some Americans? I hope so.
As was said above, the founding fathers would be shooting by now. It really is too bad that resistance is no longer as simple as grabbing the musket and lining up at the bridge. Oppressive governments thrive on the complexities technology introduces and the vast disparity between what the military owns and what the subjects own. It’s not impossible to resist, Americans just need to be more creative, less selfish, and more adaptable.
That said, what chance does this bill have? Is it a AWB-style monster designed to raise the point to ridiculousness so as to be negotiated down to “common sense?”
27 words written over 220 years ago recognized our natural right to protect ourselves and our Country. Now, politicians hide behind pages and pages of wording, to try and take that away. No matter how much text they put in legalese on documents, “Shall not be infringed” will trump it all.
Sec. 9. Recall of public officers: Procedure and limitations. Every public officer in the State of Nevada is subject, as herein provided, to recall from office by the registered voters of the state, or of the county, district, or municipality which he represents. For this purpose, not less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the number who actually voted in the state or in the county, district, or municipality which he represents, at the election in which he was elected, shall file their petition, in the manner herein provided, demanding his recall by the people. They shall set forth in said petition, in not exceeding two hundred (200) words, the reasons why said recall is demanded. If he shall offer his resignation, it shall be accepted and take effect on the day it is offered, and the vacancy thereby caused shall be filled in the manner provided by law. If he shall not resign within five (5) days after the petition is filed, a special election shall be ordered to be held within thirty (30) days after the issuance of the call therefor, in the state, or county, district, or municipality electing said officer, to determine whether the people will recall said officer. On the ballot at said election shall be printed verbatim as set forth in the recall petition, the reasons for demanding the recall of said officer, and in not more than two hundred (200) words, the officer’s justification of his course in office. He shall continue to perform the duties of his office until the result of said election shall be finally declared. Other candidates for the office may be nominated to be voted for at said special election. The candidate who shall receive highest number of votes at said special election shall be deemed elected for the remainder of the term, whether it be the person against whom the recall petition was filed, or another. The recall petition shall be filed with the officer with whom the petition for nomination to such office shall be filed, and the same officer shall order the special election when it is required. No such petition shall be circulated or filed against any officer until he has actually held his office six (6) months, save and except that it may be filed against a senator or assemblyman in the legislature at any time after ten (10) days from the beginning of the first session after his election. After one such petition and special election, no further recall petition shall be filed against the same officer during the term for which he was elected, unless such further petitioners shall pay into the public treasury from which the expenses of said special election have been paid, the whole amount paid out of said public treasury as expenses for the preceding special election. Such additional legislation as may aid the operation of this section shall be provided by law.
[Added in 1912, amended in 1970 and 1996. The addition was proposed and passed by the 1909 legislature; agreed to and passed by the 1911 legislature; and approved and ratified by the people at the 1912 general election. See: Statutes of Nevada 1909, p. 345; Statutes of Nevada 1911, p. 448. The first amendment was proposed and passed by the 1967 legislature; agreed to and passed by the 1969 legislature; and approved and ratified by the people at the 1970 general election. See: Statutes of Nevada 1967, p. 1782; Statutes of Nevada 1969, p. 1663. The second amendment was proposed and passed by the 1993 legislature; agreed to and passed by the 1995 legislature; and approved and ratified by the people at the 1996 general election. See: Statutes of Nevada 1993, p. 3135; Statutes of Nevada 1995, p. 2887.] (Most states have this Law in your constitution)
Did anyone notice exceptions for transportation and/or repair? Am I felon when I hand the gun to UPS to ship it to myself for a hunting trip. Or do I need to fill out a 4473 to pick up my gun from the smith?
because drug control has worked out so well.
I am incapable of the mental gymnastics Progressives have to go through to justify this.
WILL NOT COMPLY. Shove it Chuck!
Chuckie: The enemy within.
Nothing new here. In Massachusetts, we have to pay a $100 fee just to turn it the paperwork for the license to own a firearm. And of course the police don’t have to give you any reason at all for turning you down.
Also note that ANY bill that does pass into law will then be loaded & “clarified” by Executive Order to encompass even more draconian rules of its implementation. We MUST squash all of these Federal 2A infringing bills. There is NO reason to accept ANY of our representatives supporting THIS or any of the others. To the phones!
I am a half-assed historian.
I was born in 1937 so I have a long span of history to reflect upon.
I was reading about Germany in 1932 and the election of Hitler to be Chancellor.
It struck me odd that almost 100% of the Jewish people in Germany voted for Hitler.
It seems like Hitler courted the Jews to get elected and then turned on the Jews. In fairness many other groups were counted by Hitler and were also turned on and executed.
I know that history repeats itself for those who fail to study history and learn from the actions of the passed.
It being’s us to 2008 and 2012. Over 90% of the blacks voted for Obama, over 80% of the hispanics voted for Obama and almost 100% of the Jews voted for Obama.
I think we are seeing a repeat of history, 1932 Germany, right here in America.
The sad thing is the Jews of Germany, 1932, died for their votes.
Could the blacks, the hispanics and the jews have elected their own executioner?
History shows that Socialism always turns into Totalitarianism and murders it’s most ardent followers.
I hope that I am wrong, but I do not think so, but time and the body court will prove me right or wrong
If they want my guns, they can come and try to take them. They may well succeed, but they better bring a pile of body bags. They will be leaving full.
Dear chuckie,
When the time comes please come to disarm me yourself. Don’t send someone elses son or daughter to do your nefarious work. Do it yourself you petty, cowardly little tyrant. Look forward to the meeting. Until then you might try reading and understanding the consitution you swore an oath to uphold.
At some point the American People have to stand up and say enough – or do we wait till we have no rights – this is BS and they no it – they want everyone to be dumb and with out our rights. PEOPLE start sending the message that it’s time to go!!!
This bill would be an absolute disaster for MA residents due to our “consumer protection” laws restricting the makes/models of handguns that can be transferred via FFL. There’s a fairly brisk FTF trade among gun owners in handguns that are legal to own, but not to transfer through an FFL.