Congressional Democrats Plan to Vote On Outlawing All Private Gun Sales

Universal Background checks private gun sales ban

courtesy Politico and AP

Democrats haven’t even grabbed the Speaker’s gavel from Republicans in the House of Representatives yet, but they’re wasting no time in preparing a raft of gun control bills they plan on fast-tracking to the floor for votes. Their latest impingement on American’s right to keep and bear arms: banning all private gun sales.

From politico.com:

With backing from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and key chairmen, Democrats will move to require federal background checks on all gun sales, part of a broader effort by the party to advance long-stalled gun control measures.

Yes, well we still have a bicameral legislature in Washington, so whatever the House manages to pass still has to make it through the (even more) Republican-controlled Senate. But House Dems have no illusions about their anti-gun measures actually becoming law.

While the proposal won’t get through the Republican-run Senate, much less become law, getting through the House will be a win for the gun-control movement, which has little to cheer about since President Donald Trump was sworn into office.

This is all about appeasing their increasingly port-leaning base and playing to what they have convinced themselves is a broader electorate that’s increasingly receptive to more restrictive gun control measures.

Some of the usual suspects on the GOP side from historically anti-gun states will conveniently provide the Dems with a fig leaf of bipartisan support for their civilian disarmament efforts.

Thompson, a close Pelosi ally, said the bill would have bipartisan sponsorship, although he declined to name the Republican lawmakers who’ll sign onto it. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), who has co-authored background checks bills with Thompson in the past, has already told reporters that he will back this latest effort as well. …

Thompson’s legislation will require federal background checks on all gun sales, including private transactions. There likely will be some small exemptions, such as transfers between family members, or temporary use of a gun for hunting. Gun-control groups estimate that roughly one-fifth or more of gun sales don’t include background checks.

If you intend to argue that virtually no mass shooters have ever obtained their firearms through private sales, don’t waste the electrons. If you point out that just about all of them (those who didn’t steal their weapons) have passed NICS checks before committing their crimes, the proponents of “universal background checks” will just plug their ears and yell LA LA LA LA LA!

Don’t bother noting the fact that an anti-gun advocacy group found that universal background checks in California did nothing to reduce “gun violence” there. And save your breath if you’re thinking of mentioning the reality that most criminals get their guns through illegal channels.

Countering these bills with facts won’t make the slightest bit of difference to Congressional Democrats because SHUT UP. 

 

comments

  1. avatar Gman says:

    Under what Constitutional authority shall Congress enact a law regulating the private sale of arms between citizens of the same state? None. All who vote for this should be immediately removed from office for cause. Violation of their oath of office.

    1. avatar UsedToBePun says:

      The better questions are: Why do people in Washington State allow people from thousands of miles away dictate how they live? Why do people in Texas have to comply with laws and statutes that do not have any bearing on them? Why do people who live in rural areas have to abide by laws meant for people who live in metropolises and vice versa? Why do we pay taxes when it goes thousands of miles away or to foreign countries or to support things that we find abhorrent? Why did we think making an entire continental empire would be conducive to freedom?

      Why should a group of bureaucrat elitists who are completely out of touch with reality get to decide – whether voted in or not – what is good for people whom they are out of touch with?

      We’ve created our own nightmarish matrix world and called in the law of the land and the just, ordained government.

      Seems to me that our founding documents say things about governing by the consent of the governed. I don’t recall ever giving my consent. And if any percentage of people can override my will to govern myself then that is just tyranny by a fancy name like “democracy”. Three wolves and two lambs deciding what’s for lunch can be called many things but it can never be called “just”.

      1. avatar sparkyinWI says:

        This ^^^^^

        1. avatar DJ says:

          Anyone to Yellow Vests?

      2. avatar Anonymous says:

        I’m just waiting on you, to systematically take out 40 representatives from the house. The result would be an instant change in power in the house from Blue to Red. This would instantly cause civil war 2.0. We would win, because the left are effeminate indoor cats (beta males) who couldn’t live a second without electricity, a grocery store, a government to tell them what is moral, how to fight with fists or a gun, or how to survive without a government handout.

        From the ashes, we could rebuild and start all over with less insanity. I’m not going to say the insanity will be completely gone, but it will be less. And we can tweak the constitution to better ensure rights. We can create a branch of government whose sole purpose is to repeal or consolidate laws. We can create a constitution better rebuilding federalism and individualism, over the rampant nanny state marxist statism that has taken over. We can instantiate, a freedom based government (or attempt to) rather than a two party system looking to take each others freedom away until nothing is left.

        Then finally, I can move out to the countryside, buy whatever guns I like, and do whatever I want, so long as I’m not hurting anyone. It will be epic. And I can finally be left alone. People can stop taking all my money in the form of tax. People can stop telling me how to live my life. People can stop trying to manage my retirement for me. People can stop trying to manage my healthcare for me. I can have banned lawn darts back. I can get a gas can without a silly baby proof spout. They can get out of my personal life and leave me alone. It’ll be great.

        1. avatar Salty Bear says:

          Wait, you would go to all that trouble just to start ANOTHER GOVERNMENT? Something something definition of insanity.

        2. avatar Gordon in MO says:

          The left ignores existing law (the Constitution) now, what makes you think they would obey any new law?

          Their goal is destruction of America and they are winning. Demographics will give them a majority in the not too distant future and they will pick kup BO’s mantle, ignore the Constitution on the way to civil war.

        3. avatar Ed in North Texas says:

          I do think we are rushing toward a civil insurrection. I fear that while we are so engaged our global enemies (the PRC, DPRK, Russian Federation and the EU) will attack us. The Islamists of Iran will likely be too busy with the Israelis to also attack us.

          I could be wrong, but why they would pass on the opportunity would truly be strange.

      3. avatar BLAMMO says:

        Because, we’re-the-government-and-we-can-do-whatever-the-fuck-we-want.

        1. avatar tmm says:

          Good and plenty…

      4. avatar ronno says:

        Well there was big kerfluffle many years ago concerning states rights versus Federal authority. States basically lost unfortunately which is the root of many of our problems. Let california ban everything but dont try to enforce the same laws in Texas for example. We would be way better off if the gov. was run the way it was meant to be.

    2. avatar NJ2AZ says:

      don’t you know, you selling a gun to your friend in the same state means he might not otherwise travel to another state, purchase a firearm there, then have an FFL there ship it back to his home state. The “commerce between the states” implications are OBVIOUS!

      this is 100%+ sarcasm, btw, but sadly its exactly the mental gymnastics they will use to argue why the feds have the authority

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        It really is an interesting question, since the authority to require background checks w2en purchasing from an FFL derives solely from the authority of the Feds to regulate FFLs, suggest that they will find it necessary to stuff this into a commerce clause law is probably the way they will have to do. “Iron river of guns,” and all that.

      2. avatar Anonymous says:

        don’t you know, you selling a gun to your friend in the same state means he might not otherwise travel to another state, purchase a firearm there, then have an FFL there ship it back to his home state. The “commerce between the states” implications are OBVIOUS!

        Build a gun factory in each state. That factory can assert they will not sell any firearms to any other state. Thereby none of those firearms need to be registered that are built there. They just sell direct to the people – zero registration. Feds can FO. People of that state can get quality firearms. Technically, you shouldn’t have to be a registered FFL to be in the business to buy and sell guns, as long as they are manufactured and sold in your state. (Granted the ATFholes won’t accept that), but if you are going to legislate/regulate on the basis of “commerce between states” then this shouldn’t apply to you!

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          “…but if you are going to legislate/regulate on the basis of “commerce between states” then this shouldn’t apply to you!”

          But it does apply to you and if it doesn’t they’ll make a law that says it does. That law will be found to be acceptable use of the Commerce Clause in conjunction with the Necessary and Proper Clause. Just look to Gonzales v. Raich (2005) for the most recent SCOTUS precedent on intrastate commerce and the feds ability to regulate it.

        2. avatar rt66paul says:

          How does that work for whiskey distillers?

        3. avatar burley says:

          How about we tar and feather every politician that votes on this excrement and then make sure the SCOTUS does its due diligence and reverses every single infringement and every single enumerated right? WE THE PEOPLE hold ALL the authority…

      3. avatar Cloudbuster says:

        The Wickard decision basically made the commerce clause a general grant of regulatory power because it ruled that even activities that involved no interstate commerce could be regulated because they had an indirect “impact” in interstate commerce.

        We need a Supreme Court with balls and integrity enough to overturn Wickard.

        1. avatar Ed in North Texas says:

          Bingo. To save some readers the effort of looking Wickard v. Filburn up: Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who was growing wheat for his own use (feed his animals) on his farm, not to sell. He was fined for failing to comply with the Roosevelt the Younger’s administration regulations limiting the amount of food which could be grown. This shortage in supply would supposedly push up the price farmers received. Of course if the farmers were paid more wholesale, then the people having to buy the food during the depression would have to pay more to feed their families and might not have a job to come up with the additional money. There is no limit to the evil in which Leftists/Socialists/Communists/Democrats will engage if left to their own devices.

          In any event Roscoe Filburn filed suit against the AgSecretary Wickard, claiming that the the Federal Crop support program was unconstitutional. The SCOTUS, after having been threatened by Roosevelt the Younger with “packing” the court because the SCOTUS kept insisting on ruling the way the Constitution had always been interpreted previously (for freedom), ruled that any foodstuff produced for any reason whatsoever impacted the other food in interstate commerce and so impacted interstate commerce and the program was in accord with the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. This case still impacts us today.

      4. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

        After all, in WIckard v. Filburn the supreme court ruled that not being interstate commerce was sufficient grounds to regulate something as interstate commerce.

        Go figure.

    3. avatar Ark says:

      THIS! It’s not interstate commerce. Congress, fuck off and stay in your lane.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Too bad that a series of piss poor court cases have created a situation where everything is interstate commerce even if there is no interstate commerce involved.

        The idea that intrastate commerce *might* have an effect in another state, regardless of what that effect is or if it can even be proven to exist, has been found to be enough to allow federal involvement under the commerce clause.

    4. avatar frank speak says:

      they’ve talked themselves into believing this is a real threat…and a meaningful issue….when it’s a complete falsehood….more misinformation from the left….

  2. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    DemoCommies , and some RINOs reinventing a “Authoritarian Police-State…” Nothing new to see here….Remember, United we stand, divided we fall…We The People need to grow a giant sack and remove “professional politicians” from office…Imagine how many DemoCommies would NOT be in office if the public service position paid federal minimum wage, and Obama care…

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Well, the question is whether or not all 47 Democrat Senators and 13 Republican (of the “Name Only” variety) Senators would get on board. I have a hunch that it will actually be too close for comfort.

      1. avatar Blkojo says:

        Exactly.

  3. avatar Gman says:

    Not that they care but I think we are doing an excellent job of policing our own community. Having both bought and sold privately many times over the past 10 years, every transaction required a bill of sale, photo copied state/federal ID, AND good guy papers (CCW Permit, Active Duty ID). Are there those who don’t care, sure, but IMHO they are few and far betwixt.

  4. avatar Yep says:

    The Federal Government only has Constitutional authorization to regulate interstate commerce. It has no authority to regulate intrastate commerce.

    It is beyond the scope of the Federal Government’s enumerated powers.

    Nancy Pelosi surely knows this, but doesn’t care. They’ve gotten away with sh1tting on the Constitution for a long time.

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      I believe your interpretation is what the Founders intended. Unfortunatelt, Wickard v. Filburn, one of the worst Supreme Court decisions, says otherwise. Filburn was penalized for growing wheat for private consumption in excess of federal limits. They ruled that if he hadn’t used his own wheat, he would have bought it on the open market, so his non-participation in the market affected interstate commerce. It was used as the basis for Gonzales v. Raich, which nixed personal growth of marijuana despite there being no legal interstate commerce of marijuana. Thomas and Ginsburg are the only ones left from Raich, and they were on opposite sides. As an interstate commerce issue, not 2A, I’d expect Roberts to jump through hoops the gjve Congress the benefit of the doubt.

      1. avatar Yep says:

        I remember learning in college (class on law) about the case of Wickard v. Filburn.

        At that moment, I realized our courts had abandoned even the pretense of operating according to the Constitution. The Federal Government simply does as it pleases. Might makes right. There is no rule of law.

        That court case took place back in 1942 as I recall. We’ve gone a long way down that road.

        On the positive side, the corrupt government of deceitful men makes us long more deeply for the return of Christ.
        He will:
        1. Save those who trust and follow Him, wiping away every tear.
        2. Pour out the fierce wrath of God against His enemies (which seems to include most of our political “leaders”).
        3. Establish peace and righteousness forever and ever

        Our ultimate hope is in Jesus Christ. Until He returns, we must fight the good fight.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          You know how we’re told that the SCOTUS is above political pressure? Well, Wickard v. Filburn is proof that this isn’t true.

          If you read the history of the time you’ll find that Roosevelt’s court packing scheme put a ton of pressure on the court to stop striking down parts of the New Deal. This pressure led to Robert Owens to change sides on a case called West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937). This effectively led to the end of the Court as a check on gov’t power under the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses until 1995 when the court decided in United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr (1995) that the government didn’t have the power to regulate things like this under the Commerce Clause and struck down the 1990 Gun Free School Zones Act.

          Janet Reno then had the text of the GFSZA amended in 1996 to require that the gun “has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce…” which is basically just an end run around the court’s ruling and an attempt to return back to Filburn because the feds basically argue now that a gun, even if made and sold only in intrastate commerce has portions of it that come from outside the state (the iron to make the steel being mined in State X, the steel being produced in state Y while the gun is made in state Z, so even if the gun never leaves state Z it’s still interstate commerce).

          So the court was politically pressured by Roosevelt’s court packing plans which led to a switch in the way the SCOTUS ruled and created a precedent that lasted for 58 years. The Rehnquist court made strides in reversing this but over time we’ve back-slid to a more Hughes court interpretation of Congressional power in this regard.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          Oh and even if the iron mined, made into steel and then turned into a gun all in State Z we still get the Filburn logic that this affects interstate commerce because if the iron/steel were not produced in state Z then the gun company would have to buy the steel from an outside source. So no matter what it’s interstate commerce and therefore subject to federal regulation. Because guns.

          Thanks Janet Reno!

        3. avatar Binder says:

          Sorry, that is just wrong. That may have been the argument that congress made when they amended the law, but look at the court cases after the change and you will see that no judge tried to use that argument for upholding the law.

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      I’m awaiting for the day when the Constitution shits back on traitors.

      1. avatar luigi says:

        It needed an enforcement mechanism. Badly.

  5. avatar UpInArms says:

    It’s not really about guns anymore. The Democrats want everyone to believe we’re just a bunch of whiners throwing a tantrum over losing our toys. But it’s really about whether any government body, at any level, can legislate away a protected right- any protected right. It all looks like a fight over 2A, but it’s gone much broader than that at this point.

    The SC needs to step up and draw some boundaries here. If they don’t do it soon, bad things are going to happen.

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      Very much this. Free speech. Protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Right to a speeding and public trial by jury. All so inconvenient for people who want to rule like feudal lords did back in the good old days.

    2. avatar L says:

      I wouldn’t say shooting commies is a bad thing.

    3. avatar Eagle1105 says:

      You are spot on in your comments. We are in for a bunch more of this too. Can you imagine if Hillary made it in? Lord help us!

    4. avatar burley says:

      Ultimately, this is going to fall back on what I like to call “the 4th branch of the U.S. Government”, also known as “We The People”. If WE don’t start doing things that absolutely TERRIFY any sitting politician and at least the next generation of potential politicians, this republic is done for.

  6. avatar Swarf says:

    And this is why they keep losing mature, adult voters.

    1. avatar GDMF says:

      They make up for that many times over with illegal, harvested and purely fabricated votes so… not a loss for them, unfortunately.

      1. avatar L says:

        “fabricated votes”

        [citation needed]

        1. avatar Draven says:

          the ‘found votes’ in FL that were all for Democrats?

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          How about the incident in Chicago where they found 2000 people to sign an affidavit taking away their signature to put a conservative on the ballot? A petition that had less than 1000 actual signatures.

      2. avatar Rick says:

        Exactly! If you can’t win an election by popularity, fabricate enough votes until you do. It’s worked in Chicago for decades.

        1. avatar Patrick H says:

          If you can’t win the popular vote, just gerrymander the districts until you win anyway.

        2. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          Or just rebrand it ‘redistricting’ if you are of the regressive commie persuasion.

        3. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

          @Rick – Agreed. And it seems certain blue counties in Florida are trying to catch up!

          @Patrick and Krog – Oh puh-LEEEZE, you two! What, do you just close your eyes to the practice when Repubs do the exact same thing in red districts? So it’s A-OK as long as “our side” does it, but look at those evil “commies” doing the same thing?

          Wow… that’s some twisted thinking right there.

        4. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          @ShallNot, or you know, you could actually read what I posted and not assume I think a double standard is okay just you play semantics.

        5. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          Just because*

          I love the lack of an edit button…🙄

        6. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

          @ Krog – I did actually read what you posted, and was not playing semantics. Hey, my bad – I haven’t seen anyone else around here (except the troll fleet) refer to Republicans as “the regressive commie persuasion.”

          Fine – that’s not who you meant, so I retract my implied criticism. But your comment seemed to be only directed at Libs, so I ASSumed that’s who you were referring to. I’m sure you can see how someone could make that connection, right?

  7. avatar I1uluz says:

    It sets up their next move when this bill is passed, only way it will work is to pass a bill requiring all private firearms be registered in a federal data base, it’s “common sense”.

    This is a long game strategy, set it up till they have complete power, get everyone to think that is really going to fix the criminal/mentally ill issue that cause the deaths by firearms. There will be less resistance to point out everything on here knows that it will not change anything except to make more criminals from those who lost their firearms in a tragic boating accident.

    1. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      Yes, and they frequently admit to the illusion that any of these actions would have actually stopped whatever killing event they are exploiting, their schemes don’t even have to work, as long as it might have one life, the inconvenience is worth it, right? Don’t be selfish when all those kids are dying, even if this doesn’t stop anything, at least we are doing something right, not letting that blood be spilled for nothing?

      They may just be pandering to their base, but I do admire that they fight for what they want, they always have something in the back pocket to try, and even against impossible odds they are relentless. The Republicans should learn from this. At best the Republicans are defensive, they will defend some rights but rarely push to truly reform, and don’t seem to have a master plan, if, for instance, they had control of Congress and the presidency, what is their vision for America? If they had supermajorities, would they maintain status quo if they could do anything they wanted?

      It is the rare Republican saying “the Hughes Amendment was wrong, we must repeal it!” Or “we must deregulate SBRs and machine guns.” The house did pass carry reciprocity, tried for hearing protection act but got scared away any time a gun crime was committed and decided banning bump stocks was probably a better thing to talk about. Again, no courage to really fight for it, or seeming understanding of why gun rights are a good thing.

      The Democrats have a pretty consistent platform and agenda in guns. I don’t know that beyond saying “we support the second amendment” that the Republicans actually do.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        give it up on the machine guns…congress (and the NRA)…are happy with the status quo….need to make a stand on the semi’s, though……

  8. avatar Gman says:

    The SC needs to step up and draw some boundaries here

    I have a dream, I have a dream…

    In a landmark ruling today, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that all state and federal laws infringing upon the right of the People to keep and bear arms, are unconstitutional. The unanimous ruling was short and sweet.

    We find that the right of the People to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed in any way. We also find that the prefatory statement of the 2nd Amendment, providing a reason the right was enumerated, specifically protects the right of the People to keep and bear any such arms found necessary and useful to a modern military. That nothing in this ruling or the 2nd Amendment shall ever be interpreted as to restrict that right in any way. All laws which inhibit that freedom are hence forth nullified.

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      You’re talking about Power. True Power is never given. It is always taken. Usually by force.

      Don’t expect the SC or any other branch of the Govt. to give any of their power over to the unwashed masses.

    2. avatar Dick Giddings says:

      The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is going to have to battle the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and then the SCOTUS when they pass their new proposed anti gun laws. Check out the Mayor of Pittsburgh who says the hell with all of them….

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        that gay mayor in Pittsburgh is infused with his own sense of self-importance….actually he’s just an arrogant asshole…and just a shell of what previous mayors were……

  9. avatar d says:

    Any politician that votes for an unconstitutional bill should be imprisoned for treason

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Shot for treason. You can’t pardon a corpse.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Actually you can. Somewhere around 20 people have been posthumously pardoned.

        Not that it means much… but useless political pandering is always possible!

  10. avatar Asdf says:

    Come on Dem’s, where is the ban on semiauto firearms, or the 50 cent tax per round of ammo? They aren’t even trying hard….yet.

  11. avatar Gman says:

    Seems like replies are being treated as new comments???

    1. avatar Gman says:

      Reply testing, 1, 2, 3,

      1. avatar Gman says:

        Nope, working fine, but edit/delete gone.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          why is that?….easy to make mistakes typing in the dark……

  12. avatar JMR says:

    People at the NRA are celebrating, coming off of a down financial year this will surely fill their coffers.

  13. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    They can say whatever they want to. Unless one gets setup during a sale. There is no way to stop me from giving or selling my property. To a known party by me.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Jay in Florida,

      After a law (which bans private firearm sales) becomes effective, private sales become a proverbial minefield.

      Sales of firearms manufactured AFTER the date at which private firearm sales are illegal:
      Sales of all newly manufactured firearms always run through federal firearm licensees. Thus, there is an easy paper trail for each firearm from manufacturer, to federal firearms licensee, to first private owner, and to any subsequent owners who transfer through a federal firearms licensee. If the person who possess a firearm does not match the last person on record, they are de facto guilty of obtaining a firearm through a private transfer. And how would you even know if the first sale of a firearm to a private owner occurred before or after the date that bans private transfers?

      Sales of firearms manufactured and purchased before the effective date that bans private transfers:
      Any firearms that were transferred through a federal firearm licensee before the effective date could be privately transferred an unlimited number of times without any legal jeopardy as long as none of the private transfers occurred through a federal firearm licensee after the effective date. The problem is, you would have no way of knowing if any previous owner had effected a private transfer through a federal firearm licensee. Thus, every single firearm could be a liability if law enforcement discovered it in your possession and traced it.

      The best solution is to stop this before it ever becomes law.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      especially if they can’t trace it back to you…just sayin’….

  14. avatar JohnnyL says:

    The point of this is not about public safety and it is not about stopping private gun sales. Which some on the left believe will magically stop all gun crime. The real goal is very simple which is to create a national registry which will be controlled by the Government. And when you have a national registry you can impose further restrictions down the road and other nonsense on law abiding firearm owners.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      and yet republicans are buying into this….Toomey, for example….

  15. avatar MB says:

    Good luck with that one, since they have yet to stop private illegal drug transactions, will be fun to watch them pontificate on how much good they have done..

  16. avatar MGD says:

    It won’t pass the senate, but even if it did, it would be absolutely unenforceable.

    1. avatar Lugnut says:

      Until signed by the President.

      1. avatar MGD says:

        It still has to get through the Senate.

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        some of trump’s actions… [and statements!]… have been questionable….

  17. avatar M1Lou says:

    If you can’t deal with your property as you see fit, as long as you are not harming others, then do you really own it?

  18. avatar Patrick H says:

    Um. This might not be the best idea I’ve heard lately, but it is very far from “banning all private gun sales”. No need to resort to click-bait headlines.

    1. avatar Draven says:

      It is universal background checks, which means that EVERY firearm transfer, you have to use an FFL and do a background check. Close enough.

  19. avatar tdiinva says:

    Relax. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to bring a bill to a vote

    I bet some you are happy McConnell didn’t nuke the filibuster over reciprocity and suppressors.

    1. avatar M1Lou says:

      Yes, relax. It’s how Republicans lost the house.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        More to do with the pile of never-trumpers retiring and their replacements being cut from the same cloth. Notice how not a single candidate that Trump personally endorsed lost.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          tell that to the republican senatorial and governor candidates in Pennsylvania…

      2. avatar tdiinva says:

        I bet you were sure the Republicans were going to cave after Sandy Hook and went out and bought a $500 AR for $2k.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          got offered $1800 for one…should have jumped on that……

  20. avatar Jim says:

    Hang on to your hats, boys, Democrats are just getting started when it comes to guns. Alongside that will be all kinds of legislation to force everyone to give up their fossil-fueled vehicles. They, and their environmentalists fellow travelers, are set to begin a no-more-fossil fuels rampage. The 2020 Democrat message (what used to be called a platform) will be based on no guns and no gas power, Save The Environment to Save The World message; while China and most of the third-world countries continue to pollute the shit out of the atmosphere building coal-burning power plants while the Democrats force us to change our way of life in the mistaken belief that this will save the planet.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      their strength is health care….and to some extent income inequality…beyond that they have little to offer…that has popular appeal….

    2. avatar ATTAGReader says:

      Their goal is to pack people into cities. It is much easier to control people in cities, and basically impossible to control them in the country. Ask the losing great power in every guerilla war.

  21. avatar Michael says:

    I’m just gonna’ hunker down and buy some more ammo. Now, where’d I put my shovel?. After midnight December 31st., I believe that the speaker of the house is only two heartbeats away from the Presidency. Safety for no life or property, the legislature is in session. -30-

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Michael,

      When it is time to bury your firearms and ammunition, it is actually time to use them.

  22. avatar Draven says:

    It wasn’t just ‘an anti-gun advocacy group’ like some random group off the street. It was the anti-gun researchers at UC Davis, people considered to be the California Assembly’s pet anti-gun scientists.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      hard to take anything seriously that emanates from california….

  23. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Why not rather Ban Commiecrats as they are Anti Constitution and America,problem solved.

  24. This is more than just a Second Amendment issue. Congress has ZERO authority, under the Commerce Clause, to regulate the sale of USED merchandise between two residents of the same state. That is, by definition INTRASTATE commerce, not INTERstate!!!

  25. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    Good luck with that…
    and enforcing it…LMAO

  26. avatar ROFuher says:

    Did you go boating last weekend, Dan?
    I haven’t notices your nautical nomenclature before.

  27. avatar possum says:

    All I did was read the heading, “congressional Democrat’s outlawing private gun sales.” Hahaha, Where,what, how, when, who, do what. Maybe they should try outlawing private drug sales too? Errr , well. Let’s outlaw booze, No. hell, is there anything we can outlaw that works….. Truth Uncle Sam, I will sell any gun I have and want to. And unlike an ARVN rifle, they have been fired,They’re just a little rusty from resting on the bed of Lake FUcK YoU

  28. avatar Shwiggie says:

    I hope they come forward with all the ridiculous gun control schemes they can imagine. Maybe it’ll wake up all the fence-straddlers among us.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      now you’re on to something!….their excesses are usually their undoing……

  29. avatar Brewski says:

    Y’know what would be infinitely more useful? Outlawing politicians that can’t follow the Constitution.

  30. avatar Ing says:

    Well, given what just happened in WA state with initiative 1639, I think you’ll see more public support for this crap than you think.

    It’s to be expected, what with the decades of public-school progressive indoctrination and news-media propaganda.

    There are a lot of dumb people in this country. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

    1. avatar jobo says:

      Hallelujah!

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      that’s become a hard-core blue state…not truly representative of most other states…..

  31. avatar VF1777 says:

    I wonder if they do actually realize that they are sewing the seeds of civil war. What’s scary is that it doesn’t even sound melodramatic anymore to say that. Most people seem to agree now there is a high likelihood of this happening. And with every push of the pendulum, the potential energy for the ‘equal and opposite reaction’ builds… Same thing happened before the Revolutionary war. At some point, it’s highly likely that one ‘shot heard round the world event will set the whole thing off. Then it gets real ugly, and I would guess that none of those who pushed this would fare well. I can only hope that somehow we can avoid this fate. 4GW is the US is not something I want my children to see. Ironic that my plea would be that they stop pursuing this course of action ‘for the children’, huh?

    1. avatar jimbo says:

      Proposing this type of legislation during a congressional term when it has no chance of passing actually works against Democrats in future elections by polarizing gun owning liberals and independents and pushing them to vote Republican in future elections. Think about it, considering the Democrats would need to have 65 republicans cross the isle to bypass a presidential veto on top of needing a majority in the senate the only reason for this type of political masturbation is to polarize conservatives. Basically this is political theater designed to get us hard working Americans to hate each other.

      1. avatar VF1777 says:

        It’s a good point, Jimbo. But zooming out a little, they just keep pushing and pushing and pushing ….and the tension keeps building… red flag laws, mag bans and confiscations, no fly lists, threatening federal confiscation with nukes for those who resist… it’s all building up, and sometimes all it takes is one spark to set the whole thing off. And I’m afraid that some of these leftists might have some delusional notion that the ‘Govt’ will just ‘round em all up’ and crush a few wacko gun nuts who resist. Hell, I bet old King George III thought the same thing in 1775.

        1. avatar jimbo says:

          The thought of armed revolution is scary on many levels and I don’t know where the line is where I’d grab a gun and jump in, but rolling up on 50, divorced with no kids I don’t have a whole lot to lose and not much to risk when it comes to weighing the cost of what I believe in vs. what I have to risk. With that said I think about the potential lives lost, the irreparable damage it would do to this country and infrastructure, the reality that a revolution would most probably fail when looking at our military and that would leave the totalitarian regime we’re headed to in a solid position of power. As I said, I don’t have a whole lot to lose and a patriots death to look forward to but I can’t help but hold onto the belief that there has got to be a better way so I keep searching and praying that I or someone else will find it. I think what’s different for me now than the me of ten years ago is that with the complete lack of accountability in Washington, steady erosion of civil liberties, growth of the surveillance state and awareness that this post will put me on a list is that at least twenty percent if not more of Americans feel the way I do. How else did a narcissistic asshole who feels the need to put his name on every building he owns get elected? Oh, yeah he was running against the poster child for embezzlement and sell out America to the highest bidder Hillary Clinton. I really do pray to a God I don’t believe in that people start waking up before it really is too late.

        2. avatar frank speak says:

          you can blame trump for “red-flag” laws…he opened the door for this…what was he thinking?

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      would seem we’re heading down the same road we traveled in the recent past…expect some ugly incidents with some loss of life…before we come to our senses……

  32. avatar New Continental Army says:

    Now is the time to stock up. Don’t be caught with your pants down in two years when the next panic hits.

  33. avatar jimbo says:

    Yawn, who cares it’s Democrat masturbation. Even if they had a senate seats there’s still presidential veto and they’d need sixty five republicans to cross the isle before being able to get around it and that’s not going to happen.

  34. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    But I have been assured by many who keen left politically that no one wants to take away our guns. They weren’t lying, were they?

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      standard tool in their repertoire….

  35. avatar B.D. says:

    They plan on doing a lot.

    I won’t lose sleep over ANY politicians plans. Regardless of side.

    “Come and take them”

  36. avatar 22winmag says:

    Don’t a few states allow [new] guns made in-state to be sold to in state-residents with no 4473?

  37. avatar Chris Morton says:

    Sham “universal” background checks are a nullity without registration.

    Registration has NO purpose beyond facilitation of future CONFISCATION.

    NO, I REFUSE.

  38. avatar Enuf says:

    Nothing new in any of this. The anti-gun people will try. The Second Amendment people will push back. The organizations to fight and lobby will sound constant warnings of doom and gloom begging for all your money. Same as always.

    I set a limit. Each year I give a donation to the NRA, GOA and SAF. Say around tax refund time, maybe annual membership plus $100. Never more than that, I ain’t rich. After that all the begging they do is wasted effort, I’m tapped out.

    Oh and do not count on Trump. He’s a liar, not a conservative or a gun person. He’s a con man and if he ever sees an advantage for himself personally he will feed gun owners to the wolves. His support of the Bump Stock Ban is merely the tip of the iceberg with that former Democrat, pretend Republican, “Everything Is All About Me” egotistical narcissistic nutjob .

    1. avatar luigi says:

      BUT BUT BUT HE DID THAT ONE THING AND GOT THAT GORSUCH GUY ON SCOTUS, JUST GIVE HIM SOME TIME
      /sarc

  39. avatar luigi says:

    Geez, they’re hitting the ground running. Big contrast between that and the Stupid Party’s brilliant last two years

  40. avatar arc says:

    This is entirely UNENFORCEABLE without complete registration systems in place. There is no duty to register in many states, hard to prove someone didn’t already own it.

  41. avatar bob says:

    Sounds like government overreach to me.

    Guess the rich and powerful run this country, not the people.

    Sounds like the last kingdom we were under…..

  42. avatar Ardent says:

    Not that they have a snowballs chance, but if this bill were to become law I submit that its primary effect would be to drive gun owners closer together and further underground at the same time. This effect, being part of something ostensibly illegal but harmless and fun has precedent in the US: Prohibition.
    The big winners with this bill are:
    Illegal gun runners and any criminal organization that has the capacity to step up and fill any void this bill may cause,
    Militias and certain paramilitary and quasi subversive groups, who will get a membership boost and talking points from it,
    And criminals who wish to commit armed violent crimes, since the increase in the black market for guns will make it easier for a prohibited person to aquire them.

    The big losers are gun collectors, people who need inexpensive guns fast, the people of the United States, who will see an increase in scofflaw behavior and increased mistrust of government and the government of the US, which would lose some credibility and popularity from this unworkable and ineffective dumpsterfire.

    Republicans will mostly oppose it because it won’t work and only infringes on the rights if the law abiding, progressives will mostly support it because it advances the cause of progressivism.

    And around and around it goes…

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