S.649: Reid's Base Gun Control Bill

[overhead]

That sounds just awesome. Has anyone challenged this law?

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by overhead

That sounds just awesome. Has anyone challenged this law?

If you mean the Lautenberg Amendment, there's a thread here.

[overhead]

Thanks, Vanya.

[Evan Thomas]

You're welcome, OH.

I've deleted a couple of posts. Opinions about marriage are off-topic.

I posted the link to discussion of the Lautenberg Amendment for those who are interested, but the subject of this thread is pending legislation.

[NY Stagehand]

I saw the other day the V.A. told NYS to pound sand on mental health reporting, citing that the information is protected by privacy laws. There is a whole pile of laws protecting Doctor-Patient communications and records at federal and state levels. I think that I'm seeing more people actually get involved in this fight from the privacy and health care angles. In my opinion, this is a good thing because it lays bare the goals of the Grabbers like Schumer. It narrows the scope of the argument and forces the fascists out in the open where more people can see what the problem is.

The pool of citizens facing "reporting" is large at the moment because of two wars and our national attempt (sic) to help our returning vets. The Grabbers are starting to feel the heat, even Chuck, over this approach.

[xtphreak]

Originally Posted by Vanya

You're welcome, OH.

I've deleted a couple of posts. Opinions about marriage are off-topic.

I posted the link to discussion of the Lautenberg Amendment for those who are interested, but the subject of this thread is pending legislation.

My intention was to show an actual instance where the state presumes your guilt until you prove otherwise, not to sidetrack the thread.
But some of these things are low profile until you run into it.

[BarryLee]

UPDATE: Another background check bill in the works.

The WSJ is reporting that Senator Manchin of West Virginia is working on another version of the background check bill that he hopes will be acceptable to more Senators. Right now he is attempting to convince Senator Coburn of Oklahoma to sign on to the bill.

The idea apparently is to replace Sen. Schumer’s more restrictive bill with this one which they believe will have a better chance of passing. Apparently the big catch is the obvious one of how to actually enforce the background check. Sen. Coburn is opposing any record keeping requirement. It sounds as if he wants some type of system that people can use to voluntarily check out an individual before transferring a firearm. Coburn stated, "I still believe people ought to have a way to not transfer a gun to somebody that's mentally impaired or somebody who's a criminal"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000..._WSJ_US_News_6

[Spats McGee]

Coburn stated, "I still believe people ought to have a way to not transfer a gun to somebody that's mentally impaired or somebody who's a criminal"

They do have a way. Follow "Cheapshooter's rules of gun ownership #1: NEVER SELL OR TRADE ANYTHING!"

[KyJim]

The link to the WSJ article about Manchini's version asks me to login or subscribe. So, content is not available to everyone.

[gc70]

Same here; BarryLee's link goes to a subscription page, but this Google link works for me.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ll_708778.html

According to this article, after criticism from the gun control crowd, Reid is going to include Senator Schumer's S.374 bill as part of the base Senate gun control bill. This means that all of the gun control in the Senate - trafficking, mental health provisions, etc. is going to be tied to S.374.

For those of you who aren't already aware, S.374 basically makes all gun owners into felons. Something as simple as showing your firearm to a friend now requires a NICS check unless you are in your own home or on a certified shooting range.

Loaning a shotgun to a friend for hunting and not on your own land? NICS check.

Going out of town for 8 days and want to leave a handgun for your spouse? NICS check.

Of course, in addition to these provisions, records must be kept of every transfer and the Attorney General can set whatever fee he decides is "reasonable" for the NICS check.

it is absolutely imperative you contact your Senators and let them know that this bill is not acceptable. They are trying to sell this as "reasonable background checks" but the bill will make it impossible to own a gun without eventually becoming a felon.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Folks, I cannot emphasize enough how serious this is. This bill is so bad that not one single Senator would co-sponsor. NRA F-rated Mark Kirk bailed out on this bill. Diane Feinstein didn't even co-sponsor this bill!

Please, call your Senators TODAY and tell them to oppose the Senate bill. This is not just background checks; this bill criminalizes everything gun owners do and there is a real chance it could pass because it is being sold as "reasonable background checks."

[2damnold4this]

It does sound like a bad bill. I wonder why Reid is letting it be part of the overall bill? Is this an attempt to torpedo the whole package?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Another aspect of this is Senators Schumer and Reid say they will allow S.374 to be amended from the floor. This means that whatever backroom negotiations have been going on, they thought that it was better to publish S.374 as a placeholder rather than let us see the "last-minute amendments" that are going to be offered to amend it.

[Tom Servo]

I wonder why Reid is letting it be part of the overall bill? Is this an attempt to torpedo the whole package?

There are two possibilities. The first is that he's under enough pressure to get one of the three tiers (AWB, universal checks, magazine restrictions) to the floor, pass or fail.

The other is that he believes it can pass. We know that it's sinister and destructive, but all Joe Six Pack hears is "background checks to keep guns out of the wrong hands." Rhetorically, this is a hard one to oppose. After all, who doesn't want to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill?

It's a cheap shot, right up there with "if it only saves one life," but it can work.

[harrys ghost]

I also saw mentioned in one of the recent articles about the background check being part of the main bill that they are also looking at what appears to be the proposal here in Minnesota. Namely, expanding background checks by requiring all gun show sales include background checks. Well, at least we would no longer have to hear about the gun show loophole.

[JimDandy]

The Federal bill is so much worse than that. S.374 is what it's called. There's a link to the text on the first page of this thread.

Lets say you and I go shooting in the desert/forest/boonies. You want to give my new rifle a try, so I let you get behind the scope for a shot. Under the Senate BG check law, that's a crime.

Lets say you're teaching your kid to shoot. So you go out, give him a gun long enough to shoot, then take it away. That's now a crime. You have to give him his own gun.

Lets say you DID give him his own gun to avoid becoming a criminal by accident. And he got some bad grades by paying too much attention to his gun & maintenance. So you ground him and take away the gun for 2 weeks. You just committed a crime on Day 8- technically on Day one since he didn't LOAN it to you, you took it from him.

Lets say to avoid all of this we go to an "incorporated range for the purpose of advancing marksmanship" or whatever the technical crap that wouldn't apply to home ranges, national forests, Boy Scout Camps, deserts, unincorporated wilderness areas, etc that are free and perfectly legal to shoot at.

While we're there I twist my ankle. You help me out to my car, then you drag my crap out to my car, stick my gun case in the trunk, your gun case in the trunk, our range bags in the back seat. Bingo, crime committed.

[BarryLee]

Same here; BarryLee's link goes to a subscription page, but this Google link works for me.

Sorry folks and thanks to gc70 for providing a good link.

Just be aware that they are working to come up with another background check proposal other than Schumer’s. While details are still sketchy the proposal will initially be less restrictive and easier to pass. However, we all know it just opens the door for their ultimate goal mandatory registration.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by BarryLee

Just be aware that they are working to come up with another background check proposal other than Schumer’s. While details are still sketchy the proposal will initially be less restrictive and easier to pass. However, we all know it just opens the door for their ultimate goal mandatory registration.

That is what they are telling the press, but I notice they aren't exactly rushing to publish the details of this "less restrictive" proposal where the rest of us can read the text for ourself. Not to mention that short of shooting gun owners on sight, you'd be hard pressed to come up with a more restrictive bill than S.374.

[Grizz12]

I got this email with a link to this bill. it comes from Rand Paul


Dear fellow Patriot,

My jaw hit the floor.

After reading Senator Dianne Feinstein’s new so-called "Assault Weapons" Ban, I can only describe this radical scheme as the effective END of the Second Amendment in America.

The gun-grabbers are going for broke, doing everything they can to "cash in" on the recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut.

They’re targeting EVERYTHING -- rifles, shotguns and even handguns -- and every gun owner and gun purchase is to be catalogued and tracked by the federal government.

That’s why it’s absolutely critical you act IMMEDIATELY.

As you’ll see, I’ve enclosed a special Emergency Second Amendment Protection Directive INSISTING your Representative and Senators vote against this radical scheme.

Won’t you please sign it TODAY? There’s no time to waste.

President Obama’s Administration is announcing it will "push forward quickly" on gun control -- and Vice President Joe Biden is promising it will be a "done deal" in a matter of weeks!


If passed, Feinstein’s Gun Ban would:
*** Ban the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of 120 specifically named rifles, shotguns and handguns!

*** Ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of ALL firearms with a detachable magazine and at least one "military characteristic" -- which could mean just about anything that makes a gun "look scary;"

*** Ban the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of magazines holding more than 10 rounds;

*** Force owners of ALL "grandfathered" weapons to undergo an intrusive background check and fingerprinting -- treating law-abiding citizens like criminals;

*** Force owners of ALL "grandfathered" weapons to federally register their guns after obtaining a permission slip from local law enforcement showing their guns are not in violation of state or local law.

That’s right. If you own a $10 magazine that’s more than 10 rounds, you’ll have to register it with the BATFE in their National Firearms Registry.

The ban on "transfers" means you and I can forget about ever handing down one of these guns to our kids and grandkids.

Worse, it could mean widows become instant felons if their husbands owned one of these banned magazines or firearms!


And make no mistake, the gun-grabbers’ TRUE motives behind gun registration is always the same -- outright gun CONFISCATION, and to do that they must first register every gun and gun owner.

Then Senator Feinstein will be able to achieve her publicly stated goal:

"Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in."

I can hardly even think about what a DISASTER for our country it would be should President Obama, Senator Feinstein and their anti-gun pals succeed in ramming this monstrosity down our throats.

This is exactly the WRONG move for our country -- for our liberties and for our safety.

Now I know THAT’S something you’re not hearing from the anti-gun propagandists in the national media.

But the truth is, increasing gun sales in America in recent years has led to lower crime rates.

The same is true all over the world.

Studies show countries with low rates of civilian firearms ownership are the most violent. Countries with high rates of civilian firearms ownership are the safest.

Just look to nearby Mexico if you want to see an example of the gun-grabbers’ idea of utopia. Effectively ruled by violent drug gangs in many areas, some parts of Mexico are cesspools of rape, violence and murder.

If you and I want to keep the Second Amendment freedoms we’re so blessed to enjoy as American citizens, it’s absolutely CRITICAL you and I act IMMEDIATELY.

That’s why I’ve agreed to help the National Association for Gun Rights fight back to stop this Gun Ban and help lead the fight AGAINST the gun-grabbers.

They’re tough. They’re principled. And they know how to win.

They know the ONLY way you and I win this fight is if my colleagues here in Congress understand that voting for gun control will mean the END of their political careers . . .

And they’re busy mobilizing pro-gun Americans all over the country to make sure Congress gets that message loud and clear.

Won’t you please sign it TODAY?


But with President Obama, Sarah Brady and all the gun-grabbers doubling down, there’s not much time.

To defeat this radical scheme, the National Association for Gun Rights is going to have to pull out all the stops to alert and mobilize Second Amendment supporters all over the country.

Direct mail. Phones. Email. Blogs. Guest editorials. Press conferences. Hard-hitting internet, newspaper, radio and even TV ads if funding permits. The whole nine yards.

Of course, a program of this scale is only possible if the National Association for Gun Rights can raise the money.

But that’s not easy, and we may not have much time.

In fact, if gun owners are going to defeat Feinstein's Gun Ban, pro-gun Americans like you and me have to get involved NOW!

So please put yourself on record AGAINST the Feinstein's Gun Ban by signing NAGR’s Emergency Second Amendment Protection Directive.

But along with your signed Directive, please agree to make a generous contribution of $250, $100, $50 or even just $35.

And every dollar counts in this fight so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it will make a difference.

Thank you in advance for your time and money devoted to defending our Second Amendment rights.

For Freedom,

Rand Paul
United States Senator
P.S. The gun-grabbers are going for broke.

My jaw hit the floor reading the list of anti-gun provisions in Senator Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) new Gun Ban.

I can only describe this radical scheme as the effective END of the Second Amendment in America.

And time is running out to stop them.

Please sign your Emergency Second Amendment Protection Directive and put yourself squarely on the record AGAINST the Feinstein's Gun Ban.

And if you can, please make a generous contribution to the National Association for Gun Rights of $250, $150, $100 or even just $35 right away!

And every dollar counts in this fight so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it will make a difference.

[manta49]

My problem with it is that it is, IMO, a law which cannot be enforced with full registration of firearms.

There could be lots of reasons not to want registration. But to think it could not be enforced is not one. The governments in most other countries manage to enforce registration and i am sure America could do if they wanted to. PS I am not saying it should happen only that it could.

[overhead]

I think you misunderstood my statement and pulling it out of context probably did not help. My accidental use of "with" when I meant "without" does not help either.

What I was saying was not that registration was difficult or impossible to enforce, what I was saying is that universal background checks are difficult if not impossible to enforce *without* full registration of firearms.

[zincwarrior]

Folks, I cannot emphasize enough how serious this is. This bill is so bad that not one single Senator would co-sponsor. NRA F-rated Mark Kirk bailed out on this bill. Diane Feinstein didn't even co-sponsor this bill!

Sorry I don't under Congressional procedure. Doesn't at least one person have to introduce the bill?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Sorry I don't under Congressional procedure. Doesn't at least one person have to introduce the bill?

The only person whose name is on this bill is Chuck Schumer. No other Senator chose to co-sponsor it.

[zincwarrior]

ah, now I understand. If no one sponsored it how would it pass?