Posted on 03/13/2013 5:47:29 AM PDT by marktwain
I pulled up S.374 - Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013 on Thomas, and I came up with a two-page shell of a bill that means nothing.
To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale.
Well, gosh! Who could have a problem with that, right? I mean, didn’t the panel of gun banners last night at the town hall tell us that these are just common-sense measures to prevent people who shouldn’t have guns from having them?
At first glance it’s a pretty easy bill.
A BILL
To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. Short title.
This Act may be cited as the “Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013”. SEC. 2. Findings.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Congress supports and respects the right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(2) Congress supports the existing prohibition on a national firearms registry.
(3) There are deficits in the background check system in effect before the date of enactment of this Act and the Department of Justice should make it a top priority to work with States to swiftly input missing records, including mental health records.
(4) If the citizens of the United States agree that in order to promote safe and responsible gun ownership criminals and the mentally ill should be prohibited from possessing firearms, it should be incumbent upon all citizens to ensure weapons are not being transferred to such people.
Who could possibly have a problem with a bill like this, right?
Well, there’s obviously a reason sleazy Chuckie Schumer hid the text of the bill until it passed committee! Because when legisleeches ask who could possibly oppose a bill to keep guns out of the wrong hands, they mean YOUR hands.
No more private sales, folks! Each transaction will have to go through an FFL, after paying a fee set by…
…the Justice Department!
Does anyone else see anything wrong with allowing Eric Holder – the man embroiled in a scandalous program that funneled thousands of firearms to Mexican drug cartels – to set a fee for a private transfer of a firearm? Heck, all he has to do is set the price prohibitively high, and he’s just prevented a whole lot of people from exercising their rights!
Karen Marangi from Mayors Against Illegal Guns made it a point to tell us that gifts between family members and spouses, as well as firearms passed through estates are exempt from the bill’s onerous provisions. A temporary transfer of a firearm doesn’t have to go through an FFL either… IF the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed transferor; IF the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and IF the transfer has a duration of less than seven days.
So what if I go TDY for a month, like I will this summer, and Rob has my firearm for a month? We’re not married. An overzealous prosecutor may charge me with an unauthorized transfer.
Oh, and by the way – if we happen to come home and our house has been ransacked by robbers, our possessions strewn all over the house, our home destroyed, our possessions, including my firearms stolen…
…I’d better have those things reported to the police within 24 hours. No getting over the victimization. No taking a breath to get over the shock. Report it, or you’re in violation of federal law.
Same if you lose a gun on a trip. Your ass had better get back within 24 hours to report it, or it’s prison for you!
You know what?
No thanks!
No wonder that swine Chuckles kept this bill under wraps until the last minute!
If you haven’t read this thing, you need to.
It essentially shuts down teaching most people to shoot, until *after* they have bought a gun.
Note that in Chicago, you are not allowed to buy a gun until you show that you have been taught to shoot.
They really want the background check for all transfers so when they come looking to confiscate something you cant say “I gave/sold it to some guy years ago”. It enables their confiscation program to be much more effective.
(1) Congress supports and respects the right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Yeah. Right. By the way, it's going to rain shiny bright new silver dollars later today. Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and the tooth færie told me so.
(1) Congress supports and respects the right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(2) Congress supports the existing prohibition on a national firearms registry.
(B)Just what does the word ‘support’ really mean? I suppose it’s merely a vague feel-good term that doesn’t have any meaning.
(C) I don’t care what Schumer says, the Constitution and existing law don’t need his affirmations of support.
“To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale.”
Just sales? What about gifts or trades, barter etc? For example I kindly decide to “give” a firearm to some stranger and he absent-mindedly leaves a $1000 on the table?
“Congress supports and respects the right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
Meaningless without a statement of what the 2A means. Every tinpot fascist RAT politician claims to support the 2A while trying to outlaw everything but double barrel shotguns.
“(4) If the citizens of the United States agree that in order to promote safe and responsible gun ownership criminals and the mentally ill should be prohibited from possessing firearms”
Again, the definition of mentally ill needs to be defined. I’m sure the RATS think anyone who opposes them are mentally ill.
There are many reasons to oppose this bill, among them infringements on the Second Amendment and restraint of trade. I have a big problem with background checks and use of a FFL holder. First, background checks are a farce. In most cases they simply cause delays and I have frequently not made a purchase as I didn’t have time to wait for the check to be completed (generally longer in my case due to a common name). Second, the checks are only effective if the systems are integrated. Current crimes show that mental records are not linked to criminal records. Third, enforcement of violations is rare. Existing laws are adequate if you prosecute offenders. Fourth, you restrict movement of firearms and add cost to the transaction. I’ve purchased guns only to be disappointed in their performance or condition. Private sales allow me to reduce my loss (actually made a couple of profits) without paying an additional $25 to $50 fee. Most of my sales are to Concealed Carry Holders and I feel some degree of safety in selling to these individuals. And lastly, the process lays the groundwork for future registration, taxation, and confiscation. As previously noted, why do they require the make and serial number if the background check is on the individual?
The bill says nothing about the right to 'keep arms' except that's what it's about. Schumer and his cronies say 'bear' and then deny 'keep'.
Lock and load, boys and girls.
Be sure to give ‘em the bullets first.
At what point does this regulation of firearms become infringement? I think we are well past that point. I recall reading somewhere that this is a right that “shall not be infringed”. So ask Chuck. Are you an infringer?
“Same if you lose a gun on a trip. “
Darn canoe trips!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.