Posted on 04/13/2013 3:30:58 PM PDT by marktwain
The antithetically-titled “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013” easily overcame the cloture hurdle yesterday, with a motion to proceed passing by 68 to 31, and with NRA-backed senators on both sides of the aisle voting in the affirmative. 16 Republicans joined Senate Democrats to overcome an opposition filibuster, meaning the bill to expand background checks -- among other things -- will now be debated and amendments will be offered amidst close media scrutiny and a frenzied political climate.
The draft of S. 649 that provides the framework for the legislative arguments that lie ahead contains an item that could prove highly controversial, even though no one has, until now*, recognized it, let alone raised it as an issue. While there is much to discuss in the entire bill, one particular seemingly-overlooked section could prove contentious not by what it includes, but by what it doesn’t, and that in turn reflects recent and profound political changes that have marked significant milestones in the Obama administration’s “progressive” agenda.
“[I]t shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s),” the section on Firearms Transfers states. “Upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee's inventory to the unlicensed transferee.”
But this “shall not apply,” the section continues, “to … bona fide gifts between spouses, between parents and their children, between siblings, or between grandparents and their grandchildren.”
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
LOL!
Nazis and Commies will never call it what it really is, The Sandy Hook Anti-Second Amendment Act or the Newtown Parents Gun Confiscation Act.
Spouses? I see this being a problem for the queers.
They'll just amend that to "significant others".
Even if the don't, that clientele is just "Collateral Damage" if they can get that coveted "universal" check implemented. They've been trying to get that since the 1968 GCA.
A ruse by any other name would smell as rank.
Correct and accepted Definition of the term “INFRINGE” in the 18th and 19th Century:
“infringe v.t.,
from the French ‘infringere’ (in+frangere),
1.to break or break down; specific.:
a. to destroy
b. to frustrate
c. to impair”
-Webster`s dictionary, 1887.
Where does it exempt congress? You KNOW it’s in there somewhere.
Elitists around the world need to look up what happened during the Libyan civil war. The elitists weren’t spared various treatments. And for the mercenary traitors guarding these slugs, you received equal treatment. It wasn’t a pretty scene for you NWO commies.
With political/regulator class folks in general, the issue is not the issue. Here’s a clue to the real issue.
Cop Claims Cell Phone Is A Weapon, Assaults Man For Recording
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3007466/posts
Wrongfully-arrested man considers lawsuit after marshals storm home
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3007469/posts
>>They’ll just amend that to “significant others”.
Or they’ll pass it as-is and then use the Heller decision as leverage against DOMA; claiming that it denies gays their 2nd amendment rights.
Those who are in agreement with the agenda will have access to arms
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.