Second Amendment Transfer ban - S. 374

Discussion in 'Bill of Rights' started by CATO, Mar 13, 2013.


  1. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    We Have Language for S. 374, the Transfer Ban | Shall Not Be Questioned


    Posted by Sebastian in Gun Rights | 89 comments
    We Have Language for S. 374, the Transfer Ban

    Shumer had kept the bogus “background check” bill under wraps, only putting forth a shell bill with no specifics. Well, he applied the text through an amendment at the last minute, before it passed. John Richardson has the details, including the text. I’ve only skimmed the details, but here’s the key problems:
    • If you left town for more than 7 days, and left your gay partner, or unrelated roommate at home with the guns, you’d be committing a felony. This should be called the “denying gun rights to gays act.” Remember that the federal government does not recognize gay marriage, even if you’re state does, thanks to DOMA. 5 years in prison.
    • Actually, even married couples are questionably legal, because the exemption between family only applies to gifts, not to temporary transfers. The 7 day implication is if you leave your spouse at home for more than 7 days, it’s an unlawful transfer, and you’re a 5 year felon. I suppose you could gift them to your spouse, or related co-habitant, and then have them gift them back when you arrive back home. Maybe the Attorney General will decide to create a form for that.
    • It would be illegal to lend a gun to a friend to take shooting. That would be a transfer. 5 years in federal prison.
    • Steals the livelihood of gun dealers by setting a fixed fee to conduct transfers. The fee is fixed by the Attorney General. What’s to prevent him from setting it at $1000?
    • Enacts defacto universal gun registration, because of record keeping requirements.
    • All lost and stolen guns must be reported to the federal and local government. This means everyone will have to fill out the theft/loss form, and not just FFLs. You only have 24 hours to comply. If you lose a gun on a hunting trip deep in the woods, and can’t get back home to fill out the form in 24 hours, you’re a felon and will spend 5 years in federal prison.
    • Want to lend a gun to a friend to go hunting? It’s a 5 year in prison felony.
    • No exception for state permits. All transfers must go through a dealer or 5 years in federal prison.
    • UPDATE: Teaching someone to shoot on your own land is a felony, 5 years, if you hand them the gun. Not an exempted transfer.
    We will go thermonuclear on anyone who votes for this crap, and that goes double for Republicans. It’s nothing more than an attempt to put more gun owners in prison. Schumer was wise to keep this under wraps, because his bill is truly draconian. I not only expect the GOP to vote against this piece of crap bill, I expect them to filibuster it. Let’s see if the Democrats can get to 60 without any Republican support, and let’s see how many of them want to lose their seats in 2014.
    This bill has nothing to do with ensuring people who are getting guns are law-abiding, and everything to do with getting backdoor registration, and creating a patchwork of rules and laws that will land anyone who uses guns, and isn’t a lawyer, in federal prison for a long time. Lots of otherwise law-abiding people are going to federal prison if this ends up passing, and I’m convinced that’s the whole idea.
     
  2. VisuTrac

    VisuTrac Ваша мать носит военные ботинки Site Supporter+++

    Seriously, we all need to become FFL's
     
  3. VisuTrac

    VisuTrac Ваша мать носит военные ботинки Site Supporter+++

    I wonder if under these draconian rules, a shooting range would still be legal to operate. I mean, if they rent guns .. erm 5 years? Let someone train someone else on their premises, ooo, knowingly allow the transfer of weapons at their business .. ooo, loose the store (confiscation) and spend 5 years in the pokie.

    Yeah, if it flys, so will the lead and brass.
     
  4. Witch Doctor 01

    Witch Doctor 01 Mojo Maker

    I guess transporting a gun through baggage claim and TSA would get you a 5 year felony.....
     
  5. fedorthedog

    fedorthedog Monkey++

    That gives them the right to search your business for inventory verification without warrant. So if you use your house address what is owned and what is inventory.
     
    oldawg and CATO like this.
  6. BTPost

    BTPost Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    Anything NOT in the Bound Book is Private, and anything Logged into the Bound Book, is Inventory. It is best to keep the FFLin your Name and transfer all your Private Weapons to family members. I just did a 4473 to my wife for "HER" new AR-10... That way it is transferred thru the Bound Book and into Private Hands. I also sold a Marlin 99C and a Browning Auto 5 to my Son, who took them home to Utah, last Month....
     
    VisuTrac likes this.
  7. oldawg

    oldawg Monkey+++

    No VT, we need to just remain free and armed. Let them try to put 10-20 million armed citizens on the boxcars,especially with the 3% firing on them from the rooftops,windows,and woods. They really don't understand how bad the push back will be.
     
    VisuTrac likes this.
  8. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    Schumer’s Transfer Tyranny - Charles C. W. Cooke - National Review Online

    Yesterday, S. 374, or the “Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013” as it has been inexplicably termed, passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by ten votes to eight. If it were to become law, S. 374 would usher in what advocates refer to as a system of “universal background checks.” It would do a lot more, besides. As it stands in our ostensibly ghoulish status quo, a free American citizen may leave his guns with his unrelated roommate for more than seven days; he may lend a gun to a friend so that that friend is able to go shooting or hunting; he has more than 24 hours in which to report to the police if his guns are stolen; and he may even — shock, horror! — teach a friend to shoot on his own land. Most important, he may do all of these things without spending five years in prison in consequence. This, the Senate’s bill would change.
    Until Senator Chuck Schumer crowbarred in his amendments at the eleventh hour, S. 374 was, as Kevin Drum characterized it, a pretty “meaningless law.” This pushed Drum to sigh that “post-Sandy Hook Washington DC . . . seems an awful lot like pre-Sandy Hook Washington DC.” Not now it doesn’t, for Chuck Schumer is on it. For good measure, Schumer added to his revisions a change in the transfer-fee details, telegraphing to watchful eyes the latitude that he would like to give to the state. The Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011, on which Schumer’s bill is based, would have set fees at a flat $15; the amended bill leaves the fee structure at the mercy of later regulations to be determined by the attorney general. Passing established rules through Congress, as Obamacare’s endless instances of “the secretary shall” demonstrated, is passé. Allowing the executive branch to make the rules on a whim? Much more convenient.

    S. 374 represents a direct blow to Americans’ right to keep and bear arms without excessive government interference. The bill holds that any “transfer” of a firearm must be conducted via a middleman (in practice, a law-enforcement officer or the holder of a Federal Firearms License) and that a transferee is obliged to submit to a check under the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System. There are good-faith arguments in favor of and against this provision. But Chuck Schumer has narrowed the definition of “transfer” so strictly as to make his proposition absurd. If, for example, a gun owner leaves his home for more than seven days — leaving his firearms with his roommate, or gay partner, or landlord — he’ll be committing a felony that carries a five-year prison term. And while married couples are exempted from falling afoul of that provision, the family exemptions apply only to recorded “gifts” and not to “temporary transfers.” In order to avoid making felons of millions of couples, the government would, at the very least, need to spell out clearly what constitutes “gifting” a gun within a family and what constitutes a “temporary transfer,” thus regulating an area that has hitherto largely been left alone.
    What else would change? Well, it would be illegal to lend a gun to a friend so that he can go shooting. Want to give your pistol to your neighbor so he can pop down to the range for a few hours but don’t have time to go with him? Sorry, better make sure you look good in orange. Need more than the allowed 24 hours to report a stolen gun to the authorities? What is this — Somalia? You’re a felon: Go straight to jail. Do not collect $200. Sharing guns between buddies on a hunting trip? Five years inside for you. But the real genius of Schumer’s bill is the permanence of its effects: Once you’ve proven yourself the sort of monster who might teach your neighbors’ children to shoot targets in the garden, you’re a felon, and you can’t own firearms without the explicit permission of the state.
    S. 374 almost certainly has a long way to go. Some have indicated that waving it through the committee was simply a matter of process, a technical trick by which it could be indicated to the public that the Senate is serious about gun control. Others have noted that Harry Reid has promised not only that he won’t bring a bill that is unlikely to pass to a Senate vote but that he is keen to ensure that any proposal has a realistic chance of getting through the House. Asthe Washington Times reported yesterday, Schumer even conceded that his bill is “not the only way to do it.”
    To these hesitations I say pish and posh! It is time, as Gabby Giffords keeps urging, to be “brave.” It is time to stand athwart the agenda of “special interests” — such as the Second Amendment, our free citizenry, the historical evidence, and basic common sense — and to raise our voices instead for the forgotten in America: the responsible gun sellers. For under the new law, they will inherit the earth. And all of the “transfer” business, too.
    Charles C. W. Cooke is an editorial associate at National Review.
     
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7