Federal "One Gun a Month" Bill Introduced

O

Oatka

New member
Sounds like a rerun of H. R. 315. Hopefully, the odds are it will suffer the same fate. It will be interesting to see which Pubbies sign on.

Federal "One Gun a Month" Bill Introduced
by Angel Shamaya, Founder/Director, KeepAndBearArms.com
and Melissa Seaman, Newslinks Director

U.S. Representative Robert Wexler (D-FL) has introduced what he calls the "Anti-Gunrunning Act of 2001." New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler and Virginia Rep. Jim Moran are co-conspirators on the bill. The goal of this bill is to accomplish, briefly, all of the following:

make it illegal for a licensed dealer to sell more than one handgun a month to the same person, and
make it illegal for a citizen to buy more than one gun a month, from anyone,
offer up to one year in prison for violating this unConstitutional statute, should our legistraitors pass it into a "law", and
amend the penalty statute for a licensee who knowingly makes false statements on the record of a transaction -- from one year, to five years imprisonment.
As you read the text of this bill, you'll also note many justifications for congress getting involved in this matter on a federal level. Wexler asserts that interstate commerce is an issue here, and states that the intention of the bill is to "prevent handgun violence and illegal commerce in handguns."

Support our friends at KABA by clicking on THE REST OF THE ARTICLE
 
one gun a month. That not so bad. Instead of buying alot of firearms I can build up money each month and buy a top of the line firearm every month. Ex instead of a bunch of midrange guns I can get A benelli tacticl shotgun this month and get a loaded Wilson combat 1911 next month. The month after that a race gun, month after that AR-15 instead of mini 14. It going to be quality instead of quantity.
 
What is the ultimate meaning of this? When your right to own firearms has been nullified your right to private property will follow down the same dark path. Just another example of virulent do-gooderism...

Where is my Molon Labe hat?
 
If it is illegal to purchase more than one gun a month
from ANYONE does this include private sales also? How do
they intend to try and keep track of how many guns i have
bought from freinds of mine? Unless maybe that is the next
step.
 
Molon labe? It's the answer Leonidas gave to the Immortals of Xerxes, when asked to surrender and lay down their arms. "Come and get them."
 
Everything is "the next step". No gun control law can be looked at without putting it in the perspective of all other gun control laws, are where they are leading. Especially those that haven't yet been passed, or even introduced.
 
Damn it! I cant even afford two guns a semester, much less twelve guns a year! Why do they do this? I'm gonna have to find a part time job near my campus to buy 12 guns a year...

Kharn
 
What you guys are not taking into account is the fact that this won't allow you to buy multiple firearms to save on shipping, handling, and the minimum FFL charge! What if I want to buy two 8mm Mausers for 50 bucks each and one of those Romanian .22lr military training rifles for 40 bucks. I have to buy each one separately and pay the shipping and handling and minimum FFL fee for each firearm. Just two months ago I enjoyed my freedom by going into my favorite FFL's and buying two East German Makarov's and a Tokarov. The total bill came to around $511 after everything (including taxes). It would have been a lot more if I would have had to buy those weapons individually.
God I love SOG, Inc.

Joel

...and they sent forth swarms of agents to eat away at their substance...
 
Being in Kali...

I can honestly state it's a wonderful concept (I'm lying) and hope everyone can experence such laws (I'm also full of crap).
 
Joel, the answer to your particular question is to get a C&R liscense. They're $30 for two years. You're then a liscense holder, and can take receipt of more than one at a time...and forget going to the dealer.
 
Basically, the supposed justification for these one-gun-a-month laws is the perceived epidemic of straw man purchases.
If there is a valid source for this perception, then sufficient evidence should exist to prosecute the actual offenders without incurring any more restrictions on honest citizens.
 
I don't know, when rationing rights, why they skipped over the First Amendment and went right to the Second. After all, the Founding Fathers never envisioned people like Damn Blather . . . errr, I mean Dan Rather - reaching tens of millions of people EVERY SINGLE NIGHT! This gives him a disproportionate opportunity to influence public opinion. It would be only common sense to limit him to one major prime-time appearance per month. Moreover, before airing, a Federal panel should review his stories for fairness and accuracy, and check his background to assure his objectivity. It's not an infringement of his constitutional rights - after all, we're not saying he CAN'T air the stories (unless it's inflammatory "assault" news.) We're just asking him to wait a bit for government approval.

The news media should support this - it's for the children, after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top