S.649: Reid's Base Gun Control Bill

I don't think we are going to see much today. Senate rules say that a written amendment must be submitted and it doesn't seem like the key amendment is ready to go. I think most of the "debate" today is going to be backroom wheeling and dealing on number and order of amendments.
 
Please correct me, but wasn't having a debate about the bill the only way to get its contents into the open?

I can see voting for debate for that reason, to flush the real facts of Democrat ambitions into the light.
Click to expand...

I can see the strategy in this. When there is a vote everyone is on record and they’ll be held responsible for their votes. Also, this will maybe make the NRA ratings a little more meaningful since I think some got good ratings in the past that didn’t really deserve them. Hopefully seeing your Senator vote to steal your freedom will wake some folks up. Obviously the danger is that the Bill actually passes, but I guess we’ll see.
 
McCain is done, He is in his last term. Arizona is finally through with him.
Click to expand...

This is why I vote in primaries. Helps to get rid of the incumbent. I respect the man's sacrifice for the country, but he's been sliding the wrong direction for years now. I hope another candidate can come in to put up a good primary fight against him.

The real issue is Jeff Flake...this is disappointing to me. I'll hold judgement until the final vote on the floor takes place...
 
Our criminal justice and mental health systems are ineffective, they don't protect the innocent people from the criminals and those who perpetrate evil.

This same government that cannot keep us safe, wants to deprive us of the means we may use to keep ourselves safe.

It's the epitome of immorality.
 
I was talking it over with some of my fellow Poli Sci buddies and we decided that perhaps the bill was allowed to go to the floor as a means of getting an open debate and voting process on it.

Also, I was under the impression that Ted Cruz and his supporters weren't going to filibuster until the bill came up for a floor vote.
 
Thanks for the link to the bill, Jim.

I haven't waded through all the rhetoric and bs yet but one item really caught my eye.

"(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-There are authorized to be appropriated for grants under this subsection $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2017.".

Fellow forum members, we should make everyone receiving Soc. Security about the cost of this mess should it become law. I would think they might make some legislative contact asking why their soc. security COLA is being cut to balance the budget while this bill proposes to spend $400,000,000!

I believe it was former IL Senator Dirksen who uttered the words, " A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money"
 
I am missing something with this bill. If transfers that don't take place at a gun show and do not take place as a result of an internet ad are not required to have a background check, then why go to the trouble of excluding all those different family transfers listed in the bill? Meaning if a personal face to face transfer does not require a background check, what is the point of listing all those family relationships? Something is fishy.
 
Already you're exposing yourself by doing a private sale, this would probably push it over the top, especially if private sales become such a tiny minority.

The only way they can enforce this is being like the "straw purchase". It won't be the material matter of where you physically sell (where is the internet?) but how buyer met seller. Basically, to investigate a violation, the question will be things like: "Did you ever meet the buyer on the internet or at a gun show before making an actual sale at Bubba's Gun Range and Bait Shop?"
 
It's not just the internet, folks.

Any publication is included in the language.

(t)(1)(A) at a gun show or event, on the curtilage thereof; or
"(B) pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm.
Click to expand...

also:

SEC. 129. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this subtitle, or an amendment made by this subtitle, shall be construed-
(1) to extend background check requirements to transfers other than those made at gun shows or on the curtilage thereof, or pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display, or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of the intent of the transferor to transfer, or the transferee of the intent of the transferee to acquire, the firearm; or
Click to expand...

"Publication" is undefined. It will be defined by regulation, count on it.
 
I, for one, will count on "publication" including the newspaper classified ads, as well as the internet.
Click to expand...

Which certainly seems likely. I wonder, though, if posting a flier on my gun club's bulletin board also counts as "publication".

On the whole, I don't have a big problem with the proposed requirements as I understand them. It seems to me that it basically says, "if you're selling a gun to a stranger, do it through a FFL with a NICS check," which I don't think is unreasonable. Especially since it's basically an honor system, as all the records collecting registration-by-another-name nonsense has been dropped.

In the what-did-we-gain column, the additions to FOPA are welcome, particularly to those of us in the northeast, who have to go through New Jersey when we visit America.

Or perhaps I've missed something(s). That happens a lot.
 
What will constitute a legal ad???

Surely this will...

USER NAME GunGuy
FOR SALEI am selling my Remchesterberg shotgun for $500 cashat the FFL in this area...
Click to expand...

But will this???
USER NAME NitroNick
I got some Items I would like to get rid of... call me for details.
Click to expand...

Just tryin' to wrap my head around the possible ways this will affect me as a general citizen consumer.

Brent
 
I think we all know where this will lead. "Publication"k and "internet" will be redefined administratively to basically cover every private sale.
 
to extend background check requirements to transfers other than those made at gun shows or on the curtilage thereof,
Click to expand...

They do seem to be in love with the word "curtilage". Do you suppose that was Toomey and Manchin making fun of Schumer that a drive way, and thus parking lot probably are not curtilage, or was that Schumer's word of the month on his Legal Dictionary Calendar?
 
Jim, not every private sale/transfer is advertised. I know a lot of guns are sold between friends, at gun ranges, etc. - where no advertisement is conducted.

Point being only that the real goal here isn't to obtain additional background checks. The goal is to create an illusory imperative for universal firearms registration.
 
Well you and I are going to disagree on the goal on this one.

And I was pointing out there is a supposedly "legal" definition on the books for "publication" that's been established in slander/libel cases. Telling a third person you're looking to sell could be considered "publication"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top