S.649: Reid's Base Gun Control Bill

So my buddy and I can go plink off my deck or in my back yard (but not his), but as soon as we step out into the pasture to plink, I can't hand him my plinker, 'cuz that's not curtilage.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but you're allowed to do it on your own curtilage! See? They're meeting us halfway. I think that's the compromise they keep telling us about.
 
Universal Background Checks Passed Committee

Just wait. They have to get rid of the second amendment before they can go after the first... Then the rest of them.
 
NBC is reporting that the NRA will support universal background checks if private sellers are not required to keep records. They are reporting that Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is a key player in the negotiations and supposedly if he agrees to the background check bill the NRA will sign off on it. The NRA is denying that this is true.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/12/17286635-sources-nra-wont-oppose-background-check-deal-if-democrats-cede-tough-records-fight?lite

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2013/3/statement-from-chris-w-cox-nra-ila-executive-director-regarding-inaccurate-nbc-story-alleging-that-nra-wont-oppose-background-check-bill.aspx
 
Possessory Interest n. The right to control a property and to exclude others for the present, exercised by one who is not necessarily the owner. A current or future exclusive right to possession and use of a property. Webster's New World Law Dictionary

As I understand it, the term above, most often (but not always), applies to Real Property. Yet this bill, if passed and signed into law allows the Federal Government to take a possessory interest in my personal property that is no longer in or affecting interstate, intrastate or foreign commerce.
.
I have a question: Under what authority does the Federal Government have the power to enable a possessory interest in my property without first paying for that privilege?

This is nothing more than an unlawful taking. See the 5th Amendment.
 
NBC is reporting that the NRA will support universal background .......
Click to expand...

NBC is not telling the truth according to an ILA email I received last night from Chris W. Cox. :eek:
From the message:

"An article appearing today on NBCNews.com is falsely reporting that NRA will not oppose legislation being negotiated in the U.S. Senate that would mandate background checks for all gun purchasers."

The NRA-ILA's website has not yet been updated with the message. I have attached a PDF version.
 

Attachments

CowTowner, you beat me to it. I suggest, though, that you also start this as its own thread if you have not already done so.
 
I am certainly not in favor of forced UBC of any type. If I were in favor, my question would be how is this law enforceable? Like many of you, I own many guns today. None of those guns are registered and even if a law enforcement agency tracked the serial number through the system back to the dealer or individual that sold them to me they would then have to prove I did not transfer the firearm prior to the date a UBC law was enacted. If I hand my neighbor a gun and he were caught with that gun doing something illegal, assuming he would not testify against me, how would the government meet their burden of proof with evidence that an illegal transfer took place?

That question is why I always assumed any UBC law would quickly be modified to include full registration of all firearms. If some UBC law passes that does not include forced record keeping requirements then the government would have the same issue with proving an illegal transfer took place going forward.

My concern is that the federal law, if passed without registration, would either be modified to include registration or record keeping via executive order or through further legislation at some point in the near future.
 
Whats wrong with a universal background check?
Click to expand...

My problem with it is that it is, IMO, a law which cannot be enforced with full registration of firearms. And, because of that, IMO, will just be a step toward full registration of firearms after the next major invent involving a gun crime and mass shooting.

There are many other problems with a law like this, they have already been mentioned in this thread.
 
While I agree with your concern about the registration aspects, unfortunately thats not a protected right.

It would be interesting to have an attorney (and gun owner) review and see what the real issues of this particular bill are.
 
I did not realize my issue with a law may only be justified as a violation of my natural rights. I refuse to call them protected because I do not believe the government has any interest in protecting them.
 
Calm. Thats not what I said. I said that its not a protected right under the Second Amendment. I also said that I have a concern about registration as well, as did Coburn in this particular bill, which is why he didn't support it (translation it will be filibustered).

I still would like to see what a qualified attorney who reasearches the bill would say the problems are - if any - related to real life other than that.
 
I am calm, sorry if I did not come across that way.

I do not think Harry Reid will bring it to a vote exposing his fellow senators from rural states (or other gun rights supporting states) if he does not believe it will pass the senate and the house. It would not make sense for him to do it.

If I am not mistaken, a member here that is a lawyer and gun owner commented earlier in the thread.
 
Agreed. I'd proffer it was capital thinking for Boehner to get out front and say the House would consider anything the Senate passed first.

EDIT: which post? (Edit edit - thanks!)
 
Last edited:
Really, besides a means of keeping score on who is voting for what why does this matter? It'll never make it passed the House, and stands a good chance of not getting the 60 votes it would need in the senate.
 
There are several members here who are both attorneys and gun owners. I am one of them, and I did a cursory review of issues with this bill in Post #19.

I didn't even get into the "UBC will never work without full registration" aspect. However, I do believe that to be the case, and that if UBCs pass, in a few years, we'll see calls for registration. A "the last law didn't work, so we need more laws to make it work" situation.
 
) at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting range;
Click to expand...

Is a range by definition an organization duly incorporated to foster proficiency in firearms? Or would a for-profit range not qualify? And what is "at all times"? You and I, and probably mots reasonable people would consider that as "for the duration of the transfer". An activist prosecutor could determine that to literally be "At all times". Meaning you have to leave it behind. And if this duly incorporated range is not a Federal Firearms Licensee you've now broken the law with an illegal transfer.
 
That the media spits out a lie like that could cause damage as those who are not NRA members who respect the NRAs opinion would be misled to think that the universal background check is okay as long as the NRA said it was.

How could you correct such a lie if the mainstream media gives the NRA a hard time contradicting the claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top