The supposed "Watered Down" gun control bill-read it and weep

H

Hal

New member
Here are a few of the highlights of the bill being presented in the house. Mandatory waiting period of 72 hours, NICS on effectivly all gun sales, whether by private individual or not, if you sell a gun it goes through a FFL and the FFL calls NICs.Period. If you give a gun as a present it goes the same route. The wording is so vague and misleading it opens up thousands of doors. I urge you to read the entire bill, then call you representatives,,,repeatedly. This is supposedly the *watered down* Republican version. Don't be misled, this is not watered down at all.

HR1768.IH

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html

SEC. 102. EXTENSION OF BRADY BACKGROUND CHECKS TO GUN SHOWS.

(a) DEFINITIONS- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(35) GUN SHOW- The term `gun show' means any event--

`(A) at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, transfer, or exchange, if 1 or more of the firearms has been shipped or transported in, or otherwise affects, interstate or foreign commerce; and

`(B) at which 2 or more persons are offering or exhibiting 1 or more firearms for sale, transfer, or exchange.


SEC. 103. MANDATORY WAITING PERIOD AND ADDITIONAL TIME FOR BACKGROUND CHECKS.

Section 922(t) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting `and, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary, transmits notice of the proposed firearm transfer to the chief law enforcement officer of the place of residence of the transferee' before the semicolon;

(2) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii)--

(A) by striking `3' and inserting `5'; and

(B) by striking `and' at the end;

(3) in paragraph (1)(C), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and';

(4) by adding at the end of paragraph (1) the following:

`(D) if the firearm is a handgun or semiautomatic assault weapon--

`(i) not less than 72 hours have elapsed since the licensee contacted the system; or

`(ii) if the firearm is a handgun, the transferee has presented to the transferor a written statement, issued by the chief law enforcement officer of the place of residence of the transferee during the 10-day period ending on the date of the most recent proposal of such transfer by the transferee, stating that the transferee requires access to a handgun because of a threat to the life of the transferee or of a member of the household of the transferee.'; and


SEC. 310. SUSPENSION OF FIREARMS DEALER'S LICENSE AND CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE GUN CONTROL ACT.

Subsections (e) and (f) of section 923 of title 18, United States Code, are amended to read as follows:

`(e) The Secretary may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, suspend or revoke any license issued under this section, or may subject the licensee to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 per violation, if the holder of such license has willfully violated any provision of this chapter or any rule or regulation prescribed by the Secretary under this chapter. The Secretary may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, suspend or revoke the license of, or assess a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 on, a dealer who willfully transfers armor piercing ammunition. The Secretary may at any time compromise, mitigate, or remit the liability with respect to any willful violation of this chapter or any rule or regulation prescribed by the Secretary under this chapter. The Secretary's actions under this subsection may be reviewed only as provided in subsection (f) of this section.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



------------------
(!)
 
Hal you are absolutely right, this bill is an out-and-out disaster if it is passed. The same kind of crap that the gun owners in places like Mass. and NYC have been putting up with for years is now on the way to becoming Federal law for everybody everywhere. The private sale or gift of firearms will be a thing of the past if this goes through. The way it is worded gives a Fed prosecutor enough leeway to literally make the law say whatever he wants it to. It can easily be interpreted to make it a felony to even TALK about selling or swapping a gun to anyone while at one of these events.

The really tricky one is where an "event" is defined as 2 or more people displaying 1 or more firearms for sale, trade, or exchange. How many people does it take to exchange a firearm? You got it , 2. By this definition anyone who makes a private sale or gift of a firearm to ANYONE would be committing a Federal felony good for 5 years prison AND permanent loss of right to possess any firearm.

This thing has got to stopped. Unfortunately, the Republicans seem to be signing on to the bill in droves. Speaker of the House Hastert and Henry Hyde have already pledged to push it through ASAP.

I don't think enough gun owners know about this to amke a difference, so we all need to tell everybody we know to call their congressman and see if it can be stopped.
 
I'm not an attorney, and I'm no expert on gun laws. However, I spent a good deal of my career interpreting tax law, and that did prepare me for reading crap such as this.

I agree this is bad news. However, let's look it over closely. For example, regarding the definition of a gun show, note the 'and' at the end of (A). I believe this definition means a gun show is:
1. An 'event' (which probably has zero importance to the definition), where there are;
2. At least 50 firearms offered for any kind of transfer (the interstate language just gets the Fed's foot in the door - that pesky Constitution, you know - they won't have a problem with that detail);
3. At least 2 people are offering those firearms for transfer (note it appears to mean 2 sellers, in essence).

So, I don't think this would apply to estates, or gifts from one person to another. Right now.

OTOH, I think we are getting close to where parents will probably be smart to purchase firearms for their minor children, and have their attorney document transfer of ownership to the child. Until the child reaches the age of lawful possession (21 soon?), the parent or another might hold the firearms in trust for the child. We'd probably want to do this before Congress starts discussing this 'loophole' as well ... When you're trying to screw people, all of their pesky 'rights' becomes loopholes, ya know.

What do you think? Is there an attorney in the house?
 
Jeff:You are correct about the "and" as the bill is presented right now. The huge problem is that with the stroke of a pen the and can be replaced with "or". The original incarnation of the bill has many such replacements in it's final form. This turkey is destined to be pushed through. Couple this with the Safe Borders Act, the 21st Century Justice Act, and the reign of terror has it's table all set.

Oops, forgot a real biggie. How about a law that never expires allows unlimited funds for the warrantless inspection, search, seizure and forfiture of all interstate travellers belongings? The authority of Federal agents jusrisdiction to supercede any other State or Local law enforcement? Check out the "Bug Bill" HR 1504 Titled the Plant Protection Act.
------------------
(!)

[This message has been edited by Hal (edited June 01, 1999).]
 
After a little checking around, I believe there is some correction needed here. The bill posted, HR1768 is not the Juvenile Justice bill which is being pushed by the Republican House leaders. This is a bill introduced by Rep. Conyers (D) of Michigan, and it appears that it will be killed in committee.

The one we have to worry about is the Lautenberg amendment along with several other anti-gun provisions in the Juvenile Justice bill. These bills are bad enough in their own right, but they aren't quite as extreme as this one. Never the less, we need to stay on the horn to our congresscritters until they get the picture, it was gun owners who put Repubs in the majority in 1994, and we can take them out if they betray us.
 
Ed: You're right. Boy am I embarassesed( to the point of not being able to spell it). My search for Lautenberg and guns turned up the 2 bills with the same title, one in the Senate, one in the House.I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Senate Bill 254 is the one that was passed, not 995, which is the same as House Bill 1768.

------------------
(!)
 
The NRA is right where they've been since 1934: standing firm on their compromise.

------------------
"All I ask is equal freedom. When it is denied, as it always is, I take it anyhow."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top