You spent more time writng your post than it would take to read a synopsis of the bill. Read it.
Despite your rudeness, I read the synopsis. It looks like the “gunshow loophole” bill to me, and I don’t have a problem with anything in the synopsis.
If someone who is less rude wants to convince me otherwise, I might be willing to listen.
What mechanism would the federal gov use to ban or restrict ammo at this point?
-XT
Magic negro powers, I hear.
“…I don’t have time to review the link right now…”
Gimme a break! How much more disingenuous can you be?
There’s a lot more in your link than just the synopsis, like the entire text of the bill. Since you cannot explain what is in there that bothers you, I have no desire to continue this discussion further.
When they banned smoking at work they said it wouldn’t extend to restaurants. When they banned it from restaurants they said it wouldn’t be banned from bars. When they banned it from bars they said it wouldn’t be banned in homes. So when I start seeing bills proposed such as the one in the link above I know where it’s ultimately headed. To say it’s not in the planning stage is to embark on a visual inspection of sand. First you silence your detractors in the media then you enact various laws that impede gun ownership until they are effectively gone. Whether the Democratic Party can pull it off is debatable but their intent is not.
Make a hell of a headline, wouldn’t it? “NRA Says No Plausible Threat From Current Administration, Stop Sending Us Money”.
I read the linked bill. It IS the so-called “gun-show loophole” bill, though it looks more like a bill to make virtually every sale of a firearm no matter the venue require the full background check and record of sale paper trail to be kept. So an explanation of what part of it is threatening would be welcomed.
At least SOME part of the economy has been getting vigorously stimulated by the new team since November 5, just on the power of rumor – the gun shop owners better start making donations to the reelection campaign 
I would worry that the leftier Dems in the Congress may get a bit power-drunk during this early part of their term on the social-ideological front, but someone will remind them of what happened in '94. IMO I’d see it unlikely that anything much more stringent than the pseudo-“assault”-weapon restrictions of '94 gets succesfully passed, and serious gun control advocates would do well to admit THAT was one lame statute (oooh, no more than 10 rounds per clip! No bayonet lug! THAT’ll show them criminals!.. really… ). OTOH if the more ardent proponents can be mollified with a reinstatement of that merely cosmetic law against mean looking guns, with no loss of actual substantive rights, so be it (really, now, what was it with the O NOES, I can’t haz 2 15-round clips!!.. so buy three 10-round clips already, dude).
As stated before, incorrect. Any licensed dealer, regardless of venue, must complete all necessary steps in any firearm transaction. Period.
Federal law* allows private individuals (like you or I) to sell handguns and long guns (rifles, shotguns) to any qualified resident of our own state, and long guns across state lines. We would not be required to conduct any sort of background check. Even if we knowingly sold to criminals or otherwise disqualified persons, it would be difficult (but not impossible) for a prosecutor to prove it. Personally, I would never put an ad in a newspaper to sell a firearm, for safety/security reasons.
The so-called “gun show loophole” is this: wherein private citizens purchase table space at gun shows and sell firearms without background checks, right next to dealers who do perform such checks. When a person does it once (say, to liquidate an estate, or just get rid of a collection he no longer desires to own) it’s really not a problem. When someone does it as part of a sort of “off-the-books” business, it’s a problem.
But only licensed dealers have access to the NICS database and call center. To close the so-called “Gun Show Loophole” you’d have to either:
- open up NICS to private citizens and require all firearms transactions to use it,
- or -
- you’d have to ban all private sales of firearms. Period.
*State laws vary considerably. I’m only talking about federal laws.
As the unofficial spokesman of the near left in these parts, I can say that the recent unpleasantness* has made virtually every Democrat who is not a mommy with small children do a lot of rethinking about gun restrictions. While there may be a push for restrictions/laws regarding assault weapons, rifles and handguns are safe. That and the recent Heller decision are likely to be the coming future of Dems collecting guns. This was a 7-2 decision that is not going to be overturned. A precedent becomes stronger the more it is followed by the Courts, and this one is likely to become stronger and is grounded in a plain reading of the second amendment. Stevens is likely to be the first retiree from SCOTUS and the new guy may not continue to dissent on this issue. Not that it is ever likely to come up again.
*That would be the outgoing Bush administration and their way of seeing the constitution.
Asked and answered. Thanks.
Heller was a 5-4 decision, not 7-2.
The ATF deals only with licensed dealers, and NICS is only available to licensed dealers.
This bill pretty much kills entirely any private transfer by default: you, as a private citizen, must have the ATF paperwork and you must use NICS, but you can’t unless you are a licensed dealer, so you can’t sell firearms.
As a measure to help curtail unscrupulous “unlicensed dealers,” I’m all for it, if someone can show me that unlicensed dealers are a significant factor in supplying criminals and terrorists with illicit firearms, instead of a fabricated scare-tactic of the gun grabbers.
But if, at some point, I want to offload an older gun from my collection to make room in my gun safe for a new purchase, I’m screwed (unless my local dealer sells consignment, in which case I’m still probably taking a big hit on the price).
Right you are. My bad.
We have abandoned our 2nd Amendment rights and did it like lambs to the slaughter.
You all know what a militia is, right? Well if not I’ll tell you. A militia is a civilian military force; think draft. The Second Amendment is not about gun ownership as all the politicians would have us believe, it is about civilians (you and me) being able to protect ourselves. Guess what? We have an all volunteer army (no draft) answerable to the President. Congress has given up any control of the military, the last time they declared war was World War II. We have a standing army that is highly trained and a civilian body with no military training. That is fine as long a the threat to the security of a free State is from outside its borders, but what if it originates from within? What then? We are screwed because we are defenseless. That trained force can do what it wants or what it is directed to without serious opposition from civilians (you and me). The best part is, its already happening, (see link below) the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade combat team is under control of Homeland security where “They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control…”
Frightening isn’t, that we gave up our rights so willingly.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/
In 1999 Obama was in favor of a 500% tax increase on ammunition. Also, and I don’t have the cite for this one handy (Kennedy maybe), he’s in favor of banning most hunting ammo - IIRC the bill(s) used such language as “capable of penetrating soft body armor” or something. Since body armor is designed to stop handgun rounds and any normal hunting round would penetrate easily, it should be obvious that this was another indication that either “they” are dumb as a bag of hammers or fully intend to get rid of the ammo since they can’t get rid of the gun.
Also, and at least as important in my opinion, is this quote taken right off of Obama’s whitehouse.gov Urban Policy Agenda
Anyone that thinks the “Assault Weapon Ban” was at all effective is living in a fantasy land. It was poorly thought out and primarily targeted the firearms least likely to be used by criminals. It banned firearms based on cosmetic appearances rather than function.
Who knows what kind of BS the childproof gun would include, but I doubt it would benefit society.
And there is no gun show loophole. That’s just another lie by the anti’s.
Think they have better things to do? I agree, but then again I expect anti gun legislation to be used as a diversion when there’s some bad press.
That’s my opinion, anyway. A guy that claims to support the 2nd but also thinks the DC handgun ban is reasonable is not the kind of person I trust to leave me alone if/when a scapegoat is needed.
I love when the gun nuts trot this one out. As if those militia yahoos would have the slightest chance against the US Military. I would love to watch those idiots try to take on the United States. It would be hilarious.
If they hate America so much, maybe they should leave. The idea that they could ever conquer it is beyond deluded.
Why bother to respond to my post if you didn’t read it?
I said nothing in reference to the modern view of what a militia is. The militia I was referring to, and even defined, was a conscripted force of civilians. You know, like Vietnam. Am I getting through? Hello? You’re even backing up my point in an ass backwards way. Draftees received military training, you know, using guns, military tactics, etc and then when their term of service was over they returned to being civilians. They retained the training, but now that we have no conscription only the small group that volunteers receives military training. The rest of us are at the whimsy of the government because we don’t have the training to defend ourselves.
Well, right now, my shotgun doesn’t require me paying $200 for a license, to be renewed yearly, at the pleasure of Albany, with the speed of a dead horse. (Within six months. Probably.) Which is what New York State required for pistols. If I remember right. It was some bizarre number, and renewing it is a pain in the tail that has to be done in person during work hours at the county seat.
Further, I can sell it to whom I want, if I so choose, provided they’re not criminals.
This would require me to go find some legal dealer, pay them to act as an intermediary, so I could sell my gun. Think that’d make it a bit more expensive?
Every time I get a gun, I’d have to go get a license approved for it. Before I got the gun. Notarized and so on. With fee, tax on fee, processing fee attached.
Now, I don’t buy guns that often, but the only reason I don’t have a lovely WWII M1911A1 right now is because of this issue, because dealing with the state in this matter is the world’s hugest pain in the neck. Imagine the DMV, only they really don’t want to help you, there’s only one guy, and it’s not their main job so they don’t know what they’re doing. Or care.