Benjamin Jarrell did a bang-up job summarizing the provisions of S.374, the Senate’s universal background check bill. But another anonymous member of the AI thinks he sees another fly in the legislative ointment. He writes:
“You missed a KEY point about the bill. S.374: “Upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee.” In my opinion this means that the gun’s information (S/N, make, model, etc.) must be submitted . . .
…to the local police (I suspect in almost all cities in the US) to determine if it is lost or stolen — just like everything a pawn shop takes in. This means a ONE to TWO week delay. At a gun show with 100 transfers, who holds the gun? Who holds the money and how does the process work?
If you want a background check on the buyer, then that’s all the bill should do. Check the buyer – give the seller a NICS code number with the buyers name to indicate that the buyer is OK and this might work.
don’t mention anything about bills until after they’re voted on. The democratic legislature in California pays its staff to infiltrate the Calguns forums. Bringing up questions or criticisms helps them write better anti-gun bills. Urge your representatives to vote no. Then fight in court if you have too.
^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^
CGF/CGN has has numerous problems with this occurring.
I have been saying this for some time. Many gun discussions need to be in private chat rooms like many computer hackers do
This is simply wrong.
The Calguns Foundation invented this scare tactic to stifle criticism of their litigation mistakes. Anti-gun legislators don’t need our help to write “good” laws — and relying on technical drafting errors is not a sustainable method of preserving fundamental civil rights.
Unlike in 1994, the open exchange of information, ideas and action plans on the Internet is preventing anti-gun legislation from sailing through Congress.
The idea is to keep ideas as to what is wrong with bills being used to amend bills in committee to avoid the flaws that will lead to a successful attack. I agree tis nonsense. Are the lawyers hired by CalGuns, as good as they may be, all knowing and all seeing? Not likely. And someone on a forum might just come up with a bright idea overlooked by everyone else. Eventually the stuff has to hit the fan, and fundamental issues of the right to keep and bear arms must be addressed in a legal forum where nothing is held back, particularly in those states where a substantial majority exists in favor of gun bans and strict gun laws. [In California, that majority in the Legislature is nearly 2 to 1 (although I suspect the sate as a whole is less biased).] Lawsuits must be won on the principles, not the technicalities of flawed drafting, or the battle will never end.
This assumes that all of us, nationwide, should adopt what a few people in California suppose to be a good tactic.
At the federal level, the concern isn’t that the bill will be amended in committee, but that legislators will buy into the hype surrounding these bills rather than an understanding of what is in them.
I think it is a truly bad idea to suggest that gun-rights advocates should be silent in the face of this kind of garbage. Constituents need to know what is in the bill in order to constructively contact their representatives.
Furthermore, I’m not sure I follow the logic in this comment. How does this criticism help them write a better bill?
I can’t make a very good case to my representatives if I can’t explain to them in detail why they should vote “no”. If these bills are poorly written, that should be part of the dialog. Foolish legislation and its sponsors should be ridiculed openly, in full view of the public that might support them. There’s no need for secret backroom meetings.
They sure have acquired a huge stash of hoops for jumping-0ver. We need to take those hoops away and hang them with them.
DISCLAIMER: No violence should be inferred from my remark.
AMENDMENT TO YOUR COMMENT:
Violence should always be an option. The last option – but it needs to exist.
+1
http://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB47/id/796100. originally, section 1(c)did not exist and the bill would have redefined most handguns as assault weapons. In California, this bill is just about guaranteed to pass. Now we have one less item to fight against because it the amendment process had not passed when the idea was brought up on the forums.
In California, our best bet is to focus on one glaring problem per session of legislature. We have written and called our legilators over and over again. All we can do is delay registration and bans… hopefully long enough for the SCOTUS to slap the gun grabbers in the face.
Such is life in outside of free states.
If politicians are truthfully [hah!] concerned only that a gun will be purchased by a criminal or other ineligible person, they should be happy to add these words to the bill:
“The provisions of this law shall NOT apply to sales of firearms to any person with a valid State concealed weapons license.” Because people with carry permits already have gone through an extensive background check, right? So they shouldn’t have to wait for another one, right? And the anti-gun politicians who refuse to add these words are providing proof (if anyone needs it) that their laws are really about universal registration of firearms owned by law-abiding citizens – a necessary precursor to confiscation.
Comments are closed.