Senators Agree to New Gun Control Legislation

[BobFromBucks]

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of senators has reached a deal on legislation that would for the first time create specific federal prohibitions on gun trafficking and the straw purchasing of firearms.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy says the bill would establish tough penalties for those who buy a firearm or ammunition with the intent of transferring it to someone else. The measure also would make it a crime to smuggle firearms out of the United States.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/stor...-Congress-Guns

Fox. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...n-trafficking/

[CenterTree]

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of senators has reached a deal on legislation that would for the first time create specific federal prohibitions on gun trafficking and the straw purchasing of firearms.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy says the bill would establish tough penalties for those who buy a firearm or ammunition with the intent of transferring it to someone else. The measure also would make it a crime to smuggle firearms out of the United States.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/stor...-Congress-Guns

^^ Unless you are Eric Holder.

[internet troll]

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of senators has reached a deal on legislation that would for the first time create specific federal prohibitions on gun trafficking and the straw purchasing of firearms.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy says the bill would establish tough penalties for those who buy a firearm or ammunition with the intent of transferring it to someone else. The measure also would make it a crime to smuggle firearms out of the United States.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/stor...-Congress-Guns

And ammo????? So if I pick up a box of 9mm for a buddy to shoot at the range while I am picking up my ammo, I will now be a criminal?


And the game of how many ways can we make honest citizens criminals continues.

[father-of-five]

What a short article. I guess the word "bipartisan" still gives some people a special tingly feeling. It is a false notion that passing a new law similar to an older law will somehow make that new law more enforceable. It is a false assumption that current gun laws are ineffective. They make it sound like there have been no attempts to fight "gun trafficking," which had nothing to do with the shooting in Newtown Connecticut.

OK. The fox article is a little longer. I originally just read the first one and was unimpressed. I don't know much about Mark Kirk of Illinois, but I'm pretty sure the other "R" in the "bipartisan" support is not a champion of the second amendment.

[Tomcat088]

This is just a backdoor way for them to try to make manufacturers serialize ammunition, and them keep track of how much you buy. How else could they know you were transferring ammunition? They already have plenty of laws on the books to punish people badly for straw purchases. Lots of times the people end up as felons and not able to own any firearms. Then there's the whole double standard others have mentioned. If that's what ya'll are going to get into, why not prosecute Eric Holder? I think this is just a way for them to make it sound like they're doing something to some people, and make others that actually know the laws say, "Well this isn't that different than what we already have, they just are trying to look like they're doing something." I think they're really just trying to drive up the cost of ammo even higher, because it has to be serialized, and a registry and limit on how much you can purchase, etc. When this has come up in the past, manufacturers flat out said they wouldn't sell to states that wanted serialization of ammunition because of how significant the costs per round would be as compared to normal production line ammunition. Not to mention the hassle of the companies having to keep track of that ammo, where it's shipped to, and the logistics of keeping track of all of that. This is just crap.

[father-of-five]

Yes the ammunition thing seems to be the sneaky pervasive part of the legislation.

I leaped before I looked in my last post, in that the NRA gave Collins a "decent" grade of B+, but Kirk was a "D" on the NRA grading system, not very far ahead of the "F" by his senior senator Mr. Durbin. I used http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm as my reference for this.

[vinlander]

http://www.gunowners.org/alert03042013.htm

Do you like Cuomo's semi-auto gun ban? D.C.'s microstamping requirement? Rahm Emaunuel's licensure laws?

The Senate is about to vote to make all of these into federal crimes, turning gun-owning Americans into prohibited persons — meaning they would NOT be able to own a firearm anywhere in the country!

We have talked about some of the problems with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy's gun “trafficking” bill. Leahy apparently thinks that, if he puts a shiny label on the bill, he can ban as many guns as he wants.

But, at its core, S. 54 would make it a federal crime to violate virtually any state gun law.

Section 5 creates a new "prohibited person" classification which makes it a federal crime to transfer a gun if “prohibited by State or local law ... from possessing [or] selling ... THE firearm or ammunition.” [Emphasis added]

Note the use of the word “the.” We're not talking about a person who's banned from owning ANY firearm. We're talking about a person who's prohibited by ANY state law from possessing a PARTICULAR firearm.

So do you like Andrew Cuomo's massive gun ban? He bans more types of guns than would Feinstein’s so-called “assault weapons” ban. Yet under S. 54, transferring a firearm banned by Cuomo becomes a federal crime, punishable by ten years in a federal prison — at least for New York residents and possibly for others.

Do you like California's proposed ammunition ban? That also becomes a federal crime — at least for California residents and perhaps for others.

So you like gun licensure? A person who doesn't have a license in New York and Illinois is also “prohibited by State ... law ... from possessing [or] selling ... the firearm.” This becomes a federal crime.

Do you agree with D.C.'s efforts to ban firearms by imposing a microstamping requirement? Transferring a non-microstamped firearm would become a FEDERAL crimeunder S. 54 — at least for D.C. residents and maybe others.

By voting for S. 54, your senator will be making guns banned by Andrew Cuomo’s expansive law into federally banned guns, as well. He will be saying, “I like every word of gun control which Rahm Emanuel is pushing.”

By the way, Senator Leahy is trying to sell S. 54 as a supposed crackdown on gun traffickers. But there’s not one word in this bill that would punish (or prevent) what happened in Fast & Furious, where our government helped send thousands of illegal guns south of the border, resulting in the murders of hundreds of Mexicans and at least one federal agent.

Moreover, it’s currently illegal to traffic in firearms. It’s illegal to sell a gun to a prohibited person [18 USC 922(d)]. It’s illegal to serve as a straw man [18 USC 922(d)]. It’s illegal to sell a bunch of guns without a license [18 USC 922(a)]. But that’s not what S. 54 is about. The one thing S. 54 would do is to make gun bans being passed by every anti-gun state into federal crimes as well.

ACTION: Click here to contact your senators. Demand that they oppose S. 54 and speak out against it.

http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/a...ertid=62464561

[DClan]

^^ Unless you are Eric Holder.

Or work for him, the BATFE, or they're hidden inside tanks and planes being shipped by Obummer.

[JenniferG]

I just sent the Senators my opposition to this bill through GOA.

http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/a...ertid=62464561

[chrisjp]

i sent it also