search
top

We Have Language for S. 374, the Transfer Ban

Shumer had kept the bogus “background check” bill under wraps, only putting forth a shell bill with no specifics. Well, he applied the text through an amendment at the last minute, before it passed. John Richardson has the details, including the text. I’ve only skimmed the details, but here’s the key problems:

  • If you left town for more than 7 days, and left your gay partner, or unrelated roommate at home with the guns, you’d be committing a felony. This should be called the “denying gun rights to gays act.” Remember that the federal government does not recognize gay marriage, even if you’re state does, thanks to DOMA. 5 years in prison.
  • Actually, even married couples are questionably legal, because the exemption between family only applies to gifts, not to temporary transfers. The 7 day implication is if you leave your spouse at home for more than 7 days, it’s an unlawful transfer, and you’re a 5 year felon. I suppose you could gift them to your spouse, or related co-habitant, and then have them gift them back when you arrive back home. Maybe the Attorney General will decide to create a form for that.
  • It would be illegal to lend a gun to a friend to take shooting. That would be a transfer. 5 years in federal prison.
  • Steals the livelihood of gun dealers by setting a fixed fee to conduct transfers. The fee is fixed by the Attorney General. What’s to prevent him from setting it at $1000?
  • Enacts defacto universal gun registration, because of record keeping requirements.
  • All lost and stolen guns must be reported to the federal and local government. This means everyone will have to fill out the theft/loss form, and not just FFLs. You only have 24 hours to comply. If you lose a gun on a hunting trip deep in the woods, and can’t get back home to fill out the form in 24 hours, you’re a felon and will spend 5 years in federal prison.
  • Want to lend a gun to a friend to go hunting? It’s a 5 year in prison felony.
  • No exception for state permits. All transfers must go through a dealer or 5 years in federal prison.
  • UPDATE: Teaching someone to shoot on your own land is a felony, 5 years, if you hand them the gun. Not an exempted transfer.

We will go thermonuclear on anyone who votes for this crap, and that goes double for Republicans. It’s nothing more than an attempt to put more gun owners in prison. Schumer was wise to keep this under wraps, because his bill is truly draconian.  I not only expect the GOP to vote against this piece of crap bill, I expect them to filibuster it. Let’s see if the Democrats can get to 60 without any Republican support, and let’s see how many of them want to lose their seats in 2014.

This bill has nothing to do with ensuring people who are getting guns are law-abiding, and everything to do with getting backdoor registration, and creating a patchwork of rules and laws that will land anyone who uses guns, and isn’t a lawyer, in federal prison for a long time. Lots of otherwise law-abiding people are going to federal prison if this ends up passing, and I’m convinced that’s the whole idea.

165 Responses to “We Have Language for S. 374, the Transfer Ban”

  1. Bubblehead Les says:

    I THINK Ohio is safe in the Senate, because even though Sherrod Brown is a Friend of Chuckies, Portman is pretty solid when it come to the RKBA. But It wouldn’t hurt for Buckeyes to remind the Good Senator to “Not to Stray off the Reservation.”

    But one can forget Brown.

    Thanks for the Update.

  2. BigHayden says:

    Maybe Lautenberg’s health will become enough of an issue that he won’t be able to complete his term. That would leave Gov. Christie to name his replacement and would be a good litmus test for national republicans who still believe that CC is a conservative.

  3. Michael Bane says:

    That’s the new rules in Colorado…

    mb

  4. McThag says:

    My trust owns all my guns. My wife and I are cotrustees…

  5. wizardpc says:

    The way I read it, it also makes it a felony to teach someone how to shoot–unless they buy a gun first.

  6. Ish says:

    This doesn’t really seem that outrageous. We all know that our Constitution allows for certain, reasonable, common sense restrictions on the exercise of our rights.

    After all, I am free to practice whatever religion I wish… so long as I attend synagogue every seven days or the state will turn me into a Baptist. That’s just common sense for the First Amendment.

    The government cannot quarter troops in my house for longer
    than six days at a time. Perfectly reasonable limit on the Third Amendment.

    Every African-American knows they better not stay in a slave state for longer than seven days or the 14th Amendment is null. That’s just a reasonable compromise!

    • Jim W says:

      13th amendment.

    • Rafi says:

      That was great!

      I would just like to suggest to Sebastian that I don’t believe that the Obamunists really want to put that many gun owners in prison, maybe just a few hundred “activists”.

      What they really want is to further terrorize Americans into being afraid of owning guns.

      • Sebastian says:

        Yeah, I’d agree, but those of us not willing to play along are going to become “activists,” and will be having our prison stripes fitted for us while they wait for us to slip up, and catch us teaching someone to shoot outside one of the byzantine exceptions.

        • I suppose at that point, other “activists” who are watching will either fold or decide the jury box isn’t working out.

          • Rob Crawford says:

            You gonna bet your life on 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty? For a “crime” that amounts to failure to kiss a bureaucrat’s hiney?

    • ed says:

      I hope that was supposed to be irony.

      Still what part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

  7. Jim W says:

    Uh, I read it as allowing lending at a gun range within very narrow constraints. But generally speaking the language defining what is not a transfer leads me to believe that any time a gun is in someone else’s hands without going through an FFL first, it’s a transfer.

    IE, the cops pull you over, you have a gun.
    You say “hey, I’m going to the shooting range.”
    They run the serials on your guns find one of them belongs to someone else.
    They ask about it.
    You say “My friend didn’t have room in his trunk so he put the gun in my car, I’m meeting him there.”
    They say “you are under arrest; there’s no exemption for that sort of transfer. You should have gone to an FFL first and transferred it with a background check and then when you got to the range, transferred it ba… Oh wait, that sounds stupid and impossible, but you’re still under arrest.”

    • Jim W says:

      Here’s some tricky “does not apply” language:

      ‘‘(D) a temporary transfer of possession with7
      out transfer of title made in connection with lawful
      8 hunting or sporting purposes if the transfer oc9
      curs—
      10 ‘‘(i) at a shooting range located in or on
      11 premises owned or occupied by a duly incor12
      porated organization organized for conservation
      13 purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms
      14 and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the
      15 premises of the shooting range;
      16 ‘‘(ii) at a target firearm shooting competi17
      tion under the auspices of or approved by a
      18 State agency or nonprofit organization and the
      19 firearm is, at all times, kept within the prem20
      ises of the shooting competition; and
      21 ‘‘(iii) while hunting or trapping, if—
      22 ‘‘(I) the activity is legal in all places
      23 where the unlicensed transferee possesses
      24 the firearm;
      13
      ALB13180 S.L.C.
      1 ‘‘(II) the temporary transfer of pos2
      session occurs during the designated hunt3
      ing season; and
      4 ‘‘(III) the unlicensed transferee holds
      5 any required license or permit.

      Hahaha. Get a load of this shit:
      1) It doesn’t apply on “a shooting range…. duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms.” But what if it’s just a shooting range owned by an individual? What if there is an organization but it isn’t organized for one of those two purposes? Who decides what they’re incorporated for? What if it’s just organized for the purposes of making a profit by charging entrance fees?
      2) Watch out if your buddy doesn’t have the multiple stamps and permits necessary to hunt a deer, or you wander across an unmarked property boundary where you don’t have permission to hunt. In Florida, you have to have (as of last year) about 4 pieces of paper to legally hunt deer. They’re not hard to acquire, but most people who aren’t lawyers make mistakes. Hope you brought your toothbrush, because you’re going to federal prison for 5 years.
      3) Hahaha, “auspices of a shooting competition… non-profit organization.” Oh wow, that is a giant fuck you to most shooting competitions… which are run by for profit organizations IIRC. Guess you better read up on what your competitions sponsor files with the IRS as – are they non profit or not? It could mean the difference between prison or not.

      • Rob Crawford says:

        So, if this Intolerable Act passes, if I lent someone my 10/22 to try out at the range I built on my own land, I’d be performing an illegal transfer?

        • Jim W says:

          That’s what it says, yes.

          A loan is a transfer. It’s to non-immediate family and it’s not on a shooting range owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization for the purposes of conservation or firearms training.

          Hope you brought a toothbrush, cause you’re going to jail.

          • Jim W says:

            And it’s not the activity on the range that is for the purposes of conservation or firearms training, it’s the purpose for which the corporation that owns it is organized. Better break out those corporate charters and see what they say. Sure hope that land isn’t owned by a trust.

            If you’re not a lawyer, this is a huge minefield. Actually, I am a lawyer and I think this is ridiculous.

        • Sebastian says:

          Yep. I have updated. Thanks for catching that.

        • SPQR says:

          Improvised ranges on BLM land == felony. Etc.

      • SeanF says:

        You’re missing the real problem with section D, which is the “and” at the end of line 20. I’m pretty sure it’s supposed to be “or.”

        As it’s written (with the “and”), a transfer is only legal if it occurs “at a shooting range” and “at a target firearm shooting competition” and “while hunting or trapping.”

        It can’t simply meet any of the three, it has to meet all three.

        • Rob Crawford says:

          That’s one hell of a weekend.

          (And the range I’m a member of doesn’t allow hunting. I’ve had deer wander onto the range while I’m shooting, because they know we’ll stop.)

    • Patrick Henry says:

      Why would you consent to a illeal search of your vehicle? No consent, no discovery.

  8. Jim W says:

    Oh one other thing I noticed it does. Note how it says “provided that the other party has the necessary licenses and permits”- it is now a federal felony to lend a gun to someone at a range who is an IL resident if they don’t have an FOID. Ditto NY, MA, etc all the local jurisdictions that require permitting for ownership or possession.

    There is no way that this is intended to go after criminals. It’s just a straight attack on law abiding gun owners that turns every interaction with another person relating to guns into a potential felony.

  9. motomed says:

    I’m guessing the delay on the actual language was so he could wait and see which way he wanted to go with this. If it looked like it had a chance at passing, maybe make it somewhat reasonable… if it looks like it’s going down, might as well go big and say you tried. He must figure it wasn’t going to pass either way….

  10. Billll says:

    If your guns are registered to you by serial number, you’re already hosed. In most states general property at a household is common property of the persons living there as any divorce attorney will tell you. If you go out of town, the guns are common property of you and your wife so there can be no transfer. To a lesser extent this applies to cohabitants as well.

    • Sebastian says:

      The way the law is written, it would seem to imply strict liability for a transfer among people who reside in a household. It may be married people are exempted, but it’s hard for me to see how co-habitators are.

  11. jdrush says:

    Wow, they really aren’t coming for our guns. They are coming for US.

  12. jbiros says:

    Is this of of commitee going to full Senate?

  13. jbiros says:

    This seems like if you own guns and want to go hunting with Family members its illegal to let them use the guns. So if your kids are 15 or 16…..they cant use the guns to hunt.

    Anyone who thought they were safe just because the only had “hunting” guns had better wake up quick.

  14. wizardpc says:

    It says the gun has to stay on the range at ALL times. Not just during the temporary transfer. Thus, can’t teach new shooters unless they buy a gun first. Or rent from the range.

  15. Michael Peckerman says:

    Sounds very similar to what was passed in CO. Bad news for everyone.

    Mike

  16. Borepatch says:

    It’s not often I say this, but Boehner is playing this smart. Let the Senate vote on this before it dies in the House. Make the purple state (D) guys vote it up or down. Have Chuckie make them put ‘em on record.

    Then let it die in the house and take it to the 2014 election.

  17. Publicola says:

    It’s not verbatim, but the language is very close to what they’re trying to pull here in Colorado. Ours is a misdemeanor, for example, but with a 2 year prohibition on possession of firearms if convicted of a violation. Also ours was amended 9 times to cover some of these concerns, like leaving firearm with a spouse or cohabitant. Not that it did…

    But these are designed to chill the exercise of a Right; to make it harder if not impossible to shoot with friends or to teach others how to shoot – or even how to safely handle firearms in your own living room.

    It’s a culture war, & there really can be no compromise or appeasement on our part.

  18. Bitter says:

    You know, Californians and New Yorkers should be the loudest opponents of this – along with Tennesseans. You know what those places have in common? The entertainment industry that takes many employees out on the road for weeks at a time. If this were the law-of-the-land right now, my sister-in-law would be a felon at this very moment.

    • 2brknot2b says:

      Actually, NYS has been ruled by downstate for quite a while. A few Dem senators who lied about their belief in the 2A (belief implies they know it exists, not that they will abide by it. Always watch the language of the left, like what the meaning of “is” is). How, because of this, and many Dems falling for their lie, the rest of the state suffers under draconian gun laws. Upstate can not do anything to undo what has been done short of a shooting war, or civil disobedience which is likely to lead to arrest & incarceration. Even local sheriff’s believe they are beholden to uphold the language of the law rather than the constitutionality of the law. Their premise is that, like good NAZI’s in Germany, they are doing their job, and it is up to the courts to decide whether you have been wronged, or not.As to Chuck Schumer, he bought his position with the aid of NYSR&P (he got money for them to build their range in the place where they meet annually). He would have likely been erected Senator anyway given his Jewish ancestry, and the number of idiots who live downstate who vote Dem Party line regardless of policy. MOst NYC area believe we need more gun controls anyway, tho’ I’m not sure why given the number of dead due to anti-gun policies therein.

  19. Wes says:

    I find the parsing of the tyrant’s words both amusing & sad, as if it could be made a “reasonable compromise” or a “common-sense” solution. It’s too late folks.

  20. SPQR says:

    As mentioned above, this is the same language as appeared in the House bill in Colorado for criminalizing private transfers. That makes it obvious that the language is originating in the same place – my bet is Bloomberg’s crooked MAIG.

  21. Jane says:

    I find it absolutely hilarious and at the same time very frightening that so many people are completely misinterpreting this amendment, even some who claim to be lawyers.

    If you took the time to read the entire amendment line by line, you should be able to see that, while paragraph (t)(1) makes it illegal to transfer a gun without going through a dealer, paragraph (t)(2) points out many scenarios that paragraph (1) does NOT apply to, the very same specific scenarios that you say it DOES apply to. It appears to me that you and everyone commenting here should either read the amendment a little more carefully or brush up on your reading comprehension.

    • Sebastian says:

      I stand by my reading of the law. Who do you work for? I note you have a DC IP address.

    • Sebastian says:

      And I took the time to read the amendment line by line. It makes a blanket statement, and then makes very narrow and inadequate exceptions, implying there is a general prohibition for transfers, even temporary ones, that fall outside the exception.

      If you want to argue why that’s not the case, make your argument.

    • Jim W says:

      We’ve read the law.

      The prohibited criminal activity that is defined in the law is extremely broad. It sweeps up an enormous amount of conduct that is currently legal (and extremely commonplace) outside of the major cities.

      The exceptions to the new prohibitions are extremely narrow and have many conditions that are difficult to satisfy in practice. It turns what is currently an innocent and ordinary activity into an impenetrable maze of legal requirements, with missteps punishable by time in federal prison.

      I’m a criminal defense attorney and I can personally tell you that this law will not affect any violent felon client I have ever represented. They don’t buy guns, except from other criminals. They don’t go to shooting ranges. They don’t go hunting. They don’t give guns as gifts to friends and family. They steal guns (or buy them from other thieves) and use them to commit crimes. This law wouldn’t even impede Adam Lanza. His mom couldn’t report the gun lost or stolen because she was dead before the gun was taken. And the transfer couldn’t have taken place through an FFL because it wasn’t voluntary on her part. Nevermind that DOJ’s current policy is to not bother prosecuting felon in possession cases. Where real criminals are concerned this will just become another non-prosecuted offense that is only ever trotted out for political reasons.

      The only possible motivation for this law could be hostility toward legal gun ownership. That’s the only group that will suffer from this. Anyone who speaks in favor of this bill is an enemy to gun owners. And we vote.

      • Rob Crawford says:

        that is currently legal (and extremely commonplace) outside of the major cities

        And is commonplace and unprosecuted inside the gun-grabber havens.

    • Hey “Jane,” let’s try out this logic with a short bill.

      “The legislature fully supports the nineteenth amendment, and supports women’s suffrage.
      1) It shall be illegal for any women to vote, except in accordance with the exceptions in section two.
      2) Women may vote if they are in compliance with all state & local regulations, ordinances, and regulations.
      3) The penalty for violation of section one shall be a felony with five years in prison.”

      Now imagine it is being enforced by a regime actively hostile to the rights of women (or blacks, or Jews, or whoever–similar bills have been used against many groups). Do you not see how this would be rife for abuse? If not, go read up on Jim Crow.

    • Bryan S. says:

      So rights may be infringed if we went to law school and understand the wire trips and pit falls?

    • Romandad says:

      I’m a lawyer, and I read the Bill… Its very clear, one is exempt from a “transfer” if “the firearm is not removed from that
      home or curtilage during the temporary tranfer”. You’ll notice they use the word “curtilage” and not just “property”. “Curtilage” is a legal term of art from 4th Amendment Law. It typically means the property DIRECTLY ADJACENT to a home, usually within an enclosed fence, where the homeowner has an increased expectation of privacy. It’s typically a tiny area. It does not usually include the large open field of multiple acreage necessary for a property owner to shoot on his own land, where he could invite friends over to do some recreational target shooting, and firearm sampling.

  22. SPQR says:

    Jane, we understand exactly what we are reading. What you are not following is that we are discussing the narrowness of the exceptions and how many ordinary events do not fall within them.

  23. Publicola says:

    Gun control supporters are those that have read gun control bills. Gun control opponents are those that have understood gun control bills ;)

    One senator here in Colorado kept referring to amendments to the universal background check as “oops-es”. He was thinking they didn’t mean to make things so harsh. He was mistaken – they just didn’t mean to get caught.

    Same here from what I see – the exceptions aren’t meant to actually make life easier on gun owners with no harmful intent; they’re just there so they can claim there are exceptions, even though it likely won’t cover what concern people most.

    Did I mention this was a war on culture? The exceptions don’t really matter – either they’re gonna wage their war on us or they’re not, and either we’re going to fight back or we’re not.

  24. I will not comply with this Intolerable Act.

    If this passes I suspect I will be teaching even more people to shoot than I already do. Not fewer.

  25. Jim says:

    They don’t just want you in prison, they want your voting rights too. I say play up the “denying gays and women angle” and play it hard. We all know how these little hitler wannabes treat gays and women. One to the ovens, the other under their boot.

    • AndyN says:

      Oh crap, I’d completely forgotten about felons being legally disenfranchised. So if I’m out of town for a week and a half, someone breaks into my place and my house-sitter shoots him with one of my guns, not only can I go to federal prison for 5 years but I can be barred from voting.

      I think Napoleon had it exactly backwards when he said “never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.” I think the fascists know exactly what they’re doing when they write this kind of legislation, and they’re just counting on too few people noticing until it’s too late.

  26. Cliffy44 says:

    Shove this bill up your schumer-hole.

    Pennsylvania is a safe state that is not effected by Asshole schumer.

    And, “$hit-4-Brains schumer”, if you’re reading this, go fu*k yourself.

    • Bitter says:

      Pennsylvania is a safe state that is not effected by Asshole schumer.

      You are aware that Pennsylvania is part of the United States, right? And that what Sen. Schumer is proposing is a federal law that will impact everyone in the country? That does include Pennsylvania.

      Also, if you think Pennsylvania is a nice, safe state, you haven’t been paying attention. Our reciprocity agreements are under assault, and we now have lawmakers from the suburbs – not even the urban areas – pushing confiscation of certain firearms since the continued possession of them is to be viewed as a “loophole” that must be closed.

  27. Jane says:

    Wow, I have never run across a group of such paranoid conspiracy-theorists in my entire life! You’re even assuming that I work for some government agency just because someone told you that I have a DC IP address (which I DO NOT, by the way)! Reminds me of the song “Uneasy Rider”.

    “Well you may not know it but this man is a spy.
    He’s a undercover agent for the FBI
    And he’s been sent down here to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan!”

    It never ceases to amaze me how naive and gullible some people can be and still claim to know everything. I hope you all have your bunkers stocked and ready for this imaginary “war” you’re concocting. LMAO

    • Ish says:

      Jane, this is a self-hosted WordPress blog. As such, Bitter and Sebastian have the ability to see the full IP address of every commentor. The “someone” who told them you IP was from the greater DC area was, well, you. Your ISP might be routing it through that area for some reason, but odds are you live somewhere near Ye Olde Legistative Swamp.

      Since you insist we’re all paranoid, please feel free to respond with actual constructive criticisms.

      If you took the time to read the entire amendment line by line, you should be able to see that, while paragraph (t)(1) makes it illegal to transfer a gun without going through a dealer, paragraph (t)(2) points out many scenarios that paragraph (1) does NOT apply to.

      I have actually read the full bill… I’ve also learned how to properly cite my sources. S.374, 113th Cong., 1st Sess. (2013), §202(t)(2)(A) exempts gifts between spouses, parents and children, silblings, and grandparents. As Sebastian pointed out, the federal DOMA law forbids the fed.gov from recognizing same-sex marriages as legitimate sposes, parents, or grandparents.

      §202(t)(2)(C) only exempts a temportary transfer where the firearm never leaves the home… §202(t)(2)(D) only exempts it when at the range or hunting… Which means you can never leave your firearms in your own home for more than seven days unless you come back every seventh day; you cannot actually let someone transport a firearm to a range or a hunt; etcetera. So… No, §202(t)(2) doesn’t do what you say it does.

      But, more importantly, U.S. Const. amend II states: “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” So bugger off.

    • Sebastian says:

      Eh, it was a half hearted assumption at best, not something I was planning on hanging my hat on.

      But go ahead and continue condescending to me and my readers, instead of making actual arguments for why we’re wrong in our reading of this bill. Much easier to just erect a straw man, than make arguments. I understand.

    • Jake says:

      Okay, Jane, let’s have a reasonable discussion here: You claim that “paragraph (t)(2) points out many scenarios that paragraph (1) does NOT apply to, the very same specific scenarios that [Sebastian] say[s] it DOES apply to”.

      Please, tell us specifically which parts of ¶(t)(2) exempt each of the specific scenarios that Sebastian listed, and why.

      I have gone back and read the relevant sections, and while IANAL, my understanding of the bill agrees with that of Sebastian, Jim W, and others. Please, don’t just tell us we’re wrong, tell us why we’re wrong.

    • Rob Crawford says:

      OK, Jane, I’ve read the text and looked up the legal terms I wasn’t sure about.

      I stand by the circumstances I described: on a range constructed on my own land, loaning someone a firearm would be illegal under this law. Now, §202(t)(2)(C)(i) says:

      (i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed transferor;

      That would seem to exempt this situation. Except, “home” refers only to the dwelling and “curtilage” is defined as the property immediately around the home, subject to tests of distance, enclosure, nature of use, and protection from observation.

      If, when walking from the home to the range, you have to cross a fenceline, then the range is outside the “curtilage”.

      If the range is too far from the home, then the range is outside the “curtilage”.

      And, hey, that “nature of use” bit? Wanna bet a federal prosecutor wouldn’t argue that a gun range is not part of the “intimate activities of the home”? Wanna bet five years of prison, loss of franchise, and probably the destruction of your life on that?

      • Ish says:

        Especially if said federal prosecutor wants to make a name for himself by charging “to the fullest extent of the law” the “dangerous, anti-government, insurrectionist” who was trainning a “terrorist militia” on his “compound. With aresenal of weapons and combat training facility.”

    • SPQR says:

      And I notice you’ve abandoned claiming that we are reading Schumer’s text incorrectly.

    • jerry says:

      Joan Peterson is that you?

  28. Robert says:

    @jdrush: You are correct. A gun is just a tool. It is harmless unless someone decides to use it for its intended purpose. They are coming for the users of the tools, not the tools. They do not fear the tools. They fear those who might use the tools. If we don’t wake up soon, we will be in bad shape.

  29. John says:

    Wouldn’t the “bona fide gift” to a spouse then expose you to a gift tax? Twice.

    • Ish says:

      Gifts to one’s spouse are generally exempt from the gift tax… although if you’re GLBT you are stil SOL. But consult your attorney and/or accountant before you rely on a random comment on the interweb.

  30. rumcrook™ says:

    Why argue with jane? she knows your all right. she doesnt care she is one of them.

    thier are two tribes in the U.S. now and the rightness of your position is immaterial to the support or lack of support your position gives the tribe.

    the two tribes are the government tribe and all those affiliated or wish to be affiliated in some way,

    and the freedom traditionalist tribe.

    may the chains of serfdom and servanthood to the government lay lightly upon your shoulders jane.

    • Mininerd ISH says:

      I’m not trying to win Jane to my point of view, per se, so much as the rest of the world which may read this exchange. That’s the point of an open exchange of ideas, check out the “ice cream” scene from ‘Thank You for Smoking’s for details.

      Plus, lets face it, “Reasoned Discourse” is a hallmark of their side. Our ideas can stand up to scrutiny.

  31. Jane says:

    First of all “Ish”, I never said that someone told Sebastian that I had a DC IP address. I said that someone (Sebastian) told you that I had a DC IP address, and, again, I DO NOT. My IP address is 71.114.1.213. Just to make it easy for you, here’s a link to look it up and see for yourself that it is NOT in DC. It’s still not exact, but it’s a helluva lot closer that what you were told and it certainly doesn’t map to anything even remotely connected to the Naval Observatory, Joe Biden’s home, or anywhere else that you might be want to use in your conspiracy theories.
    http://iplocation.truevue.org/?ip=71.114.1.213

    And for the record, it is a static IP address. If you don’t know what that means, look it up.

    Second, bragging that you know how to cite a source doesn’t make you appear to be quite the legal big shot that you apparently think it does, it simply shows how much you crave attention. I know how to cite as well, but it’s a blog for God’s sake, and I really couldn’t care less what you or anyone else here thinks of me.

    And third, as far as the amendment is concerned, there is really nothing to argue or to prove because, for the most part, it is very clear. But just to humor you, I’ll explain it in language that anyone should be able to understand.

    Paragraph (1) (excuse me, §202(t)(1)) states:

    (1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). 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 other words, it would be unlawful for an unlicensed person to transfer (give or sell) a gun to another unlicensed person without using a licensed person (dealer) as a middleman.)

    Paragraph (2) (excuse me, §202(t)(2)) specifically states (emphasis and personal interpretation added):

    (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—

    (A) bona fide gifts between spouses, between parents and their children, between siblings, or between grandparents and their grandchildren;

    (In other words, Joe Gunowner can legally give a gun as a gift to his spouse, parent, child, sibling, grandparent or grandchild without using a licensed person as a middleman. Granted, this would raise issues with domestic partners who are not married in the eyes of the governing law, so that would need some work. I’ll give you that one.)

    (B) a transfer made from a decedent’s estate, pursuant to a legal will or the operation of law;

    (In other words, Joe Gunowner can legally inherit a gun without using a licensed person as a middleman.)

    (C) a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if —

    (i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed transferor; (Example: Joe Gunowner says to his wife: “Honey, I’m going to be out late tonight and there’s been a few break-ins recently, so here is my gun in case anything happens.”)

    (ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and (Example: Joe Gunowner says to his wife: “Honey, I’m going to be out late tonight and there’s been a few break-ins recently, so here is my gun in case anything happens. But whatever you do, don’t leave the property with it.”)

    (iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days; and (Example 1: Joe Gunowner says to his wife: “Honey, I’m going to be out of town for a few days and there’s been a few break-ins recently, so here is my gun in case anything happens. But whatever you do, don’t leave the property with it.” (constitutes a temporary transfer)) (Example 2: Joe Gunowner says to his wife: “Honey, I’m going to be out of town for at least a week there’s been a few break-ins recently, so if anything happens, call 911.” (does not constitute any kind of transfer)) (Example 3: Joe Gunowner says to his wife: “Honey, I’m going to be out of town for at least a week and there’s been a few break-ins recently, so let’s run down to the dealer and I will transfer my gun to you in case anything happens.” (constitutes a legal transfer))

    (D) a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title (borrowing/lending) made in connection with lawful hunting or sporting purposes if the transfer occurs—

    (i) 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; (In other words, if Joe Gunowner wants to take his buddy, Billy Badass, to the range to teach him how to shoot, he can do so and allow Billy Badass to use his gun as long as the range is legit and he doesn’t let Billy Badass leave the range with his gun.)

    (ii) at a target firearm shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by a State agency or nonprofit organization and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting competition; and (In other words, after Joe Gunowner has taught Billy Badass how to shoot, Billy Badass wants to enter a shooting match hoping to win money to buy his own gun. Joe Gunowner can take Billy Badass to that shooting match and allow him to use his gun as long as the shooting match is legit and he doesn’t let Billy Badass leave the shooting match with his gun.)

    (iii) while hunting or trapping, if— Poor Billy Badass lost the shooting match and still doesn’t have his own gun.)

    (I) the activity is legal in all places where the unlicensed transferee possesses the firearm; (Joe Gunowner can take Billy Badass hunting and let him use his gun, as long as they are in a location where it is legal to hunt.)

    (II) the temporary transfer of possession occurs during the designated hunting season; and (Joe Gunowner can take Billy Badass hunting and let him use his gun, as long as they are hunting during the designated hunting season.)

    (III) the unlicensed transferee holds any required license or permit. (Joe Gunowner can take Billy Badass hunting and let him use his gun, as long as Billy Badass has a valid hunting license.)

    I’m a bit tired of copying, pasting and explaining for the benefit of people who will never admit they were wrong anyway so, with regard to the lost or stolen reporting issue, I will leave you with just two things to consider, research and/or cry about. Number one, interstate or foreign commerce….learn what it means. And number two, “within 24 hours after the person discovers the theft or loss”.

    And now YOU can “bugger off”.

    • SPQR says:

      Jane, if you think you just refuted our discussions, you are wrong. Your examples in several cases confirm our points not contradict them – such as where your own text says that a man who leaves a gun with his wife for more than seven days has to get an FFL to transfer. (And by the way, there are states that require a transfer to have a longer waiting period than that).

      But let me show you an example of how bad this law is written. From your comment:

      (iii) while hunting or trapping, if— Poor Billy Badass lost the shooting match and still doesn’t have his own gun.)

      (I) the activity is legal in all places where the unlicensed transferee possesses the firearm; (Joe Gunowner can take Billy Badass hunting and let him use his gun, as long as they are in a location where it is legal to hunt.)

      So if Poor Billy is hunting in one field with the borrowed gun, and crosses the road to another field, he’s committed a crime as its illegal to hunt within 50 feet of the centerline of a road in my state. Or if Poor Billy drives into town in the middle of the day for lunch, with the borrowed gun in his truck, then he’s committed a crime because its illegal to hunt in city limits.

      The range exception is too narrow as well, as it would not allow me and a friend to go to the nearest indoor range and shoot each others’ guns at that range – because its a commercial indoor range that’s part of a gun store and not owned or occupied by an org for conservation purposes. (Its corporate charter reads “for all lawful purposes” in fact) Indeed, that business could no longer legally rent guns to potential customers to try out.

      So the bottom line, Jane, is that you didn’t understand our points and you utterly failed to refute them.

      • jerry says:

        Why, pray tell, do people like “Jane” bother to post on sites such as these? One would think that he or she would feel more comfortable at the Daily Kos telling everyone how smart Obama is.

      • Jane says:

        See, that’s my whole point. Because you’re afraid of losing your 2nd Amendment rights, you’ve all made up your minds that any and all regulation is bad so you can’t see the forest for the trees, so to speak.

        If it’s illegal to hunt within 50 feet of the centerline of a road in your state, then it would be illegal regardless of whether you’re using your own gun or someone else’s, so what does that have to do with anything? And if you wanted to drive into town in the middle of the day for lunch and you know it’s illegal to have a borrowed gun with you, then why wouldn’t you either take the gun owner with you, or leave the gun with him? What is the big deal about that?

        And as for the range, it doesn’t say JUST for conservation purposes, it also says “or to foster proficiency in firearms” which would include ANY range as long as the range is legally owned and designated as a firing range, and it would certainly include a range where the charter reads “for all lawful purposes”. There’s nothing narrow about it.

        All I’m trying to do is get you all to step back and take a closer look at each individual issue and see it for what it really is. Believe it or not, I happen to be a gun owner myself. I personally own a Kahr P9, and my husband owns a Ruger .44Mag Super Blackhawk and several long guns. My nephew is a collector and he and his wife are avid hunters. In fact, pretty much everyone in my family hunts (except for me…I just sit at home and wait for them to deliver the tenderloins to me LOL). I was taught about gun safety and how to shoot in 7th grade, in school, by the NRA. I am NOT anti-guns, but I’m also not opposed to some kind of legislation that might make the world as we know it a little bit safer. People say that gun control legislation will not stop the violence because criminals don’t get their guns legally anyway and it will only take guns away from law-abiding citizens. But where do those criminals get those guns? They steal them from law-abiding citizens and then they get passed around and sold from one criminal to another. So the way I see it, if we law-abiding citizens had more control over our guns in the form of registration, etc., then it would be much harder for the criminals to get them and, eventually, there would be less illegal guns on the streets. I have absolutely no problem jumping through a few hoops if it will make the streets, schools, and other public places safer for my grandchildren, my 80-year-old mother, or anyone else.

        The bottom line is that not all legislation is bad. A lot of people have a lot of good ideas, but it will take constructive input and help from legal gun owners to get it done and get it done right. So instead of knocking EVERY idea and assuming that someone is going to try to break your door down and take all your guns away, wouldn’t it be better to be a little more open-minded about it and offer ideas on what you ARE willing to do in order to keep your rights and make the streets safer at the same time? There has to be an answer and fighting everything just for the sake of fighting is certainly not it.

        And on that note, I’m done with this. You all know where I stand and how I feel, but it’s up to you whether or not you pay any attention. Each one of you will have to deal with your own conscience whether you lose your rights by fighting tooth and nail, or if you win your battle and then lose a loved one to gun violence that you know in your heart you may have been able to help prevent had you only been willing to compromise a little. I hope you all have a lovely evening and a wonderful life, but I also hope you take a little time to actually think for yourselves.

        • SPQR says:

          If it’s illegal to hunt within 50 feet of the centerline of a road in your state, then it would be illegal regardless of whether you’re using your own gun or someone else’s, so what does that have to do with anything?

          Because it wasn’t a crime to cross the road with the gun, until this bill showed up. You are not paying attention.

          And as for the range, it doesn’t say JUST for conservation purposes, it also says “or to foster proficiency in firearms” which would include ANY range as long as the range is legally owned and designated as a firing range, and it would certainly include a range where the charter reads “for all lawful purposes”. There’s nothing narrow about it.

          No, it wouldn’t. You made that up. The rules of statutory construction don’t allow the courts to read language as being meaningless.

          I am NOT anti-guns, but I’m also not opposed to some kind of legislation that might make the world as we know it a little bit safer.

          A fraudulent statement, because nothing in this bill will make anyone safer. States that have already forbidden private transfers are no safer than states which permit them. And nothing in this bill gives people “more control” against stolen guns. Not a thing. Yet another utterly false claim by you.

          The bottom line is that not all legislation is bad.

          This legislation is bad. It creates surprise technical traps in the law to make innocent people into Federal Felons.

          Each one of you will have to deal with your own conscience whether you lose your rights by fighting tooth and nail, or if you win your battle and then lose a loved one to gun violence that you know in your heart you may have been able to help prevent had you only been willing to compromise a little.

          Your attempt to push guilt for the actions of criminals onto lawabiding people defending their rights is grossly and offensively stupid. It demonstrates your utter lack of good faith perfectly.

        • jerry says:

          “And on that note, I’m done with this” Well, don’t let the door hit ya.

        • Jay says:

          “The bottom line is that not all legislation is bad.”

          ALL LEGISLATION IS BAD!

        • Believe it or not, I happen to be a gun owner myself. I personally own a Kahr P9, and my husband owns a Ruger .44Mag Super Blackhawk and several long guns. My nephew is a collector and he and his wife are avid hunters.

          Even if this is true, so what? A bunch of Jews urged the others to hop onto the trains to go to summer camp, too. Many American Colonists were Tories that aided and encouraged the British. Quislings are nothing new. Hell Joan Peterson’s household has a firearm and she wants me — and you, likely — dead or in prison.

          This law is complete horseshit and I will not comply even if it passes. I also do not plan on going to jail. So where’s that leave us? How much are you willing to pay to enforce your laws at the point of the bayonet?

        • David says:

          Jane,
          you hit the nail right on it’s narrow minded little head.Any new regulation that affects legal gun owners in any way is bad.Why is it that these self righteous Democrats can’t enforce existing law but want to pass new law to curtail the rights of the only people who are obeying the unenforced laws?

          • John says:

            Because we are the square pegs, and they will keep hammering us through smaller holes until only a perfectly-conforming splinter is left.

    • Sebastian says:

      When you say IF, and then list a set of conditions, all those conditions have to be true for the exception to apply. It’s written in such a way that all the exceptions have to apply.

    • Sebastian says:

      I’d also note that you left some some very poorly, or perhaps not so poorly from Schumer’s perspective, placed “ands” from your quoting of the bill. Those ands are important.

    • SPQR says:

      Another for you Jane, since you didn’t understand it either:

      ii) at a target firearm shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by a State agency or nonprofit organization and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting competition; and (In other words, after Joe Gunowner has taught Billy Badass how to shoot, Billy Badass wants to enter a shooting match hoping to win money to buy his own gun. Joe Gunowner can take Billy Badass to that shooting match and allow him to use his gun as long as the shooting match is legit and he doesn’t let Billy Badass leave the shooting match with his gun.)

      If the shooting match was NRA sponsored, then probably no crime. But if the shooting match was IDPA – which is a for-profit corporation – then a felony was committed. All without any discernable difference to Billy.

      Oh, and if attending a multi-day match at an event like Camp Perry, Billy has to find the lender of the firearm each evening and morning, and he does not even know if he has to find him to go to lunch or the vendor area or not. Is the lunch truck or the vendor area in the premises of the competition? A felony for the wrong answer …

    • Rob Crawford says:

      (Example: Joe Gunowner says to his wife: “Honey, I’m going to be out late tonight and there’s been a few break-ins recently, so here is my gun in case anything happens. But whatever you do, don’t leave the property with it.”)

      If Joe Gunowner takes his best friend out to the back 40 of his property, they’re plinking at cans and Joe lets his friend borrow his gun… that’s an illegal transfer according to this law. None of the exceptions apply — it’s not “in the home or curtilage”, it’s not inheritance, it’s not a spouse, it’s not an perfectly organized shooting club’s property, and they’re not hunting.

      On the theft or loss provision — yes, after 24 hours of becoming aware of the loss. Let’s say you’re in the wayback of some massive national park and your canoe overturns, sending the pistol you brought to the bottom of a lake. You’re 48 hours away from any contact with authorities. Congratulations! You’ve committed a felony.

      And, well, here’s the gripping hand on this:

      Not one part of this bill will do anything to reduce the number of people who get shot.

      What it will do is make it painfully clear that the government doesn’t intend us to follow the law, because they’ve made so many utterly innocent acts illegal. I’ve lent my father my .22 pistol; he had it for a couple of months — this bill would make that a felony. A felony!

      (And, honestly, the REAL overriding factor on this is none of this is any business of the [foul word] government! Stay the hell out of my life, already!)

      • SPQR says:

        And why is it so important that a stolen gun be reported that if I reported it 36 hours after discovering its theft, I’m a dangerous criminal? The last time I had a theft of a firearm, it took the local PD over a month to enter it in the database of stolen guns. I know because the clerk called me to get the right serial number because he couldn’t read the cops’ handwriting.

    • SPQR says:

      So Jane, why is it a compelling governmental purpose – of sufficient import to justify the infringment upon our constitutional rights – that a hunter with a borrowed gun not leave the field for lunch?

      Why is it a compelling governmental purpose – of sufficient import to justify the infringment of our constitutional rights – that a person not leave his own firearm in the possession of his spouse for eight days … but seven is OK?

      Why is it a compelling governmental purpose – of sufficient import to justify the infringment of our constitutional rights – that a person only be allowed to loan another person a gun for plinking at a range that is set up for conservation purposes … and not for profit? Or a range that is in someone’s own property?

      Why is it a compelling governmental purpose – of sufficient import to justify the infringment of our constitutional rights – that a person not be allowed to loan a fellow competitor a gun, if the event is sponsored by a for-profit organization?

      • TS says:

        Bravo SPQR, bravo.

        It is the government’s job to demonstrate their need to infringe on a right. Why do I *need* an “assault weapon”? Why do you need to throw me in prison because my stock can slide a couple of inches?

    • 2brknot2b says:

      Why does Billy have to be a bad ass? It could be just as likely you might take “nieghbor Nellie,” or “neighbor Ned.” It could be he’s “Brutha Billy,” or “Beumadine Scleavage.” Your prejudice shows when you use “Billy Badass.”

  32. standtallall says:

    Obama could not be doing this to target certain activists to put them in prison because that frumpy woman who works for “him” is letting people out of jail. Maybe it was to make room for us.

  33. Mike says:

    First time here. To any lawyer that may be here. How does ANY
    law restricting,limiting, “the right of the people, to keep and
    arms” not be infringing?
    Is our constitution so poorly written(I dont believe it to be) that when a hand held “ray gun” IS perfected and readily mass
    produced, it will not be covered under the 2nd?

  34. Doug says:

    Wait, people actually believe this blog post? Most of the assertions made in this ridiculous post are absolutely ridiculous if you, ya know, look at the actual bill text. For example, lending a gun to a friend while hunting, target practice, etc., that would be exempt.

    Not to mention the fact that this is not the bill that will be voted on in the Senate. As soon as Coburn/Manchin come to an agreement on record keeping, that bill will be introduced as a Substitute Amendment to S. 374.

    But I wouldn’t expect the fine legislative analysts at Pagun Blog to know any of that.

    • Mininerd ISH says:

      Hey, look, Jane has a friend!

      Scroll up, you’ll see we’ve actually discussed all of your points already.

    • SPQR says:

      You didn’t read anything did you? You are the one that didn’t read the text. We’ve read it in great detail.

    • NukemJim says:

      ” Most of the assertions made in this ridiculous post are absolutely ridiculous if you, ya know, look at the actual bill text.”

      I am a little confused. I went to http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/upload/ALB13180.pdf to read the actual bill text. It appears to be an official site .gov site. If it is not the actual bill text please post a link to the correct text. If you cannot do so would you be kind enough to explain how you know what the actual bill text is?

      Which of the situations that have been hypothesized as illegal here would actually be legal under the bill and why please.

      Thank you

      NukemJim

    • jerry says:

      Hey guys, Sarah Brady is posting here!!!!

    • Harry says:

      This law is about school buses:

      S374-2013 Memo

      BILL NUMBER:S374

      TITLE OF BILL:
      An act
      to amend the vehicle and traffic law and the penal law, in relation to
      increasing penalties for violation of overtaking and passing a school
      bus and creating the crime of vehicular homicide in the third degree

    • 2brknot2b says:

      Funny. All those things are already exempt. Only thing this does is confuse the average person, and LEO, which requires paying a high priced lawyer to take all your property which he then transfers to the legislator of his choice to get him/her elected, so they can make ever more egregious laws to which we are held accountable, perpetuating the rip off of the American people. WHATEVER HAPPENED TO FREEDOM? LAW is for LAWyers to benefit from, and we, as free people, should fight the “good intentions” of those who would seek to rectify criminality by making ever more things criminal. I am not a criminal, but if you make me one, well, it is your own damned fault, Chuck. Worse, if the law is deleterious of the constitution, you yourself have committed a criminal act called treason. It is high time we Americans start coming together to stop these criminals since our Law Enforcers seem to think the representatives of the people are off limit to arrest & prosecution. But,who would prosecute them? LAWYERS? So, why would they when what they are doing is exactly what is necessary to make them wealthier?

  35. theaton says:

    Once the NRA gets a 20% cut of the background check fee, they’ll support it just like they supported NFA, GCA, NICS and other nonsense and then the GOP will sign on.

    • SPQR says:

      That’s a rather bizarre fabrication on your part theaton, the NRA does not get “a cut” of anything from NFA or GCA. Least of all, NICS.

      Anti-NRA tinfoil conspiracy nonsense is what undercuts our unity against gun grabbers like Schumer.

      • theaton says:

        Not yet anyway. They didn’t support the legislation that was going to limit speech before an election either until they got an exception for themselves. Thank God that legislation got shelved though. It’s not tinfoil conspiracy nonsense, they supported the NFA, GCA and NICS. They’ll support anything they can make money on.

        • SPQR says:

          Pure tinfoil nonsense and misrepresentations. You have confused legitimate and good lobbying work the NRA has done with “support”. The NRA did good work in the Brady bill – because with their work, the Brady bill background check got converted into an instant check instead of a national waiting period.

          I reject the anti-NRA nonsense you echo.

          • theaton says:

            You’re right, I’m glad the NRA was able to get the Wayne to give me a kiss after the Brady Bunch fucked me. Makes me feel so much better and less dirty.

          • 2brknot2b says:

            My problem with the work that the NRA did with the Brady law was that immediately upon its signage, they did not immediately go after it on grounds of rights violations. Their allowance to write certain parts of the billmust have come with some expected cost, that being that they not try to undercutit once passed.If such is the case, as we see them stating now they are for the NICS, but against expanding it, then we are doomed. You cannot have a pro-2A organization working with someone to do something against you, then not fight it when it is wrong on its face judicially, and constitutionally. Wayne knows where I am coming from as I have shown him judicial rulings which would negate permits, but the last AFF they are trumpeting working for a CC (permit) law in one of the states right now. Wayne had known about thisforover12 years,and Alan Gottlieb (SAF) about as long. Both said they could not use it as the 2A was not adjudicated an individual right. Heller did just that, but I do not see NRA pursuing a legal challenge to permit systems in the courts with any regularity. In other words, challenging all permit systems. They are challenging parts of permit systems, but not going after the whole system.For those who wish to read the decision I gave them, look up Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham with the reading from Staub v. Baxley.

            • Sebastian says:

              They did challenge it on federalist grounds in the case of Printz v. United States and got part of it thrown out.

              Second Amendment law did not exist in 1994. If a case had been taken, it would have lost in 1994. Please be aware the federal judiciary was, and still is, very hostile to 2nd Amendment rights. A slim 5 justice majority on the Supreme Court is the only reason we have any pro-Second Amendment juris prudence at all.

  36. SPQR says:

    This bill would actually criminalize many of the activities that us Hunter Education instructors do on a frequent basis in conducting our hunter safety courses. We can’t even hand over a firearm to student for that student to demonstrate safe handling techniques in the classroom setting – unless we are at one of the narrowly defined ranges. And I’ve often set up the live-fire testing portion at a shooting area on public land that does not qualify under the bill.

    Ironically, the bill would not cover a range built in the basement of a local high school. So we couldn’t hold hunter education classes there if this absurd bill passed in this form.

    • Rob Crawford says:

      Ohio has some ranges on state park land, owned by the state department of natural resources. I wonder if THOSE ranges would qualify…

      • SPQR says:

        I don’t know enough about Ohio law. But out here, we have a lot of land that is used for public hunting and shooting that are originally “school trust lands”. They were the portion of a section dedicated to schools. Well, they get leased out for hunting access fees but are not “owned” by an organization for conservation purposes – to the contrary they have a specific “education” purpose.

  37. SPQR says:

    Refering to the spousal problem, Sebastien wrote:

    I suppose you could gift them to your spouse, or related co-habitant, and then have them gift them back when you arrive back home.

    That’s not a “bona fide” gift then, since the intent was to get it back later.

    No, this language is just as outrageous – in every particular – as it appears.

  38. Spyder Dalton says:

    Making felons out of otherwise law abiding citizens….
    The 2nd amendment is the civil rights issue of our times. Self defense should be a right in any civilized society. Decent law abiding citizens are being attacked as though they are criminals presumed dangerous without due process. This is the end of America as we once knew her.

  39. Spyder Dalton says:

    I conducted a poll on teapartycommunity.com and 94% said they were more afraid of a politician with sociopathic malignant personality disorder with a gun than a Veteran with PTSD with gun.

    If you don’t know what sociopathic malignant personality disorder is, look at Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Biden, Feinkenstein, and any other liberal nutbag in office.

    THE MALIGNANT PERSONALITY:

    These people are mentally ill and extremely dangerous! The following precautions will help to protect you from the destructive acts of which they are capable.

    First, to recognize them, keep the following guidelines in mind.

    (1) They are habitual liars. They seem incapable of either knowing or telling the truth about anything.

    (2) They are egotistical to the point of narcissism. They really believe they are set apart from the rest of humanity by some special grace.

    (3) They scapegoat; they are incapable of either having the insight or willingness to accept responsibility for anything they do. Whatever the problem, it is always someone else’s fault.

    (4) They are remorselessly vindictive when thwarted or exposed.

    (5) Genuine religious, moral, or other values play no part in their lives. They have no empathy for others and are capable of violence. Under older psychological terminology, they fall into the category of psychopath or sociopath, but unlike the typical psychopath, their behavior is masked by a superficial social facade.

    If you have come into conflict with such a person or persons, do the following immediately!

    (1) Notify your friends and relatives of what has happened.

    Do not be vague. Name names, and specify dates and circumstances. Identify witnesses if possible and provide supporting documentation if any is available.

    (2) Inform the police. The police will do nothing with this information except to keep it on file, since they are powerless to act until a crime has been committed. Unfortunately, that often is usually too late for the victim. Nevertheless, place the information in their hands.

    Obviously, if you are assaulted or threatened before witnesses, you can get a restraining order, but those are palliative at best.

    (3) Local law enforcement agencies are usually under pressure if wealthy or politically powerful individuals are involved, so include state and federal agencies as well and tell the locals that you have. In my own experience, one agency that can help in a pinch is the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service or (in Canada) Victims Services at your local police unit. It is not easy to think of the IRS as a potential friend, but a Swedish study showed that malignant types (the Swedes called them bullies) usually commit some felony or other by the age of twenty. If the family is wealthy, the fact may never come to light, but many felonies involve tax evasion, and in such cases, the IRS is interested indeed. If large amounts of money are involved, the IRS may solve all your problems for you. For obvious reasons the Drug Enforcement Agency may also be an appropriate agency to approach. The FBI is an important agency to contact, because although the FBI does not have jurisdiction over murder or assault, if informed, they do have an active interest in any other law enforcement agencies that do not follow through with an honest investigation and prosecution should a murder occur. Civil rights are involved at that point. No local crooked lawyer, judge, or corrupt police official wants to be within a country mile if that comes to light! It is in such cases that wealthy psychopaths discover just how firm the “friends” they count on to cover up for them really are! Even some of the drug cartel biggies will scuttle for cover if someone picks up the brick their thugs hide under. Exposure is bad for business.

    (4) Make sure that several of your friends have the information in the event something happens to you. That way, an appropriate investigation will follow if you are harmed. Don’t tell other people who has the information, because then something bad could happen to them as well. Instruct friends to take such an incident to the newspapers and other media.

    If you are dealing with someone who has considerable money, you must realize that they probably won’t try to harm you themselves, they will contract with someone to make the hit. The malignant type is a coward and will not expose himself or herself to personal danger if he or she can avoid it.

  40. Eddie S. says:

    Any Congressman who votes in favor of this outrage or any other will be very, very, very sorry one day I assure you!

  41. Jerry M says:

    Ever notice that the democrats want to make everything illegal, but they don’t want to lock people up?

    These kinds of laws are designed to provide a legal and orderly way of confiscating your firearms.

    As a felon, you may not possess a firearm. If you don’t want to go to prison and/or fined to the point of losing your life’s work, they will offer you a deal to rat out anyone you know that might be violating firearms laws.

    They are in no hurry, in fact deliberately slow so that it doesn’t create an uproar would be their preferred means. Steady and quiet.

    And in the meantime, they will pass more laws to make everywhere a gun-free Sandy Hook situation so that they will be justified in clamping down even more.

    The extreme left that now run this country aren’t idiotic or stupid, they are completely aware that 30+ years of harassing law abiding gun owners hasn’t had any impact on the actual problem. They are fully aware that they are only exacerbating the problem, but the majority of the electorate (thanks do dumbed-down public education) is in fact idiotic enough to go along with the abrogation of their rights.

    Those in power are all about CONTROL. Plain and simple.

    • Rob Crawford says:

      Which country was the following written about:

      Like so many societies where demonstrating who’s in control becomes a necessity, disarming the population becomes a priority.

      Hint: the country has recently run a “registration” program in which 45% of those attempting to register their previously legal firearms were told they couldn’t keep them.

      Second Hint: The president of this country was recently recorded singing a song about slaughtering one of the country’s minority groups.

    • A Texan says:

      “Those in power are all about CONTROL. Plain and simple.”

      Gun control is about control, not guns. To wit:

      “Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We WANT them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted — and you create a nation of law-breakers — and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

      Ayn Rand in “Atlas Shrugged”

  42. Harry says:

    This law is about School buses, not guns

    S374-2013 Memo

    BILL NUMBER:S374

    TITLE OF BILL:
    An act
    to amend the vehicle and traffic law and the penal law, in relation to
    increasing penalties for violation of overtaking and passing a school
    bus and creating the crime of vehicular homicide in the third degree
    Life Member of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and the NRA

    The SAFE Act has us very concerned in NYS. We need to focus on real legislation. I am not very experienced in looking up NYS legislation, but this took me 2 minutes.

    • Rob Crawford says:

      I think you’re confusing a US Senate bill with a New York state senate bill. Did you follow the link to the text of the bill?

      • Harry says:

        You are correct. I forgot for a moment that Chuck Schumer is just as much of a problem to the whole United States gun owners community he is to us New Yorkers. It took me 5 minutes to look up the Federal S.374, a much longer time to read through it. It’s difficulty to understand,as it changes a number of other laws, but the comments generally seem to be correct. Sorry for the wrong information!

  43. dustydog says:

    FYI, the federal government likes to close for snow and rain and holidays. “fail to report the theft or loss of a firearm within 24 hours” simply isn’t always possible, even if you have a working phone and are just outside the office of the attorney general.

    On the other hand, the reporting requirement for lost and stolen guns only applies to lawful owners, so it has a carve-out for criminals. Democrats, intentionally and explictly protecting felons. Strangely, there is no reporting requirement for people who find or steal guns (which nominally would be more logical).

    “is legal in all places” suggests that the law applies outside the US. I can imagine a US citizen overseas being prosecuted for betting on the wrong side of the State Department.

    • Rob Crawford says:

      On the other hand, the reporting requirement for lost and stolen guns only applies to lawful owners, so it has a carve-out for criminals.

      Particularly since, as I understand it, the Supreme Court has ruled that someone who cannot legally own a firearm cannot be punished for failure to register a firearm.

  44. Janes Addiction says:

    Jane Says:

    … But where do those criminals get those guns? They steal them from law-abiding citizens and then they get passed around and sold from one criminal to another. So the way I see it, if we law-abiding citizens had more control over our guns in the form of registration, etc., then it would be much harder for the criminals to get them and, eventually, there would be less illegal guns on the streets…
    …“within 24 hours after the person discovers the theft or loss”.
    And now YOU can “bugger off”.

    I am on board with that – a victim of a crime will be deemed a criminal and punished for not reporting the crime WITHIN 24 hours.

    5 years seems fair for not reporting the theft of an item worth about five years for stealing it (based upon dollar value, IANAL).

    Used to be rape was a capital offense, maybe life now, why not up to life in prison for not reporting being the victim of rape and not reporting within 24 hours? Good luck on your defense if a third party or the perp turn state’s witness against you.

    I would have liked to ramp up the analogies, but cut to the chase –

    Amend with a pill to require all victims of any crime to report within 24 hours or be subject to the same penalty in Federal Court as the perpetrator would in any jurisdiction.

    After All, Jane Says it is Fair.

    • joe says:

      So, I get home and find someone has broken into my home and confront the criminal. For my efforts I get a cracked skull and I’m unconscious in a coma for 30 days. After a recovery period in the hospital I return home to discover and report one of my guns was missing and likely stolen by the thug who slugged me. I get 5 years in prison and a felony rap sheet, the scumbag who cracked my head and stole my things maybe is never caught and if he is caught pleads self defense in that I was trying to clobber him with a base ball bat , and walks free. Sounds about right to me in this bizzarro world.

  45. Chuck S says:

    While the great danger in this proposed law appears to be the threat of imprisonment, that is unlikely given overcrowding and first offenses. But imprisoning offenders is not necessary to the intent of the bill. Conviction of a felony disenfranchises the felon. That means they can’t vote, and can’t own guns anymore. Each conviction results in one less gun owner and one less vote that would likely go against the Progressives.

    The deviousness is deep in this bill, and I really doubt that Chucky Schumer is smart enough to have come up with this himself. I smell Progressive activists at work, who never have to face election or press.

  46. Braden Lynch says:

    Schumer can auto-fornicate until he dies.
    What an un-American tyrannical despot!
    Moron Labe!

  47. Red Horse says:

    Schumer Traitor and will be dealt with when this all comes to a head.

  48. dustydog says:

    Schumer was re-elected in 2010, so he’s not up again until 2016. No way he faces electoral consequences for this nonsense, unless it happens to pass.

    • jerry says:

      Schumer has this seat for life if he wants. He is in New York, this will not hurt him at all.

  49. Bob says:

    Lock me up. I’ve done everything on that list. Maybe they can get my wife to testify against me.

  50. TS says:

    Is there any way under this bill to keep a gun out of state? Can’t keep it at a friend’s house, or you’re a felon. Can’t take it home of your state makes it a felony for possession. I guess you’d have to find a club (one that qualifies as exempted) and pay to store it there. How UK of them.

    Federal law only allows shipping firearms to licensed dealers/manufacturerers. Can we still do that, or are we felons everytime someone handles the package along the way?

    This is particularly nasty for Californians. You’ll need to transfer all your guns to your live-in spouse, Fiancé, SO, gay partner, roommate everytime you know that you’ll be out of town for a week. And oops, you’re a felon if you have to work the weekend unexpectedly. The 10 day waiting time and the fees will be doubled up, so we are talking about a minimum of 20 days and $100 per gun. This would cost me several thousand dollars a year. The transfer is null and void after 30 days. Either that means we can wait a month and pick up your guns without the official transfer taking place (but still out the initial transfer fee for each gun), OR it means you’ll have triple fees, and four trips to the FFL, and at least 50 days where your guns aren’t at home if your trip is going to last a month or more. I am not sure exactly what happens after 30 days, I just know you have to start the process over again if you don’t pick up your gun in that 20 day window.

    And don’t you think they’ll want the same laws to apply to “high capacity clips”?

    • Sebastian says:

      It’s illegal now to keep a gun out of state if you leave it in possession of another, and not for temporary sporting purposes. When I gave a rifle to Bitter for her birthday when she was in Virginia and I was still in PA, I had to take it back with me, and keep it until she moved up here, because it would have been illegal to leave it with her.

  51. joe says:

    A quick thought, would not this piece of crap legislation result in the inability of the police or military to train on US soil without somehow violating many of the provisions of the intended law. Transfer of possession, no background checks, finding and use of a gun in the field of combat in live fire exercises. ????there is likely more.

    • Sebastian says:

      No, because there’s another section of the Gun Control Act which exempts the military and police, unless they are specifically made not to be exempt. You can find that here if you’re curious. It’s Title 18, Section 925(a) of the United States Code.

      • .mil are only exempt in the course of their official duties with issued weapons.

        If a military member wants to, say, shoot service rifle competition as an individual off duty to sharpen their skills then laws like this would most definitely apply.

  52. steve says:

    according to a couple of sources this Bill is still under discussion and the language has Not been finalized. So How did you get this wording & info ?

  53. Red Horse says:

    Shummer, Feinstein etc.
    have been determined by the Constitutional Patriots of these United States to be collaborating against the Republic and the Constitution of these United States.
    When this attempted take over of these United States, this group of traitors will be arrested and charged with treason under the laws of the Republic.

    Amen

  54. Rick says:

    Welcome to our world in Australia best of luck !

  55. Omgzzwtf says:

    Good read, everyone! Just spent about the last two hours getting caught up on the conversation, and I have to say that there have been some VERY good posts on here. I have two things to add to the conversation, though. First, as a fellow patriot, I stress the importance of subtlety and tact, it wouldn’t do anyone any favors to get arrested for attempting to cite a rebellion. And second, fuck the fed.

  56. Clay in Va says:

    All the dreck emanating from the Beltway basicaly boils down to ‘Do you trust the government’?
    Do you trust the givernment to protect you and your family after they have taken away your ability to protect yourself?
    Do you trust any Washington politician to make sure that you are not subjected to ‘unreasonable’ restrictions on your rights? (p.s. – I don’t think it says the right to keep and bear arms ‘shall not be unreasonably infringed’)

    Anyone answering anything except ‘Hell No’ either is misinformed or is an idjit.

    Ted Cruz made a great point when he asked Feinstein whether similar restrictions could be imposed on the 1st amendment. And after forcing the hypocritical battleaxe to answer the question, she had to admit the answer was ‘no’.

  57. Ivan says:

    I’m a federal LEO, and let me tell about another consequence of this language. The private land provision is key. Why? Asset forfeiture! If you take your child hunting on your private land, and they can convict you with an illegal transfer under this law, the land can be seized by the government. Asset forfeiture laws are predicated in US Code on other crimes, so you won’t see it written into this bill.

    I am not over reaching or over reacting. This is how it works.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Gun-violence Preventions Bills" - [...] on the transfer ban, which is full of "gotcha" triggers to make gun owners felons. We Have Language …
  2. s 374 transfer ban - [...] We Have Language for S. 374, the Transfer Ban | Shall Not Be Questioned It just keeps …
  3. NBC: NRA won’t block deal on background checks in Congress — as long as private sellers aren’t forced to keep records « Hot Air - [...] background-check bill barely passed the Senate Judiciary Committee today and is already facing fierce pushback from gun-rights supporters for …
  4. Statement from NRA on Background Checks | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] the source, it makes you wonder who the “sources” are of which they speak. Take a look at what …
  5. Private Transfer Bill Released | Weer'd World - [...] We knew it would be bad, as the anti-rights folks are gunning for full confiscation, and we all knew …
  6. Sen. Chuck Schumer’s background check bill raises red flags with gun rights supporters | Twitchy - [...] Schumer (D-NY) introduces the “Denying Gun Rights to Gays Act" —> pagunblog.com/2013/03/12/we-… #guncontrol #2A #LGBT #tcot—   (@GayPatriot) …
  7. Prelude to a revolution: Shumer’s gun transfer ban « Bob Owens - [...] Take a looking at a sampling of what it Sebastian notes it would outlaw: [...]
  8. Sen. Chuck Schumer’s background check bill raises red flags with gun rights supporters - [...] Schumer (D-NY) introduces the “Denying Gun Rights to Gays Act” —> pagunblog.com/2013/03/12/we-… #guncontrol #2A #LGBT #tcot—   (@GayPatriot) …
  9. Chucky Shumer’s Mandatory Background Check Bill (S. 374) | The Patriot Perspective - [...] Sebastian at PA Gun Blog has a few more interesting notes he pulled from it: [...]
  10. Senate committee - [...] [...]
  11. Schumer's "universal background checks" - Shooting Sports Forum - [...] "universal background checks" This sums it up better than I can: We Have Language for …
  12. Round The Tubes: Newspeak Edition | doubleplusundead - [...] Take a looking at a sampling of what it Sebastian notes it would outlaw: [...]
  13. Wake up : Fire up those emails and phone lines : S. 374 the transfer ban - [...] Dianne Feinstein's ban on semi-automatic firearms which is up for a vote on Thursday........... We Have Language for …
  14. Nasty Details of S.374, UBCs - INGunOwners - [...] it is an nasty piece of work that will only work to put more of the non-criminal class in …
  15. Bob Owens: Shumer’s Gun Transfer Ban - [...] Take a looking at a sampling of what it Sebastian notes it would outlaw: [...]
  16. Civil Rights Victory in Washington State | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] version of the intolerable act failed to pass by several votes. Hopefully the rest of their agenda suffers the …
  17. You Who Were Annoyed By My Stand Against “Malum Prohibitum”… | NCRenegade - [...] Similar analyses of Senator Scumbag’s plan were written by Bob Owens, and Sebastian. [...]
  18. Legislative Update (Federal) and Quote of the Day – 2013-03-13 | Curses! Foiled Again! - [...] leads me to today’s Quote of the Day, by jdrush, in a comment to Sebastian’s [...]
  19. Out of the box for a couple of days. | Gun Free Zone - [...] I know timing sucks with the Background Checks Bill in Congress, but family calls. For an initial review and …
  20. Schumers Bill S 374 - [...] So here is a little blog regarding whats in the Bill, and what caught my eye was the language …
  21. The Revised S. 374 – Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013 « Conservative Animal - [...] ARTICLE HERE  [...]
  22. Prelude to a revolution: Shumer’s gun transfer ban | - [...] Take a looking at a sampling of what it Sebastian notes it would outlaw: [...]
  23. Odds ‘n Sods: | - [...] Schumer: We Have Language for S. 374, the Transfer Ban. (Thanks to Bill N. for the [...]
  24. The Captain's Journal » Welcome To Amerika! - [...] Take a looking at a sampling of what it Sebastian notes it would outlaw: [...]
  25. BUS!! Pop-Tarts!! Last Pope? Schumer’s Junk. Benghazi. Gone Stupid. | Freedom Is Just Another Word... - [...] Check Out the Hidden Gun Transfer Junk in Schumer’s Gun Bill [...]
  26. Bloomberg’s Prohibitionist Side is Showing | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] public that they just want to do things like mandate background checks for all gun transfers. That sounds harmless …
  27. We Have Language for Senate Bill 374 – The Gun Transfer Ban | askmarion - [...] Shall Not Be Questioned:  Senator Chuck Schumer had kept the bogus “background check” bill under wraps, only putting forth …
  28. Gun Rights are Civil Rights! - Page 4 - [...] We Have Language for S. 374, the Transfer Ban | Shall Not Be Questioned …
  29. Will He? Won’t He? | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] the bigger threat is in the bill masquerading as “background checks.” But, it’s clear that there’s still an agenda …
  30. Moonbattery » Schumer Attacks Gun Owners - [...] in the incremental campaign to criminalize the exercise of our Second Amendment rights. Among the implications of the Mephistophelean …
  31. Friday Mini News Dump | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] who is an attorney and gun law expert, has taken a look at the background check bill, S.374, and …
  32. Random Shots for Sunday, 17 March 2013 | Mike Blessing's Heresies and Blasphemies - [...] Shall Not Be Questioned: We Have Language for S. 374, the Transfer Ban [...]
  33. Fight Shaping up in Minnesota | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] claim the issue is background checks, but that’s not the case at all. It’s really about changing the definition …
  34. Living with Private Transfer Prohibitions | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] is not quite as draconian as what the folks in Colorado will have to endure, and nor is it …
  35. News of the Week for Mar. 18th, 2013 | The Political Hat - [...] We Have Language for S. 374, the Transfer Ban Shumer had kept the bogus “background check” bill under wraps, …
  36. Feinstein Seeing Writing on the Wall? | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] are willing to go with a background check bill that is “slightly less stringent” than Schumer’s S.374 “background check” …
  37. Gun Control Dates | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] It’s being reported that Harry Reid will start to move legislation forward April 8th, and it’s going to be …
  38. If they were smart they wouldn’t be supporting gun control | BornLib's Blog - [...] Take a look at what the proposed law will actually do and tell me with a straight face this …
  39. Saturday Night Update | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] is putting up $12 million to buy ads in pro-gun states promising that supporting legislation that will turn most …
  40. Some questions for Bloomberg and Schumer - An NC Gun Blog - [...] reviewing the info on PAGunBlog, I have some questions. Could either Chuck Shumer or Mikey Bloomberg please answer the …
  41. The State of the Gun Rights | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] even in closed-door negotiations. The Hill article offers an indication that Reid may include the “background check bill reported …
  42. Anti-Gun Resources Flowing into Pennsylvania | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] We already know that Mike Bloomberg is spending millions to put his advertisements on tv in Pennsylvania with an …
  43. Misplaced Words or True Intent? | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] fashion statement in today’s political climate. Whether they started out with a purpose of making as many gun owners …
  44. We Have the Language of Reid’s Bill, S.649 | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] latest language of S.649 can be found here. The “background check” language is identical to the language I analyzed …
  45. Enough Links For a News Dump? | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] Sean crashed one of Bloomberg’s pressers, talking about what Bloomberg’s “background check” bill would actually do. [...]
  46. The Negotiations on Private Transfers Continue | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] kill anything that passes the Senate with a 60 vote margin, even if it’s something as bad as Schumer’s …
  47. Classical Values » Good for the ACLU! - [...] If what I have been reading is any indication, the ACLU is understating the case. To give an idea …
  48. Vital Gun Control Vote Coming – Need Action Please | The Way - [...] Gun control laws are waiting in the wings in the U.S. Senate.  So now is the time to pour …
  49. New Anti-Gun Divide & Conquer Strategy | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] Interestingly, MAIG is trying to claim that the current federal bill just makes Pennsylvania’s language into federal law. That, …
  50. Do we have the names of the Republicans that voted? - INGunOwners - [...] They appear to have a lot of similarities. Here was a good summary of the other transfer ban.... …
  51. We Have Language on the Toomey-Manchin Amendment | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] regulations. They stipulate a number of things the Attorney General may not do, which addresses some of the concerns …
  52. The Boston Bombing Perp(s) deserve the Death Penalty - Page 6 - [...] Of Arms and the Law: S. 374, the "universal background check" bill and: …
  53. Senate rejects background check - Page 31 - [...] shoot on your own land is a felony, 5 years, if you hand them the gun. Not an exempted …
  54. Mitch McConnell Facebook Page Mocks Failure Of Gun Legislation - Page 2 - [...] shoot on your own land is a felony, 5 years, if you hand them the gun. Not an exempted …
  55. More Opinions on the Gun Control Failure | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] Democrats then poisoned their own well even when it came to things like expanded background checks, by putting forth …
  56. Manchin-Toomey fails to acquire supermajority support - Page 2 - [...] shoot on your own land is a felony, 5 years, if you hand them the gun. Not an exempted …
top