The latest language of S.649 can be found here. This is the bill that will be bought up for a vote. The “background check” language is identical to the language I analyzed in S.374. The rest of the bill is the same as S.179, Gillibrand’s trafficking bill. It’s essentially those two bills combined together into one bill. Needless to say, this bill is unacceptable and needs to be opposed, unless you want to have it be a felony in many conditions to hand a gun to a friend, such as plinking on your farm.
21 thoughts on “We Have the Language of Reid’s Bill, S.649”
Comments are closed.
What do we make of this? I mean, I literally don’t know anybody who would support this.
Probably doesn’t have the votes right now, but Bloomberg and Obama are working overtime to get those votes.
Nor me,either!!!!!!!!!!!!!Reid is really off the wall.Liz
I won’t,or don’t,or will ever support anything that Reid wants to pass.How can we take him seriously ???????????????Liz
Looks like the Background check part of it could be whittled away, leaving only the meaningless trafficking part. The anti-gunners can holler “Victory!” while we return to destroying their anti-freedom culture.
Andrew…
Don’t know anyone who would support it? How about 55 members of the Senate?
I don’t think that all 55 will vote for it. Baucus and Manchin probably won’t
I’d like nobody to vote for anything that HArry Reid wants to put through.He needs t o be kicked out of office quickly.Liz
In Arizona I am seeing ads from MAIG directly targeting Flake, telling people to contact him in support for gun control. Not a single mention of McCain.
So I have to assume McCain is going to vote for this bill.
I wouldn’t assume that at this point. I’m not saying that McCain should be trusted on this issue, but he wasn’t willing to go work with Schumer on a bill. That speaks volumes. It’s also easy to see how if they promote the idea that McCain is a sure thing to throw gun owners under the bus, then they will walk into his office and tell him that he might as well come along for the ride since they already turned gun owners against him. The other reason to target Flake is because he’s brand new in his Senate career. If they can pressure him to cave a bit on his pro-gun record, then they hope they can have a periodic anti-gun vote for the rest of his career.
I don’t know the details of the Arizona strategy because it seems like a prime waste of money to me. But, I would just remind voters there that until they have something confirmed, don’t blame McCain if it’s really Bloomberg trying to divide you guys. Call his office and make sure he hears loud and clear that he shouldn’t be working with Bloomberg on this crap.
No, he WILL vote for it. In the response letter I got when I wrote him last moth he said he would ‘consider’ voting gun control legislation. Which mean he will. He didn’t give an absolute one way or the other but he implied he would vote for gun control. Don’t be surprised if he does. I could send you the email he sent me, I still have it. I have all their responses, email and physical letters. I keep them. We may, may be able to get McCain to vote against it but I highly doubt it. Arizona does not vote for democrats for the US senate. He views himself safe.
I will be calling him again anyway. And getting some of my friends to do so as well. Flake actually sends out replies fairly fast and he says he opposes pretty much everything the democrats want including “universal background checks”. He understands the background check system; more so how records are not given to them especially mental heath records causes this to happen. My house rep has also stated full opposition.
Flake is a cosponsor of Graham’s S.480 NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013. McCain has said little more than he’ll go along with Coburn on the issue. Graham is McCain’s buddy, so I’m betting will support S.480.
I’m overjoyed to see the “no guns for gays” language remains in the bill.
Not sure exactly what you all are seeing as nefarious here–
The intent is clearly to keep people who shouldn’t have weapons away from weapons.
The “plinking on your farm” condition is clearly laid out to be exempt, as well as many other casual “buddy” and family circumstances in the transfer penalty exemptions..
No, it isn’t exempt. I’ve read the bill.
Perhaps you should re-read this Sebastian:
From SEC. 122. FIREARMS TRANSFERS.
‘(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;
‘(B) a transfer made from a decedent’s estate, pursuant to a legal will or the operation of law;
‘(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;
‘(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and
‘(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days; and
‘(D) a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title 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;