Just got an email from Johnny Isakson (Senator)

[RATM5]

GOOFBALL PROVISION #1: The bill would impose a 20-year prison term if you planned (“conspired”) to purchase a firearm in order to give or raffle it to a person who, unbeknownst to you, is a “prohibited person.”Who is a prohibited person?
Well, there are the 150,000 law-abiding veterans who are “prohibited persons” –- for no other reason than that a psychiatrist appointed a fiduciary to oversee their financial affairs.
But probably the biggest category of “prohibited persons” is persons who smoke marijuana. Under 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(3) and (g)(3), you cannot possess a firearm in America if you are “an unlawful user of … any controlled substance…”
In over a dozen states, marijuana has been wholly or partly legalized under STATE law.

It doesn’t matter … if you even think about selling or raffling a gun to this expanding class of persons, you can go to prison for 20 years under S. 54.
​

GOOFBALL PROVISION #2: The bill would make you a federal “prohibited person” if you are prohibited from owning a gun under “State or local law.”
What does that even mean?
In places like New York and Chicago, everyone is prohibited from owning a firearm without a license. Does that mean that everyone in these jurisdictions is a federal “prohibited person” under S. 54?
What if someone applies for a license and is found not to have a need to possess one? Under the slip-shod language of the Leahy bill, these individuals would probably become federal “prohibited persons” because the bill denies any person from owning a firearm if they are “prohibited by STATE OR LOCAL LAW from possessing, receiving, selling, shipping, transporting, transferring, or otherwise disposing of the firearm or ammunition.” (S. 54, Section 5.)
Oh, incidentally, under the Veterans Disarmament Act, states are required to send the names of 95% of their prohibited persons to the FBI’s NICS system -– or lose federal funding.
So now you will have millions of law-abiding citizens – living in places like New York City and Chicago – who have their names placed in the NICS system. And the Leahy bill doesn’t address some very important questions related to their status as gun owners.
How will these banned citizens get their names cleared? The federal government has for years continued enforcing the Schumer amendment which defunds the ability of the ATF to restore the rights of non-violent prohibited persons. Will New Yorkers and Chicagoans get their gun rights restored after they move away from the localities that banned them from owning guns and which turned them into prohibited persons?
Again, the bill doesn’t say. But we could expect that a few years from now, a future anti-gun President could use the language in S. 54 to impose a federal licensure requirement on these persons - as part of a new 23-point Executive Action memo - and make non-licensees federal prohibited persons (with all that that implies).

Maybe –- just maybe -– the courts would save us from the implications of Leahy’s goofball language.
​

But answer us this: Why do anti-gun senators and representatives continue to push language which they know is fatally flawed –- just so they can say they “broke the back of the gun lobby”?
The solution is clear: Senators –- if they are pro-gun -– MUST vote against a “motion to proceed” to any of this goofball legislation. That is, they must vote to keep ALL gun control from even being considered on the Senate floor.

I wonder if the buyer has to be under the influence of marijuana at the time of sale or just have smoked pot in the past?

Fun times ahead!

 

[zesty]

Obama did two key things with the 23 executive orders he signed. first, he appointed someone at the CDC to write a report about gun violence being a public health issue. second, he made it mandatory for doctors and psychiatrist to report any violent tendencies whatsoever, and made it punishable by law if they don't. so what's going to happen is violent tendencies are going to be tied to gun ownership and public health concerns. that is going to be tied into a background check system. so the next time you go and tell your psychiatrist that you're so mad at your wife you could hitter, that will be registered into the system in the repercussions will ensue.

that is what I am afraid of.

well crap. I didn't see it that way. Good post but that sucks.

 

[RATM5]

Obama did two key things with the 23 executive orders he signed. first, he appointed someone at the CDC to write a report about gun violence being a public health issue. second, he made it mandatory for doctors and psychiatrist to report any violent tendencies whatsoever, and made it punishable by law if they don't. so what's going to happen is violent tendencies are going to be tied to gun ownership and public health concerns. that is going to be tied into a background check system. so the next time you go and tell your psychiatrist that you're so mad at your wife you could hitter, that will be registered into the system in the repercussions will ensue.

that is what I am afraid of.

Maybe the days when smart folks just kept their problems to themselves and family members will return?

 

[spencer60]

Mandatory background checks only sound "OK" if you don't look too hard at them.

First...

The law itself is way too broad. Get arrested (not convicted, or even charged, just arrested) on any kind of drug charge and you're now a prohibited person. Get any type of mental evaluation, for a job, for insurance or by court order, and no matter what the result, you are now a prohibited person.

This doesn't just mean you can't buy more firearms, it means you are now have to turn in all your firearms or you are a felon.

Second...

The caching of data means the government is halfway to a firearm registry. A single law change down the road, requiring FFLs to send in all their 4473 data and bingo, we have a registry.

Third...

It's a solution looking for a problem. Even the current Dept. of Justice recognizes that private transfers result in a tiny percentage (less than 5%) of all illegal firearms.

The vast majority of illegal firearms enter the black market through theft or 'straw' purchases. This bill would do nothing to address those issues, and would actually reduce the resources available to do so.


Fourth and most importantly...

This law would break new ground on the powers of government to control your personal property rights. Currently there is nothing a private citizen can legally own that requires government approval to transfer to another law abiding individual.

The commerce clause allows the government to regulate retail settings, like dealers or wholesalers. There is absolutely no constitutional support for government regulation of the private property of individual citizens.

If this law were to pass and be upheld, this would open the door to a raft of new legislation restricting your rights to personal property. It's a classic 'slippery slope' argument, except it's not a slope, it's a cliff.

 

[RamRoddoc]

Mandatory background checks only sound "OK" if you don't look too hard at them.

First...

The law itself is way too broad. Get arrested (not convicted, or even charged, just arrested) on any kind of drug charge and you're now a prohibited person. Get any type of mental evaluation, for a job, for insurance or by court order, and no matter what the result, you are now a prohibited person.

This doesn't just mean you can't buy more firearms, it means you are now have to turn in all your firearms or you are a felon.

Second...

The caching of data means the government is halfway to a firearm registry. A single law change down the road, requiring FFLs to send in all their 4473 data and bingo, we have a registry.

Third...

It's a solution looking for a problem. Even the current Dept. of Justice recognizes that private transfers result in a tiny percentage (less than 5%) of all illegal firearms.

The vast majority of illegal firearms enter the black market through theft or 'straw' purchases. This bill would do nothing to address those issues, and would actually reduce the resources available to do so.


Fourth and most importantly...

This law would break new ground on the powers of government to control your personal property rights. Currently there is nothing a private citizen can legally own that requires government approval to transfer to another law abiding individual.

The commerce clause allows the government to regulate retail settings, like dealers or wholesalers. There is absolutely no constitutional support for government regulation of the private property of individual citizens.

If this law were to pass and be upheld, this would open the door to a raft of new legislation restricting your rights to personal property. It's a classic 'slippery slope' argument, except it's not a slope, it's a cliff.

I copy and pasted this to all my federal reps. I hope you don't mind. It's well thought out and clear. Thank you!

 

[Big guy in the sky]

Mandatory background checks only sound "OK" if you don't look too hard at them.

First...

The law itself is way too broad. Get arrested (not convicted, or even charged, just arrested) on any kind of drug charge and you're now a prohibited person. Get any type of mental evaluation, for a job, for insurance or by court order, and no matter what the result, you are now a prohibited person.

This doesn't just mean you can't buy more firearms, it means you are now have to turn in all your firearms or you are a felon.

Second...

The caching of data means the government is halfway to a firearm registry. A single law change down the road, requiring FFLs to send in all their 4473 data and bingo, we have a registry.

Third...

It's a solution looking for a problem. Even the current Dept. of Justice recognizes that private transfers result in a tiny percentage (less than 5%) of all illegal firearms.

The vast majority of illegal firearms enter the black market through theft or 'straw' purchases. This bill would do nothing to address those issues, and would actually reduce the resources available to do so.


Fourth and most importantly...

This law would break new ground on the powers of government to control your personal property rights. Currently there is nothing a private citizen can legally own that requires government approval to transfer to another law abiding individual.

The commerce clause allows the government to regulate retail settings, like dealers or wholesalers. There is absolutely no constitutional support for government regulation of the private property of individual citizens.

If this law were to pass and be upheld, this would open the door to a raft of new legislation restricting your rights to personal property. It's a classic 'slippery slope' argument, except it's not a slope, it's a cliff.

Bravo, sir. Well written and insightful.

 

[robert_smi2]

If you are a veteran better go get you background checked out because the VA is banning alot of vets from having firearms for no reason at all. Some of the reasons are three or more miagrans a weeek, to having your spouse pay the house hold bills. Please look into this issue we must do something, They are starting with the vets and everyone else will follow.