Gun Control Bill With Bipartisan Support Unveiled In House

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rimfaxe

Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2012
Messages
62
House lawmakers on Tuesday unveiled their first bipartisan bill targeting gun violence in this Congress: a measure to make firearms trafficking a federal crime.

Reps. Patrick Meehan (R-Pa.), Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), Scott Rigell (R-Va.) and Elijah Cummings (D-Md.)

Article is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/05/gun-control-bill_n_2624644.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

This is another useless and misguided attempt to strengthen laws on straw purchases when the existing violations aren't even prosecuted. This is useless window dressing and posturing under the pretense of bipartanism.

The NRA has not come out against it yet, but I'm sure they will.

Oppose this bill on Popvox: https://www.popvox.com/


My letter to the bill sponsors is below:
Representative xxx:

I applaud your effort to craft a bipartisan bill to reduce gun violence; however I’m left wondering where the real benefits are in this bill based on what I’ve read so far.

The fact remains that nothing in the bill would have prevented the tragedies we just went through. There is nothing in there that will demonstratively reduce violent crime. This makes the bill very difficult for me to support.
The core issue is not about guns, but about violent crime. Urban areas with populations over 200K have twice the violent crime rate of other areas in the country. If more law abiding urban citizen exercised their 2nd amendment right and had the legal ability to conceal carry, the violent crime rate would be lower in these areas. This is a well-documented fact. Over time you would see the violent crime rate decrease because the criminals would not know who the easy victims were.

More concealed carry would not completely solve the problem though- poverty reduction, education opportunities, mental health issues and family values also need to be included. More than half of all gun deaths in America are suicides. A majority of the remaining gun deaths are from the inner cities, where gang activities and drug violence is rampant. Family values are virtually nonexistent in the inner cities. How many criminals come from homes where the father and mother are still together? These are the kind of issues that I would happily work with people across the aisle to improve.
Your proposed bill would impose up to 20 years in jail for "straw purchasers," or those who buy guns for people prohibited from buying them on their own. This is basically pretty useless.

It is already a federal felony to be engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms without having a federal dealer's license. It is already a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check--that's all dealers, everywhere, whether at retail stores or gun shows. Further, it is already a federal felony to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person you know or should know is not legally allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm. It is even a federal felony to submit false information on a background check form for the purpose of purchasing a firearm, though Vice President Biden does not think it's worth the government's time to prosecute these criminal acts. He said this himself.

Please spend your time focusing on the resolving the core issues of violent crime instead of esoteric legislation that essentially duplicates laws that are already on the books but not enforced.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This bill, besides making more illegal things that are already illegal, seeks to make it a federal offense to violate a state law:
Sec. 932. Trafficking in firearms

(a) Offenses- Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for any person, in or affecting interstate commerce,--

(1) to purchase, attempt to purchase, or transfer a firearm, with the intent to deliver the firearm to another person who the transferor knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is prohibited by Federal or State law from possessing a firearm;

That seems wrong to me. Has this type of thing been done before, making the feds enforcers of state laws?
 
As far as I can tell all this bill does is strengthen enforcement for straw purchases. I don't see any reason why we should be opposed. If implemented correctly it could be a very palatable alternative to the universal background check that is being pushed.
 
Heh, perhaps we should support this so the claim that something has been done can be made.

Except, of course, that any number of amendments and riders can still be attached to ban magazines/rifles.
 
From a quick read of the bill text, it looks meaningless since all it does is make things that are already illegal even more illegal; but prosecutors can already seek 10yr sentences for straw purchasing and don't do it. Allowing them to seek 20yr sentences doesn't seem likely to do that, apart from the question of whether a straw purchaser should be sentenced as harshly as a murderer or rapist.

However this section seems rife for abuse:
"`(3) to knowingly direct, promote, or facilitate conduct that violates paragraph (1) or (2)."

If Gunbroker knows that 1 out of 1000 ads will result in an illegal sale are they now "knowingly facilitating" gun trafficking? It seems like this is a potential big stick against online firearms sales.
 
Good now gun trafficking and straw purchases will be double illegal. That will stop criminals. :D

Well honestly if passing something like this that basically does nothing will get them to say, there we did something, maybe this will go away faster. Not hopefully about that though
 
It seems like an attempt to put some Federal power behind enforcing state laws.
I don't entirely agree with "states' rights" on the Second Amendment, at least not in the cases of NY, CA, or other states that impose harsh unconstitutional restrictions.
But the laws in CA or NY are what they are. If you take a 30 round magazine or a banned firearm into one of those states or ship one into one of those states, you should be prepared to face the consequences.
I don't have a problem with this law - to some extent it allows Wyoming to do whatever Wyoming wants to do with out being pressured from anti-gun extremists in California, and it allows NY to do what it wants to do without bothering people in Texas.

It is pointless but it doesn't seem harmful. I don't like that the rights of some citizens in this country are being infringed by their states, but if a law like this allows us to put a tourniquet on those states long enough to get this under control, then shift to defeating unconstitutional state level gun laws in court, then I guess it might be worth a shot.
 
Last edited:
I voiced my opinion as "Opposed" on PopVox.

We have enough "gun laws" on the books now.

Be Safe!

NosaM



Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top