This was sent to me by my uncle. Not sure if it is true or not.

Stone

 

And to think a lot of useful idiots were supporting this bill to expand background checks - Never trust congress!

 

 

From a friend:

 

I sure wasn't aware of this and I thought why is the NRA fighting something so simple. Now I agree that it is ridiculous to believe that congress will ever know what they are doing.

 

Good thing the background check bill didn't make it

 

 

Subject: Senate Gun Control Law

 

From an attorney:

 

 

The "most popular" part of the proposed Senate gun control bill (background checks) sounds like a good idea at first but is more restrictive than anyone anticipated and has significant unintended consequences.

 

Just like the Obamacare bill, there is a huge push to get it through Congress before the public has a chance to read it and to consider its contents.

 

Common activities that we take for granted will become federal crimes. These are not irresponsible exaggerations. Please take a moment to review some requirements of the bill.

 

EXAMPLE #1

Loaning your buddy a shotgun for a duck hunting trip will be considered a transfer. If the following requirements are not met, YOU HAVE BOTH COMMITTED A FEDERAL CRIME.

 

1. He must have already purchased his hunting license

2. Season is already open (and will not close before he returns it)

3. He cannot travel with the firearm through a county where season is not yet open or any area where hunting is prohibited and certainly not across a state line.

 

He CANNOT stop by your house on the day before season opens, pick up the shot gun, go to the sporting goods store to buy a license and shells then drive out to the hunting lease. In this scenario, YOU BOTH WOULD HAVE COMMITTED MULTIPLE FEDERAL CRIMES, YOUR WEAPONS WILL BE FORFEITED AND YOU WILL LOOSE YOUR RIGHT TO BUY OR OWN A FIREARM.

 

EXAMPLE #2

It appears that only you may relocate your weapons. If your weapon leaves your home without you, the new legislation considers it a transfer of possession. ALL transfers require going through a firearms dealer, paying the transfer fee and a background check for the transferee.

 

Putting the weapon, even temporarily in someone else's possession, requires a transfer through a dealer. There is no exception for putting them in a friend's truck while moving to your new house or packing them unloaded, locked in a gunsafe into a moving truck.

 

Any scenario in which your weapon leaves your home without you is considered a transfer. Failure to properly transfer the weapon is a federal crime which can result in a prison term AND WILL RESULT IN THE FORFEITURE OF YOUR WEAPON.

 

In the scenario above, your buddy's truck was used to commit a federal crime and WILL BE CONFISCATED just like with current Fish and Game violations.

 

EXAMPLE #3

Infractions as above which involve 2 guns of any type are considered weapons trafficking. You will be prosecuted under the same federal laws as a terrorist arms dealer.

 

EXAMPLE #4

Any of the infractions above (or hundreds of other routine scenarios) may result in federal charges, confiscation of ALL your weapons and being prohibited, like all felons, from ever owning a weapon again.

 

Read the text of the bill yourself. Most of it is boring legalese but the sections on transfers and trafficking are critical.

 

Take a minute to think about all the routine activities like those above that will make you a federal criminal and result in prison time plus the confiscation of your weapons and other property.

 

A link to the bill is included below on the official Senate website. See Section 122 "Firearms Transfers".

 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.649:

 

Read it and contact your Congressman's office. Talk to their staff. Tell them how you feel about this.

 

Keep in mind, none of the above would have stopped the tragedies in Columbine or Newtown . The proposed law makes you a criminal and opens the door for confiscation of your weapons and property for otherwise routine activities.

 

Think and act. Congress is hoping that you will do neither. This bill has no purpose at all except to gradually, incrementally, pass legislation that will lead to total confiscation of all of your firearms.

 

Don't go to sleep now. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. The enemy never sleeps and just keeps coming at you.

 

If you found the patience to read the entire text, you also learned that $100 million per year of your tax money is set aside to enforce these restrictions.

 

Finally, please forward this to your friends who may be affected.

 

Lee Huszagh

Attorney at Law

 

Yes, the bill proposed in the US congress did do these things.  It required all transfers to be done through a FFL with a NICS check and loaning a gun is considered a transfer.   My example was letting my brother use my shotgun to hunt.  Could result in a long jail sentence for both of us.

As with the original law, this would never pass in the House. So we're safe from its more draconian measures.

 

Some gun owners (myself included) believed the original law should have passed, gone to the House, and then come back to the Senate with a ton of revisions, some quite gun-friendly. One of the House proposals was full reciprocity of carry permits between and among all states that issue. Not sure how that would have affected NJ, which is technically a "may issue" state. Who knows? Maybe expanded background checks would have satisfied our legislators and governor, and we would have had at least some version of concealed carry.

 

Yes, I'm a dreamer.

As with the original law, this would never pass in the House. So we're safe from its more draconian measures.

 

Some gun owners (myself included) believed the original law should have passed, gone to the House, and then come back to the Senate with a ton of revisions, some quite gun-friendly. One of the House proposals was full reciprocity of carry permits between and among all states that issue. Not sure how that would have affected NJ, which is technically a "may issue" state. Who knows? Maybe expanded background checks would have satisfied our legislators and governor, and we would have had at least some version of concealed carry.

 

Yes, I'm a dreamer.

 

 

You missed what happened if you think that the house option was possible. 

 

IT went to a up down vote rather than a simple majority because it would have gotten a lot of pro gun owner provision attached in the senate if they had done that. The house wouldn't have had to do much other than removed anything that got amended that was further burdensome as well as amend the objectionable core of the bill. And we would have likley wound up with compromise. Namely a background check that was required, but could be performed by every citizen without removing private commerce in firearms within a state, and gun owners would have gotten benefits like the safge passage laws actually having some teeth for states that don't wish to comply and CCW reciprocity. 

 

They don't want something effective. They want something punitive that they believe will drive down gun ownership so it ceases to be a political issue that attracts voters and thus they permanently increase their margin over the GOP and move us closer to a one party system in every regard rather simply in terms of selling tax dollars for personal gain at a crappy exchange rate. 

B>S!!!!!!!!!

B>S!!!!!!!!!

What do you believe to be bs?

 

Iirc the Ccw reciprocity amendment to the senate bill got 54 yeas. Enough to make it were it not for the 60 vote up/down requirement imposed by the speaker of the house.

 

The bill would not need to get out of the senate before it was laden with multiple poison pills.

We in NJ may have much more to gain through compromise at the national level than we have to lose. 

 

What if background checks were expanded for handgun sales, but all states were required to enact reasonable CC legislation (i.e. Illinois)? Or if EVERY state were required to honor every other state's CC permits? That would be a huge game changer for NJ, CA, MA, DC, HI, etc. That fellow who Piers Morgan called "creepy" seemed to believe initiatives such as those were possible if the bill passed and was sent to the house of representatives. 

 

The point is we (especially in NJ) had nothing to lose by letting that process run its course. The Senate bill would NEVER in a million years passed the House.