E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday advanced legislation requiring all gun buyers to get a background check, voting along party lines to send a version of the bill to the full Senate.
But the bill passed in committee does not represent the legislative language that both sides ultimately expect the full Senate to consider.
Instead, it's a Democratic version of a background check bill, voted upon by the committee because a bipartisan group of negotiators haven't yet been able to compromise on its specifics.
"I've been talking and continuing to talk to colleagues across the political spectrum and across the aisle about a compromise approach, and I remain optimistic that we'll be able to roll one up," Sen. Chuck Schumer said at the Judiciary Committee's meeting on Tuesday. "But we're not there yet."
Senators are working on a package that would require all gun buyers to get a background check before they buy a gun. Under current law, only licensed dealers have to get a background check from a buyer before they sell a firearm. The bipartisan group had agreed on some exceptions, including one for people selling or giving guns to family members.
If that group -- led by Democrats Schumer and Joe Manchin and including Republican Sen. Mark Kirk -- can find common ground, the bill they produce is expected to become the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's gun control agenda in the Senate.
Those negotiations stalled when Republican Sen. Tom Coburn -- who carries an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association -- couldn't agree with Democrats about whether to require private sellers to keep records of the guns they sell.
Schumer and Manchin are now looking for a second Republican co-sponsor, preferably someone with a top NRA rating. They've reached out to a number of GOP lawmakers, including Sens. Jeff Flake, Susan Collins and Johnny Isakson. Schumer is now taking meetings with some of those Republicans.
Senators also advanced a school safety measure on Tuesday. That bill had bipartisan support.
This story was originally published on Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:21 AM EDT
Leave a Comment:
Blagh blagh not going to happen . so eat it
Don't need any new laws passed just the old laws enforced.
Being retired law enforcement and living in a state that you legally can not sell a firearm without going through a licensed dealer, it doesn't work. The democratic party has been on the disarming American citizens path since 1961 with its Freedom from War Act . Pass universal background checks, then registration, then confiscation. The only person that has gun control is the one holding the gun. Criminals will still be able to purchase guns illegally.
I would like to see an ammunition purchasers card. It would be good for a year. You would get it from any FFL dealer. It would go through the same background check as a firearm purchase. When you buy ammo all you need to do is show your card and pay for your ammo. No card No ammo.
Same for us that build our own?
G 007
Again that is what a foid card covers it is time to stop the knee jerk reactions of liberals trying to put their agenda on honest citizens. Support the laws on the books and get on with life
Expand the FOID card to ammo purchases. We could make it fair for everyone. Make the background check part of your Drivers License. Every person getting or renewing has to go through the background check. If they pass it gets coded on their license. Weather or not you ever intend to purchase ammunition or a firearm is up to you
You know.... criminals steal ammo too! As a matter of fact, ammo is a 100 times easier to steal than a gun!
Only in America. A "licensed" gun dealer is required to do a back ground check, but an "unlicensed" gun dealer is not. Really? Really? And this seems to be a point of contention. Please explain to me how a license is required to sell guns but you can sell guns without a license? Am I missing something?
Question. Does a background check include mental health issues? The point of all this is to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people. No mention though, so I'm assuming not. Looks like the idiots in DC are going to drop the ball again.
They are looking for a congressman with an "A" rating with the NRA to sponsor the bill. Really? Really? What ever happened to common sense and doing the right thing? Oh yeah, we're talking about the Congress of the United States of America. There is no common sense in that group.
Let's remember people. The entire issue here is to keep guns OUT of the hands of crazy people. Let the jack ass's argue about the rest at another time.
Common sense and doing the right thing would mean we end this foolish assault against our rights and focus on violence and mental health issues instead. Seems to be too much to ask though.
It is a criminal offense to engage in the gun business without a license, MORON.
Craig...
To accomplish that, you'll need to convince the ACLU and the AMA that they need to divulge personal medical records in contravention of the HIPPA laws.
Good luck with that.
As Boozer so eloquently pointed out there is indeed a difference between a licensed fun dealer who is engaged in the business of selling firearms and the average Joe who may sell a couple of guns a year that they privately own to finance other purchases, because they no longer want them, etc. Those are very different and thats why the requirements are different.
Actually, in New Jersey, the background check required BY MY TOWNSHIP does include a mental health check, and a domestic violence check.
don97524
I think your post should be written to the worst offender Eric Holder. You remember the fast and furious don't you. We already have a back ground check it is how you get FOID card anything other than that is none of your business or the governments. If I'm ever convicted for a crime as a felon then take what I have from me. Don't come back with your typical liberal bull@!$%# about what if.
tomas
Fast and furious was a program that was run by an ATF that did not have a permanent leader without any knowledge by Eric Holder until after the program had failed. It was a poorly designed program that attempted to trace illegal arms and failed, at least partially due to the lack of accountable leadership. You have a very biased view of the program and while I would not defend fast and furious, I think your version only displays your monumental ignorance of the facts.
Liberals eat sh*t and bay at the moon.
And evidently the conservatives are the epitome of class and grace.
Boozer...please dont do this, it really doesnt help us make our case against these proposals.
Posts like this are why we need background checks. Such anger...One could totally see people like this snapping.
Can't understand why the anti-gun crowd has their skivvies in a wad. With 350 million people it's reasonable one every once in awhile loses it and kills a few citizens. Bombs, bats or bullets it doesn't matter. I also don't think gang on gang murders should count in stats, they are a public service.
This debate seems to have been going on for my entire lifetime, and I'm no spring chicken. Obviously, there are people on both sides, and obviously, most think compromise is a dirty word. It kind of reminds me of Congress, and we all howl about how Congress gets nothing done. Does anyone out there even entertain the notion that the "other" side might actually have a valid point or two?
This is not a place where I would entertain compromise. These are our rights and we do not compromise them. ANY of them.
No need for compromise, just law enforcement.
So, does this mean that some folks know the "one right way", and the others are just fools? There have been great debates about the true meaning of the Second Amendment for years on end. Short of resurrecting the founding fathers to discover what they might actually have meant at the time and how they would side on the issue now, can we not have differing opinions that are not summarily labeled as wrong? And, what about the "well regulated" part of the Amendment? What does that mean, exactly, to you? Or do you just throw that part away?
Head- Militia not guns.
Headin North,
We do not have to resurrect the Founding fathers to find out what they meant. They told us EXACTLY what they meant already:
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the
people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George
Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention
to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to
infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to
prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from
keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia
Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the
Convention of this State"
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the
American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour
the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove
that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally
indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George
Washington
First President of the United States
There you go.
Google it. You'll find there were many documented conversations with those involved with writing it and what they meant by it. Here's a hint, they have almost NOTHING to do with the lefts agenda!
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." - Abraham Lincoln
It is a perversion of the constitution to argue that the second amendment is about granting citizen's unlimited access to arms.
Every court in every era has said no.
Bob, no one is saying unlimited access. We are just arguing that the proposals being discussed are unreasonable infringements and ineffective.
Blah Blah Blah Blah.
Anyone that thinks any background checks, bans, or any new law will stop criminals you have your head up your A$$.
If we would simply enforce the laws on the books and make the penalties for commiting crimes more harsh, then actually carry out the punishment, violence will go down.
All of this stuff is just feel good legislation which will not affect crime rate one single bit, it will only make it harder on the law abiding individual.
And no, I am not a gun nut, just someone with common sense.
You're not very bright, are you?
Well Jim, I am bright and I think what he is saying makes sense. These laws will make exactly zero difference in crime.
I have a very respectful gun collection and conceal & carry every single day. I am not anti-gun. But to say that doing background checks will NOT be effective in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, so therefore why bother, is absurd. Yes-criminals can and still will be able to get access to guns, but why make it easy on them?
Teenagers can and will get illegal access to alcohol (hell, I know I did!) Does that mean we should stop checking ID's at bars and liquor stores?
I think we should have background checks for non gun owners since most of the violence is coming from non gun owners.
Doesn't that make more sense. O forgot they can not do that. That would be unconstitutional. So just pound the gun owner you can. Now is that not what bullying is. Pick the defenceless guy then make him a villain and keep pounding him.
In the end they are not going to enforce it. O you know what I bought these ten guns and someone stole it.
Cheap shots at good people that do not deserve it just because we do not have any leadership in this country.
Nobody is looking at places where gun control is in place and how much of a failure it is. The only guy you can control is the law abiding citizen the others ignore the law and it is never enforced. You know what you do not need to control that guy. So make another law and pound the guy that is never going to be a problem and give the criminal guy food stamps and special programs.
Really frustrating seeing our country without leadership.
Best idea yet!
Whatever happened to that idea for Texas to secede? Saw a poll the other day, all 49 of the other states are behind you 100% We'll reserve that star in the flag for Puerto Rico.
It would almost be worth it just to be rid of you Bob.
Say I want to sell a firearm to a resident of my home State, Illinois. Here we have been burdened with having to apply for, pay a fee and possess a document know as FOID, Firearms owners Identification Document (card). The person holding a valid FOID card has already been backgroud checks at the National and State (ILL) level. Along comes the Fed.s required backgroud check system, another layer and more than likely another fee and another this or that. The same goes for most of the other 49 States who have--unlike Communist Controlled Illinois, have a carry/concealed staturte with accompanying requirements, ie, Background checks. The State of the persons residence has already cleared these "honest, law abiding citizens" as eligible to own and have firearms.
Question: How are private to private sales background checks going to accomplished. Stop by the local police department, the state police, local Sheriff, post office, firearms dealer--where and further at what cost to the seller who most likely already has had a background check conducted in the State they reside in.
These are laws enacted by otherwise inept elected officials who have already screwed up the Federal Government so badly we are literaly broke and not a single one of the, including I suspect all of the Illinois contengent, gives a @!$%# about any thing or any one but themselves and getting re-elected and inflating their campaign war-chests. And they actually think they, most of whom have personal full time armed protection, can actually pass a ?comprehensive? ?cogent? non-draconian and fair firearms control bill---put your thumb back in your mouth and suck on it more until you grow up. If this isn't a SNAFU of the first order, nothing under the sun is or ever was. I suppose that if one sess a firearm and doesn't get a background check done, Obama will declare that person an enemy of this Country and DRONE them in their homes, killing their entire families as acceptible collateral damage...we are living under the umbrella of a growning tyrannical government who believes the ordinary citizen is an obsticle to their purpose.
So lets say I own 5 guns. I choose to sell one to my neighbor. Some of you think I should be allowed a persons private info to run a back ground check on him? Really?
EXCELLENT point!!!! I had not thought of that one before.
No! Safer to go to a licensed dealer and do it that way, but that is simply my preference. I would not demand it of you. It's not my right to do so.
To clarify 38.2: I am talking about STATES that have existing B.G. checks. The FEDERAL government needs to leave it the hell alone. See post 39.
Ok, I am for reasonable discussions. I have mixed feelings on background checks. I agree with them AS LONG AS there is no record kept of the purchase after the check is done and as long as it is done on a local level and as long as it does not apply to private sales. The reason of course is, historically federal registration leads to confiscation.
Case in point: I just bought a handgun recently. Instant background check was simple and I carried it home with me. The salesman who sold me the gun said that if a background check fails, the form is faxed to the state police who then arrest the attempted purchaser. So they do work. (I'm not going to claim ALWAYS) In fact, it happened at that very store a couple of weeks ago. But, I still believe they should only be done on a local level, at a maximum the state level. The federal government should keep their damned hands off it. Period.
Last point: Screw the privacy of individuals who are mentally unstable. Release the damned records to the state police so they can include it in their database. It doesn't need to go any further than that. Effectiveness of background checks decreases dramatically if the mental nut jobs can slip through them. In fact, the form I filled out asked if I had ever been involuntarily committed to a mental institute, but who the hell is going to answer THAT one honestly?
Hi Mr. Steady!!
I guess you don't live in Milwaukee... the Police Chief there isn't concerned with a paper chase and lets them go.
He's a flaming idiot.
I'll surmise that Mr. Schumer and company have not thought out the entire "background check" situation.
ANYTHING they propose will only be good from the day it (if it does) becomes law and will impact only those firearms bought at that time.
Any of the existing 300,000,000 plus firearms in existence will effectively be off the radar..... UNLESS THEY TRY TO REGISTER EVERYONE OF THEM.
Anything bought previously, can have been sold to XXX.... Sorry, I don't know who it was.
Personally, I have no problem with BG checks. I have nothing to hide and have had too many to count.
But, they will also need to convince the AMA and ACLU to divulge personal medical information as it relates to the seriously mentally ill...... but there's the rub.. Who will determine what constitutes seriously mentally ill?
However, I DO have a problem with registration. In all situations where registration has been accomplished, it WAS followed by confiscation.
And on another point, WHY would any buyer want to trust his/her PERSONAL information with an individual to store securely for years after a transaction? Do they have a GSA rated Class 5 safe to store it in? The form currently used has too much information to allow in the hands of others.
I have a really unique solution. Hold the perpetrators of crime responsible for their actions and punish them SEVERELY. Granted it is after the fact, but we can't punish people for ANY OTHER actions prior to the act, why those only with firearms?
However, I DO have a problem with registration. In all situations where registration has been accomplished, it WAS followed by confiscation.
The most lame argument possible.
Mark,
It is the best reason of all not to allow registration.
It's happened Mark
Mark, are you really that ignorant of history?
Mark...
Is THAT the best response you can make? Seriously?
Please refute my contention with FACTUAL evidence it has NOT occurred.
So your logic, as I understand it, is that if you register a hunting rifle it will be taken from, in spite of second amendment rights.
And that's because our institutions are no better than what existed in Nazi Germany.
Do you really think that makes any sense at all to the rest of us?
Not unlike if I said no one should have guns because they will only start a rebellion and murder my family.
Do you not realize that "the vast conspiracy" logic weakens your case, not strengthens it?
Well Mark, it doesnt make sense to you because the government doesnt seem to be coming after YOUR rights. Wait till that changes, you may sing a different tune.
Mark,
How do you justify Feinstein's past record of statements? "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in". You think they won't try? If you think they won't, I have a youtube clip for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYmdCpzADJ0
@Mark Thomas-371822
Who said "vast conspiracy theory"? That must have emanated from your own fertile imagination, not mine.
And if you insist on making sense, please refute my contention with factual evidence. There IS ample evidence supporting my position.
And I never said now, or tomorrow or next year... but I'm unable to see into the future and can't determine how many rights WILL be trampled on by the government. Can YOU?
So, please explain to me exactly how I am in error.
And in addition to Mr. Steady and the Feinstein statement, please consider the very recent statement by Andrew Cuomo, Governor of NY.... ".......confiscation IS an option."
Mark,
Times change things and in a big way.
I would have never imagined we would even have this controversy. We also know that there are those in government that would very much like to confiscate guns as well as force many more types of limitations on our freedoms and what we have and do as individuals.
Registration does nothing except let the governments know who has guns and what kind. For what purpose?
We cannot give in on this. No compromise.
G007 Post # 29....... Your second paragraph does make a LOT of sense! But, your first paragraph is about the nuttiest thing I've ever read. Only a 'nut job' would believe it.
What's nutty about it Ted?
Will someone who opposes further gun regulations please address the "well regulated" statement in the Second Ammendment? I would like to hear the reasoning for ignoring this statement in your other arguments.
Sure. When the 2nd Amendment was written, there were no regulations concerning a citizen's ownership of weapons.
In this case, it means properly supplied.
What additional laws do you think that we need?
"Properly supplied"????????? In your dreams. There are lots of puzzling interpretations of the Constitution, including the one that ignored the "militia" aspect of the 2nd Amendment, but your interpretation is right out of fantasyland.
Actually, the term "well regulated" means that we, using our democratic system, get to decide the rules and regulations regarding gun ownership. The Supreme Court then has the opportunity to weigh in on the constitutionality of those rules and regulations.
don- Did you make that interpretation up or do you have reference?
Don, you need to spend more time studying history. "Well regulated" in the context of the time this was written means "well tuned, well timed, or in proper working order." Your belief in its meaning is incorrect.
Don, the preamble to the bill of rights states in part:
How much clearer does it need to be for you?
NC and FreeGecko are right. You need to find an old dictionary.
The second amendment as ratified by the States:
Let me explain to you. Notice the difference in the meaning of these two statements:
Let's eat grandma.
Let's eat, grandma.
The power of a comma is incredible. It changes entire meanings. You are attempting to read the second amendment as a single sentence, when it is really two distinct and separate statements. One refers to the regulated militia, and the other relates to the people. Appears to be insanely simplistic to me.
Let's eat grandma.
Damn cannibal.
don,
In this case you are simply wrong.
What you say means that our 2nd Amendment rights can be infringed upon. That is not what the 2nd Amendment says.
Militia means:
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the
people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George
Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention
to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
When the 2nd Amendment was written, there were no regulations on the ownership of weaons by the civilian populace of the US.
See http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm It will explain to you what was meant.
If I am wrong, what did they mean?
Furthermore, it was nearly 150 years before the federal government first inappropriately meddled with it.
NC-492358.......you quoted George Mason:
Inasmuch as George Mason was one of the largest slaveholders in Fairfax County Virginia, he might be considered an expert on how best to "enslave them". Do you also agree with Mason's views on slavery, i.e.:
?
Mason was an ardent anti-federalist whose ideas, if they had been implemented, would have (arguably) resulted in the "Balkanization" of the United States. Certainly, the weak central government promoted by Mason could never have afforded President Abraham Lincoln the tools necessary to forcefully preserve our union when Mason's Virginia and the several other slave states seceded. Would that have been your preference?
In short, George Mason was profoundly mistaken on many things both political and personal. His contribution to our very poorly worded (ambiguous) Second Amendment is but one of these.
It should also be noted that, although the Confederate States of America and its citizens were very well armed, they were unable to overcome the federalized forces of the remaining United States.
Those today who delude themselves to believe that any number of assault rifles could contend with the armed forces of the United States would be better served, as the slave states would have been, to settle their political differences through democratic process rather than by force of arms.
Don,
the Supreme Court has already weighed in. the Supreme Court has held that the 2nd amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm uncommected with service in a militia and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes.
feel free to do alittle research and look it up if you want, you don't have to take my word for it.
and before you start bringing that "well then what about tanks, RPG's, and nukes" argument. the Supreme Court also ruled that those rights applied to those weapons in common use for lawful purposes.
again, i ask you to go do the research if you don't believe me
wasneverhere.........
Exactly when did assault rifles come into "common use"? Was it during the Bill of Rights time frame?
When new gun laws are passed the Supreme Court will rule on those new laws because some gun nut will feel "infringed." The fact is that are old background check laws are Constitutional and universal background checks will also very likely be constitutional. It is also likely that a limit on the size of ammunition magazines would also be constitutional. The previous assault weapons ban was not overturned by the Supreme Court; why would a new ban be overturned? ....... and isn't all of that just part of the well regulated aspect of the 2nd Amendment?
have all the black people rush the white house tear it down they are good doing things like that
Really? Lets leave the racist rants out of this please.
the government is set on greed and if we the people try to stop this the government will take away any right we have to oppose this!
This whole plan should work out well for gun dealers. The public would be forced to sell their guns to FFL dealers at discounted prices, or deal with running background checks, with possibly keeping paperwork for decades to sell a shotgun to a good friend!
The whole mental health background check proposal would violate doctor/patient confidentiality.
How much of our freedom, rights and privacy are we to give up so people can "feel" safe?
That seems to be the Democrat way, don't compromise when you have the power, just push the legislation through. That's how we got the Obama Care law passed, isn't it. Yet, we are always told that the Republicans are the ones not compromising. This article really shows the truth of the situation. It's the Democrats that won't compromise unless the Republicans cave into their every wish.
I am still waiting for the gun haters to explain why they are not up in arms about video games and the movie industry. The shooter in CO was dressed as a Batman movie character, virtually all of the gunmen in all of the "mass shootings" were very heavy into violent video games, killing people without regard. Why are you so singularly focused on gun bans (which were proven not to be effective from 1994-2004) and background checks (done on the OVERWHELMING majority of gun sales). Why are you so ignorant of the causes?
Virtually none of the purchases at gun shows are done without checks. If you disagree, then you have not been to a gun show. 90+% of the sellers are licensed dealers, who HAVE to run checks before sales.
The Obama Administration has been woefully lax in prosecuting felons who failed background checks (to the point of NOT prosecuting anyone). If you cannot enforce the current law, then why write another one?
Because movies and video games are not lethal......next question. Btw how has Obama been lax on criminals? Is he a judge? Does he write laws?
There was a recent shooting, in Colorado, I think, where the young man killed his family just because he had seen killing on TV and wanted to see what it was like. When he called 911 and confessed, he stated that he didn't like the way it felt. This goes a long way to describe the effect violent video games and movies have on young minds.
Charles- Put your head back in that dark place.
I think a gun has more effect since it kills people. If the family didnt own a gun in the house, do you think they will be alive or atleast one of them?
Charles, his point is that the violence portrayed in movies and video games are creating violent tendencies in these people. In turn causing them to become lethal.
If my son goes plays call of duty all day and then goes out and kills somebody with my gun, I will not blame call of duty
Come on folks...video games and movies dont kill anyone any more than guns do. This is a people problem and we need to address that or nothing will change.
Correct Freegecko.
Charles, then why would you blame a gun? What and where is the difference. It is the act of the person, not the inanimate video game or gun. Get a grip man...you can't have it both ways.
And Charles, Obama has been lax on prosecuting individuals who fail checks because Eric Holder has not been prosecuting them. Ispso facto, it is Obama's administration that sets the tone. Next?????.
FreeGecko you are right about that
25, I would not blame the gun more than myself. but its insane to me to believe that putting more guns on the street will curb crime in america
Charles....
It's predicated on the hands the firearm gets into.
I can assure you that the 80 million +/- firearms owners want nothing more than to see firearms violence stopped. Not curtailed, not slowed, but STOPPED. Unfortunately, holding the object responsible for the actions of the human using it is NOT the way to accomplish that.
I feel certain that legitimate firearms owners would be more than happy to see harsh and severe non-negotiable punishments for those that use firearms in the commission of a crime. That would in fact be a twofold activity. It would confiscate the firearm of the criminal (and hopefully be returned to it's rightful owner if it was reported stolen) and incarcerate the actual criminal taking him/her off the streets.
It's a win-win.
Charles: In Virginia, since 2006, gun ownership has increased 73%, as reported in the Richmond Times Dispatch. In the same period, violent crime in the State is down 26%. I will not be so bold as to claim that the increase in gun ownership in Virginia has reduced crime, but I WILL be bold enough to say the it HAS NOT increased crime.
This is nothing more than political theater. Nothing that the Senate comes up with will pass muster in the House. Why don't these idiots do something worthwhile? Pass a budget, and install spending caps while lowering taxes to create incentive for job creation.
Almost forgot. Abolish Obamacare!
As a gun owner, i have no problem with backgrounds checks since i had to do it to get the guns i own now. The only people that would have a problem is criminals and people that just hate everything about Obama. Its funny because these are the same laws raygun put on the table when he was prez and the republicans had no problem with it. But now Obama is doing it and its the worst thing they ever heard
The problem with them has nothing to do with Obama. The issue is that its an additional burden for law abiding citizens which isnt likely to have any benefit. The current laws are not enforced...they even said they dont have the manpower or time to do it...so how are more laws the answer? And there is a trust issue...the people pushing this are ones who are on record as wanting full confiscation so we see this more as a "first step" than an individual piece of legislation.
Reagan signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Signed into law by Reagan on May 19, 1986, the legislation amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 by repealing parts of the original act that were deemed by studies to be unconstitutional. The only thing it prohibited was the ownership of fully automatic weapons. Quit believing everything Oduma says and research a few things Charles
So how is background checks unconstitutional?
In this particular case I believe the documentation requirement and penalties are what pushes it over the line.
Just like the Internet, if a Demoncrat says we must have universal background it must be true? And ask how many of the Demoncrats supporting this bill are able to say that this will reduce all crime in their State and Major Cities. Look at how well this has worked for Obama in his home state of Illinois and his Work State of Washington, D.C.
Many real problems confronting America and in what can only be described as a reflection of the incompetence in the White House Congress ignores them and wastes more time on useless and meaningless legislation. Given all the inner city shootings lately pretty soon only Obama supporters will have guns. Driving through Northeastern Utah last week and not seeing another car or person for 90 minutes reminded me that letting city folk have a say in gun control is stupid.