Even MORE Gun Control Laws In California?

Just when you thought California had more than enough gun control laws, the California legislature sends nine more to Gov. Jerry Brown (D-CA) for signature. With some sort of luck, he may - and I emphasize "may" - veto some of these laws. He has done that in the past.

Gun law attorney Adam Kraut discusses a number of these laws in this video from The Gun Collective. He also has some great alternative names to the official ones for these laws.




If you would like to know even more about these bill and would like to let Gov. Brown know your opinion on them, the Firearms Policy Coalition gives you that info in this release that went out on Friday.

FPC Seeks Veto of 9 Gun Bills from California Gov. Jerry Brown, Asks for Approval of Public Records Act Bill

SACRAMENTO, CA (September 7, 2018) — Today, Firearms Policy Coalition asked California Governor Jerry Brown to veto nine “dangerous” gun bills that would “radically change” the state’s already-voluminous and complex laws. The advocacy organization also requested that Gov. Brown sign one bill that would help prevent state and local agencies from abusing the Public Records Act attorney fee provisions to chill the public’s right to access government files.

Historically, Brown signs most bills sent to him by the Legislature. But, FPC said, he does sometimes veto bills that don’t make sense to him and has rejected gun bills in the past. FPC’s legislative advocate and spokesperson, Craig DeLuz, thinks that Brown has plenty of reasons to reject the nine gun bills they oppose. “Some of these pieces of legislation are just headline-grabbing garbage because it’s an election year,” he said. “And Brown has vetoed some of these bills before, for good reasons. He may just put the brakes on expanding California gun laws in the last year of his last term to leave these decisions to the next governor.”

SB 1177, “just a few months ago an Education Code bill – would make it a crime to apply for the otherwise lawful purchase of a constitutionally protected firearm more than once a month. This bill is a case study of what happens when opportunistic legislators don’t have any real rules (or ethics),” FPC said in a letter. “The sky is blue, the sun sets in the west, and SB 1177 is yet another ego and animus-driven bill to put Senator Portanino’s name in bold print on yet another bill to attack the right to keep and bear arms.”

Another letter points out that San Francisco state senator Wiener’s SB 221 puts people and rights he doesn’t like in the crosshairs of the state. The bill, that would ban gun shows at the Cow Palace in Daly City if signed, was a health-related bill until it was “gutted and amended” just a few months ago. “In SB 221 the Legislature has targeted for especially unfavorable treatment those who would have the audacity to peacefully exercise their fundamental, individual rights protected under the First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendments,” FPC argued.

FPC-opposed bills that were passed by the Legislature include AB 1903, AB 1968, AB 2103, AB 2888, AB 3129, SB 221, SB 1100, SB 1177, and SB 1346. FPC supports SB 1244, a Public Records Act bill, by Bay Area Senator Bob Wieckowski.

Gun owners are encouraged to send Governor Brown a message voicing their opinion using FPC’s free Grassroots Take Action Tools at http://bit.ly/2018-ca-gov-brown .

FPC’s letters to California Governor Jerry Brown can be viewed or downloaded at http://bit.ly/fpc-2018-9-7-gov-brown-letters .

NSSF/SAAMI Joint Statement On Las Vegas Tragedy (And Bump Fire Stocks)

The National Shooting Sports Federation and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute seem to be taking the same approach as the NRA on bump fire stocks: have the BATFE evaluate them under the existing law. All three groups are intent on keeping Congress out of this fight for the time being. They would prefer to have an agency regulation on the stocks than to have new legislation which would most likely go much further. Feinstein's S.1916 would certainly do that.

The joint statement is below:

Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the families and loved ones of all those killed and injured in the criminal attack in Las Vegas. The manufacture, distribution and sale of automatic firearms and their components has been stringently regulated by federal laws since 1934. We believe the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) should interpret and enforce existing laws and regulations. We call upon ATF to conduct a prompt review and evaluation of aftermarket trigger activation devices such as bump stocks to determine whether they are lawful to install and use on a firearm under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), or whether, if they have no function or purpose other than to convert a conventional firearm into an automatic firearm, they are regulated items under the NFA. We urge Congress to allow ATF to complete its review before considering any legislation so that any policy decisions can be informed by the facts and ATF’s analysis.

On Today's Legislative Calendar For Gun Rights

Legislative sessions across the country are slowly coming to a close and with it come votes on gun rights issue. There will be important votes today in both Illinois and New Jersey.

The Illinois Senate will be voting on a number of bills that impact gun rights. Perhaps the most important one will be on their version of a concealed carry law. The bill is HB183 Gun Safety and Responsibility Act and is sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago). It is opposed by the NRA, ISRA, and Illinois Carry. The bill is much weaker than SB2193 that passed the State House last week and it preserves home-rule on firearms issues.

The other bills coming up include SB851 Safety Tech sponsored by Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago), SB1002 Criminal Law Tech sponsored by Sen. Dan Kotowski (D-Park Ridge), and SB1003 Criminal Law Tech sponsored by Sen. Antonio Munoz (D-Chicago). Raoul's SB851 includes both universal background checks and a lost or stolen reporting requirement. Kotowski's SB1002 is a magazine ban bill with an exception for movie and TV productions. Finally, Munoz's SB1003 increases penalties for firearms violations - even unintentional. All of these bills are opposed by Illinois Carry and ISRA.

The Illinois Senate is scheduled to go into session at 11am Central.

Meanwhile, the New Jersey Senate will be taking up a number of bills that either ban certain firearms or curtail Second Amendment rights. They go into session at 2pm Eastern.

From the Outdoor Wire on S. 2723 and S. 2178:

Senate Bill 2723 -- This omnibus bill sponsored by Senate President Stephen Sweeney includes many different gun control sections which will impact retailers and gun owners throughout the state. It suspends Second Amendment rights if one does not have proof of firearms training, including for all current handgun owners; imposes a seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases; bans all private sales of firearms; effectively creates a registry of ammunition purchases and long gun sales.

Senate Bill 2178 -- Sponsored by state Senators Raymond Lesniak (D-20) and Barbara Buono (D-18), this bill is a flat-out statewide gun ban on possession of .50 caliber firearms. The current version was amended to make this bill effective immediately upon enactment.

Other bad bills include S. 2485 which bans anyone who is on the No-Fly list from having either a firearms ID card or a pistol purchase permit and S. 2467 which mandates divestiture in gun companies by the state pension system.

The New Jersey Second Amendment Society issued an alert yesterday on these and other bills. It can be found here and gives contact information.

If you are a resident of either state, I'd urge you to contact your state senators as well as senate leadership to register your opposition to these bills.

UPDATE: In what may come as no surprise, the New Jersey Senate passed all the gun control bills before it. Sebastian has the whole story here. One needs only to see this video to understand the disdain those in power in the Garden State hold both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. If the State Trooper's shirt had been either brown or black, you'd have sworn a time machine had transported you to the era of the Third Reich.

No word yet on any grand compromise from Illinois on concealed carry.

So Much For Pro-Gun Democrats In North Carolina

Last week, the North Carolina House of Representatives passed HB 937 by a margin of 78 to 42. This bill would amend various North Carolina gun laws. Included in this list of laws were provisions that clarified the General Assembly's intentions with regard to park carry, that would permit concealed carry (but not alcohol consumption) in establishments that served alcohol, that would permit concealed carry at events that charged admission, and that would permit concealed carry holders to leave their firearms in a locked vehicle on university and community college campuses. Note on this last provision, a person would still be breaking the law if they carried on campus.

The margin of victory for this bill was provided by every single Republican and one lone Democrat voting to pass this bill. The lone Democrat was Rep. Paul Tine (D-Dare) who should be congratulated for breaking ranks with his fellow Democrats to vote for gun rights.

Strong efforts were made to derail this bill through amendments proposed by anti-gun Democrats. However, each and every amendment was tabled through the efforts of Speaker Tom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg) and Rules Committee Chairman Tim Moore (R-Cleveland). This precluded debates that would delay passage of the bill.

As to the amendments themselves, they were, for the most part, the same sort of anti-gun legislation seen in states like Colorado, New York, Maryland, and Connecticut. Five of the 12 total were introduced before the Second Reading vote and the rest before the Third and final Reading of the bill. I have listed the amendments in order below along with their purpose.

1. Would provide for universal background checks on all private transfers. Uses the Bloomberg language on transfers. Introduced by Rep. Paul Luebke (D-Durham)
2. Would have deleted the provision concerning firearms in locked vehicles on university and community college campuses. Introduced by Rep. Alma Adams (D-Guilford)
3. Would increase the penalty for consumption of alcohol while carrying concealed. Includes a $1,000 minimum fine and five year revocation of NC CHP. It also increases it to a Class 1 misdemeanor from a Class 2 misdemeanor.  Introduced by Rep. Darren Jackson (D-Wake)
4. Would ban magazines with a greater than 10 round capacity as well as shotgun tubes or magazines holding more than eight rounds. Introduced by Rep. Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford)
5. Would require the safe storage of firearms. Introduced by Rep. Verla Insko (D-Orange)
6. Would require that a person adjudicated mental incompetent or involuntarily committed and whose rights have been restored under GS 122C-54.1 wait a minimum of seven years after restoration before being allowed to have a CHP. Introduced by Rep. Dennis Riddell (R-Alamance)
7. Would give universities and community colleges the option to ban concealed handguns on campus. This would also negate storage of a firearm in a locked vehicle on campus by concealed carry permit holders. Introduced by Rep. Rick Glazier (D-Cumberland) Tabled by unrecorded voice vote.
8. A repeat of Amendment 5 introduced by Rep. Verla Insko (D-Orange)
9. A repeat of Amendment 4 introduced by Rep. Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford)
10. A repeat of Amendment 3 introduced by Rep. Darren Jackson (D-Wake)
11. A repeat of Amendment 1 introduced by Rep. Paul Luebke (D-Durham)
12. A repeat of Amendment 2 introduced by Rep. Alma Adams (D-Guilford)

While it might be argued that a vote against tabling the bill was a vote to have a broader debate on the merits of the amendment, nonetheless the amendments themselves were anti-gun measures. With the exception of Amendments 6 and 11, not one Democrat voted in favor of tabling these anti-gun amendments. Rep. Michael Wray (D-Halifax) voted to table Amendment 6 and Rep. William Brisson (D-Bladen) voted to table Amendment 11. The only amendment to gather more than 3 Republicans against its tabling was Amendment 6 which garnered 11 Republican "Nay" votes. That amendment was sponsored by Republican Dennis Riddell who ultimately voted for the full bill.

With the exception of the provision concerning storage of firearms in locked vehicles by concealed carry holders on university and community college campuses, this bill was not filled with controversial provisions. It should be remembered that restaurant carry and parks carry both passed the State House in the 2011-2012 session of the General Assembly. Both of those bills had significant support from Democrats.

Given the relatively non-controversial nature of this bill, it is disturbing to see Democrats who claim to be pro-gun and pro-Second Amendment not only vote against this bill but essentially in a favor of the more draconian gun control measures passed in states like New York and Colorado. There are five Democrats below who got a B- or better from the NRA as well as five Democrats who received at least one star from GRNC who traditionally is a hard grader. Not a damn one of them voted for the passage of HB 937.

I am equally saddened by the number of African-American legislators who voted against this bill. Twenty out of the 42 who voted against this bill are African-American. Additionally, Rep. Charles Graham (D-Robeson) is an enrolled member of the Lumbee Nation. Both African-Americans and the Lumbee Indians were targets of the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacists. Gun control laws in North Carolina were meant to keep blacks and other minorities disarmed in the face of these white supremacist groups such as the Klan. Indeed, the current pistol purchase permit requirement is a legacy of these Jim Crow laws.

I have listed below the Democrats who voted against HB 937 on the Third Reading. I have also included their email address and their 2012 ratings by both the NRA and GRNC. If one of these legislators is your representative, I'd write and express my displeasure at their vote.

Last Name	Email	NRA	GRNC
Adams	Alma.Adams@ncleg.net	F	0
Alexander	Kelly.Alexander@ncleg.net	B-	0
Baskerville	Nathan.Baskerville@ncleg.net	?	0
Bell, L	Larry.Bell@ncleg.net	F	0
Brandon	Marcus.Brandon@ncleg.net	?	0
Brisson	William.Brisson@ncleg.net	B+	1*
Carney	Becky.Carney@ncleg.net	F	0
Cotham	Tricia.Cotham@ncleg.net	F	0
Cunningham	Carla.Cunningham@ncleg.net	?	0
Farmer-Butterfield	Jean.Farmer-Butterfield@ncleg.net	D-	0
Fisher	Susan.Fisher@ncleg.net	F	0
Floyd	Elmer.Floyd@ncleg.net	D	0
Foushee	Valerie.Foushee@ncleg.net	?	0
Gill	Rosa.Gill@ncleg.net	D	0
Glazier	Rick.Glazier@ncleg.net	D-	0
Goodman	Ken.Goodman@ncleg.net	D	0
Graham, C	Charles.Graham@ncleg.net	C	0
Hall, D	Duane.Hall@ncleg.net	?	0
Hall, L	Larry.Hall@ncleg.net	F	0
Hamilton	Susi.Hamilton@ncleg.net	C-	0
Hanes	Edward.Hanes@ncleg.net	?	0
Harrison	Pricey.Harrison@ncleg.net	F	0
Holley	Yvonne.Holley@ncleg.net	?	0
Insko	Verla.Insko@ncleg.net	F	0
Jackson	Darren.Jackson@ncleg.net	D	0
Lucas	Marvin.Lucas@ncleg.net	B	2*
Luebke	Paul.Luebke@ncleg.net	F	0
McManus	Deb.McManus@ncleg.net	?	0
Michaux	Mickey.Michaux@ncleg.net	F	0
Mobley	Annie.Mobley@ncleg.net	D-	0
Moore, R	Rodney.Moore@ncleg.net	D	0
Pierce	Garland.Pierce@ncleg.net	C-	0
Queen	Joe.Queen@ncleg.net	B	3*
Richardson	Bobbie.Richardson@ncleg.net	NR	NR
Ross, D	Deborah.Ross@ncleg.net	F	0
Terry	Evelyn.Terry@ncleg.net	?	0
Tolson	Joe.Tolson@ncleg.net	C+	1*
Waddell	Ken.Waddell@ncleg.net	?	0
Wilkens	Winkie.Wilkins@ncleg.net	C-	0
Wray	Michael.Wray@ncleg.net	B	1*

Willing To Settle?

On the heels of the IRS being used to target enemies of the Obama Administration and on the heels of the Department of Justice examining the phone records of AP reporters, the gun prohibitionists say they are willing "to settle"  for certain restrictions.

I will admit to having the same visceral reaction to seeing that pusillanimous, pinch-faced Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) speak as I do to seeing Jay Carney make another sneering denial. I want to slap the shit out of them.

Monday, on the floor of the Senate, Reid repeated the lie that the shooter in Newtown had an automatic weapon when in fact he had a Connecticut-legal AR that he took from his mother after killing her. He goes on to say he admires Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) for continuing to push control.

Reid says he, the Sandy Hook families, and the gun prohibitionists will "settle" for prohibitions to prevent "crazy" people (aka people with mental disabilities) and criminals from buying guns.  Has no one ever told them that prohibitions already exist that make it illegal for felons, those convicted of misdemeanors involving domestic violence, and those adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution to buy a firearm? It is right there on the BATFE's Form 4473!

Gun rights activists, the NRA, and the NSSF have been pushing for improvements to the NICS background check system. We also want to know why the DOJ and BATFE hasn't gone after the felons who failed a NICS check while trying to buy a firearm. And what about straw buyers? What good does a new law do when they won't even enforce existing laws that have teeth in them?

Harry Reid didn't mention universal background checks but you know he is just biding his time. Given this administration's blatant attempts to use the IRS to intimidate their political opponents, just think what they could do with a database of gun owners. Thanks but no thanks.

ISRA - The Heat Will Be On This Week

The Illinois State Rifle Association issued an alert this afternoon regarding moves by the gun prohibitionists in the Illinois General Assembly. They feel the anti's will make some moves this week and they are asking Illinois residents to contact their state senators and representatives.

As June 9th grows nearer, a lot of attention will be focused on the General Assembly's efforts to comply with the court order to enact concealed carry. As important as passing shall-issue concealed carry is, gun owners should not let the carry issue distract them from other efforts already underway to diminish their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Those of you who have been following the topic of gun control this year know that there are some key items on the gun-grabbers' legislative wish list. Among the crown jewels are the ban and confiscation of semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns; the ban and confiscation of standard capacity magazines; the registration of lawful gun owners; and the mandatory reporting of lost and stolen firearms. The gun controllers claim that these measures are necessary to protect public safety. Of course, firearm owners know that these measures are designed strictly for the purpose of punishing people who dare to own a gun.

A glimpse of what we may soon be facing was provided by a front-page feature in the latest Sunday edition of the Chicago Tribune. In that story, we learned of a single mom so desperate for cash that she volunteered to become a straw purchaser for hardened criminals who were prohibited from purchasing firearms. She was eventually caught and is now serving a multi-year prison term for her misdeeds.

As far as gun owners are concerned, the hapless straw purchaser is right where she belongs jail. Interestingly, the author of the piece spins the story to suggest that the woman is in jail not because of her decision to commit crimes, but because the "gun lobby" has fought against legislation supposedly designed to combat straw-purchasing. Once again, the notion is put forth that muggers, mass murderers, and straw purchasers only commit crimes because the "gun lobby" lets them. In this case, it's gun owners' fault that this mom is in jail rather at than home with her kids.

In short, it seems that the purpose of the straw purchase story is to promote legislation requiring gun owners to report "lost or stolen" firearms to the police within a short time of them being lost or stolen. As is often the case, such legislation may sound good on the surface. But, the devil is in the details, and those details place an undue burden on firearm owners. Such proposals may be fine in theory, but problematic in practice.

So, here is what you need to do to help ensure passage of shall-issue concealed carry and prevent passage of extremist gun control proposals:

1. Call your State Representative and your State Senator. Politely tell the person who answers the phone that you are a law-abiding Illinois firearm owner and that you would like the senator or representative to vote for "shall-issue" concealed carry and vote against "may-issue" concealed carry. Likewise, advise the person that you oppose any proposal that would diminish your right to keep and bear arms and expect the legislator to oppose such measures as well. If you do not know who your representative or senator is, the Illinois State Board of Elections has an interactive search page here:www.elections.state.il.us/DistrictLocator/DistrictOfficialSearchByAddress.aspx

If you already know who your legislators are and just need the contact info, you can find that here: www.ilga.gov/house/. and here: www.ilga.gov/senate/.

2. Pass this alert on to your friends and family and ask them to make calls as well.

3. Post this alert to any and all Internet blogs or bulletin boards to which you belong.

FURTHER ACTION The Will County Board will vote on a resolution in favor of Concealed Carry this coming Thursday at 9:30 in the Will County Office Building, 2nd Floor, 302 N. Chicago Avenue, Joliet. It’s important that firearm owners show up for the vote to show their support for the measure. Plan on being there at 9:00 AM so that you can get a seat.

Feinstein Gets Her Way

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) got her assault weapons ban (sic) - S. 150 - out of the Senate Judiciary Committee today on a 10-8 party line vote. It now goes to the full Senate.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) offered four amendments to the bill which were all defeated on an 8-10 party line vote. His amendments would have made exceptions for those in rural areas; for those who had obtained a protective order; for those who certified they were the victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, or stalking; and for those people who were residents in a county or municipality that borders Mexico to protect themselves against the narco-terrorists. I think Cornyn's intention was to put the Democrats on record as anti-rural, anti-woman, and anti-self defense.

The votes on Jane Kelly to be an Appeals Court judge in the 8th Circuit and on Kenneth Gonzales to be a District Court judge in New Mexico were held over.

 The results of the business meeting as reported are below:

Results of Executive Business Meeting - March 14, 2013
The Senate Judiciary Committee held an executive business meeting to consider pending nominations and legislation on March 14, 2013.

Agenda

I. Nominations

Jane Kelly, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit
Held Over

Kenneth John Gonzales, to be United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico
Held Over

II. Legislation

S. 150, Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (Feinstein)
Ordered Reported by Roll Call Vote, 10-8

Amendment ALB13181 (Cornyn)
Failed by Roll Call Vote, 8-10

Amendment OLL13116 (Cornyn)
Failed by Roll Call Vote, 8-10

Amendment OLL13117 (Cornyn)
Failed by Roll Call Vote, 8-10

Amendment OLL13118 (Cornyn)
Failed by Roll Call Vote, 8-10

The webcast of the meeting for anyone with the stomach enough to watch it is here.

UPDATE: According to Politico, the White House is urging swift action on Feinstein's Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. Press Secretary Jay Carney had this to say:

"Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary committee voted to send the full Senate an important piece of legislation to help keep weapons of war off America’s streets," Carney said Thursday. "As you know, banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines is an important piece of the president's plan to reduce gun violence.

"We urge congress to swiftly vote on and pass this legislation and other common-sense measures like requiring a background check for all gun purchases and cracking down on gun trafficking and straw purchasers. There's been significant progress this week on these proposals and the president welcomes that. We urge congress to keep it up."

Frankly every time I hear the words "common sense" out of Jay Carney or President Obama's mouth, I shudder at the perversion of the English language.

The Revised S. 374 - Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013

Today in the Senate Judiciary Committee business meeting, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) submitted a substitute amendment for S. 374. This substitute not only changed the name of the bill from the Protecting Responsible Gun Owners Act of 2013 to the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013 but it also provided that action component that had been missing from the earlier version.

Title I of the bill deals with records submission by the states to the Federal government for purposes of integrating that information into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This section provides a carrot and stick approach to getting the states to submit data. It provides for a $100 million appropriation for grants to the states to improve their databases and to help them submit the necessary data to the FBI for NICS check. Up to 10% of this money could be used for a relief from disabilities program. That is, a program to report those to whom firearm rights are restored. I must say this would be a change coming from Chuck Schumer who has stymied the relief from firearms disabilities for years.

The improved data that the bill concerns would be the court records of  those convicted of a felony and those under either a court order or convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence as well as the mental health adjudications that would cause the loss of firearms rights. The stick component that goes with the grants from Attorney General would be a reduction in monies from the grants under Section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The states would have two years to bring the records submitted to the 50% or greater level or lose 3% of the Federal monies. It goes up to a 4% reduction after three years if the state didn't submit at least 70% of the required records. Finally, after the third year there would be a mandatory 5% reduction for any state at less than 90% compliance.

All in all, I can't argue too much about the intent of Title 1. It is in the interest of everyone to have the records at state level be as accurate as possible and it is also in the interest of everyone that the records in the NICS check system be accurate.

Title II of the S. 374 is a gun controller's wet dream.

First, Section 202 makes it illegal for a firearm transfer to be made between unlicensed persons. It would required a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer to first take possession of it, enter it in their bound book, perform a NICS check, fill out a Form 4473, and then and only then, complete the transfer.

The exceptions include:

• Bona fide gifts between spouses
• Bona fide gifts between parents and children
• Bona fide gifts between siblings
• Bona fide gifts between grandparents and grandchildren
• Transfers made from a decedent's estate by will or operation of law
• Temporary transfer between unlicensed persons if
• It occurs in the home or curtilage (adjacent property) of the transferor
• The firearm is not removed from the home
• And the duration is less than 7 days.
• Temporary transfers in connection with lawful hunting or sporting purposes
• At a range if kept within the premises of the range at all times
• At a "target firearm shooting competition" under the auspices of a State agency or non-profit organization and the firearm is kept within the premise of the shooting competition.
• If while hunting to a person with the requisite hunting license during a designated season for a legal game animal.

Section 202 would set a maximum fee for doing the paperwork. It would also require the Form 4473 be kept by the FFL doing the transfer.

The penalty for violating this section is not at all clear. However, it seems to fall upon the FFL who would be liable for a $5,000 civil fine and an up to six months suspension of his or her license. (If you can find another penalty for violating Section 202, please let me know.) Sec. 202 become 18 USC 922 (s) which under 18 USC 924 (D)(5) stipulates a year's imprisonment and a unspecified fine.

Section 203 is equally egregious. It mandates the reporting of lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours of discovery to the "Attorney General and to the appropriate authorities." More importantly, the penalty for knowingly violating this provision is 5 years imprisonment!

If passed, the law goes into effect in 180 days from passage. So far, it has passed out of the Judiciary Committee on a 10-8 party-line vote.

While the gun prohibitionists would like to have bans on standard capacity magazines and semi-automatic firearms with ugly cosmetics, universal background checks is what they really want because the only way to make enforcement of them possible is a national firearms and firearm owners database. As Andy Grove, the former CEO of Intel Corporation, famously said, only the paranoid survive.

Results Of Today's Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting

As I said earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee was going to resume meeting to discuss three gun related bills and the nomination of Kenneth Gonzales. They have released the results of the meeting and I have posted it below. Gonzales' nomination was not acted upon nor was Dianne Feinstein's S. 150. However, both Sen. Chuck Schumer's S. 374 and Sen. Barbara Boxer's S. 146 were reported out of committee with amendments.

Results of Executive Business Meeting - March 12, 2013 The Senate Judiciary Committee held a continuation of an executive business meeting to consider pending legislation on March 12, 2013. The Committee was not able to complete action on all pending matters and the meeting recessed subject to the call of the Chair.

Agenda
I. Legislation

S. 374, Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013
Ordered Reported by Roll Call Vote, 10-8

Amendment ALB13180 (Schumer)
Adopted by Unanimous Consent

S. 146, School Safety Enhancements Act of 2013
Ordered Reported by Roll Call Vote 14-4

Amendment OLL13111 (Leahy)
Adopted by Unanimous Consent

Amendment OLL13112 (Grassley)
Withdrawn

 Last week I wrote that I found it strange that Sen. Chuck Schumer's S. 374 - Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013 - did not have an action component. It merely consisted of findings which were more suited to a Senate Resolution than to actual legislation.

That was then and this is now. The amendment that Schumer made today in committee to S. 374 contains the meat of the bill and it isn't pretty. Not only does it have universal background checks but it contains a provision that requires gun owners to report stolen weapons within 24 hours to authorities. The bill has also been renamed to the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013. There is more to the bill and I will have a separate post up about it after I finishing reading the whole thing.

Here is the link to my separate post on the bill.

Senate Judiciary Committee Meets Again

Last Tuesday the Senate Judiciary Committee met to vote on nominees for various judgeships and on a whole host of gun control bills. They ran out of time and only passed out S. 54 which is Sen. Leahy's bill on "gun trafficking".

Today they will continue this meeting. US Attorney for New Mexico Kenneth Gonzales will be back on the agenda as the nominee for a District Court judgeship for the District of New Mexico. Also on the agenda are the three gun control bills that they didn't vote on last week.

As an aside, Chuck Schumer's S. 374 - Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013 - still doesn't have an action component to the bill. It still reads more like a resolution than a bill.

CONTINUATION

A continuation of the March 7, 2013 Executive Business Meeting has been scheduled by the Committee on the Judiciary for Tuesday, March 12, 2013 at 10:15 a.m., in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

By order of the Chairman.

AGENDA

Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226
March 7, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.

I. Nominations

Kenneth John Gonzales, to be United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico

II. Bills

S.150, Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (Feinstein)

S.374, Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013 (Schumer)

S.146, School Safety Enhancements Act of 2013 (Boxer)

The Judiciary Committee is also scheduled to meet on Thursday, March 14th, on a similar agenda.

Gun Bills In Colorado

Today is the day that the Colorado State Senate votes on five gun control bills. Two other gun control bills - concealed carry on campus and liability for "assault-style weapons" - were killed by their sponsors.

HB 1229 - Universal Background Checks - has passed the Senate 19 - 16. The lone Democrat to vote against it was Sen. Lois Tochtrop (D-Thornton). It will now go back to the House to get agreement on amendments added in the Senate.

HB 1228 - Background Check Fees - was passed by the Senate 19 - 16. Sen. Andy Kerr (D-Lakewood) was the only Democrat to oppose the bill. This bill would impose a $10 plus fee for each background check by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. This bill now goes to Gov. John Hickenlooper who has indicated he will sign it.

SB 197 - bans guns for domestic abusers - was passed by the Senate on a 20-15 party line vote. It now goes to the House for passage there. Anyone with either a conviction for domestic abuse or a protective order would have to surrender their firearms within 24 hours. This could be extended to 72 hours by a judge's order.

SB 195 - Online Training - passed the State Senate on a 22-13 vote. This bill would ban online training for a concealed carry permit. It no goes to the House for passage.

The final bill - HB 1224 - which would ban magazines with a greater than 15 round capacity is still being debated. This was the most controversial bill due to Colorado magazine manufacturer Magpul's determination to leave the state if it is passed.

UPDATE: HB 1224 passed the Colorado Senate on a 18-17 vote a few minutes ago. It will now go back to the House because the Senate amended the bill with a change to the shotgun provision.

A Democratic sponsored bill that limits ammunition magazines of more than 15 rounds passed through the Senate Monday, despite some members of the party defecting and casting votes in opposition to the measure.

The bill passed on a 18-17 vote, with Democratic Sens. Democratic Cheri Jahn of Wheat Ridge and Lois Tochtrop of Thornton voting against it. Two Republican lawmakers on Monday said they will disobey the measure if it becomes law.

Unless Gov. John Hickenlooper veotes this bill when it reaches his desk, Magpul and a few other companies will be saying, "Hey, hey, Goodbye!"

Mixed Results From Today's Judiciary Committee Meeting

There is both good news and bad news from today's Senate Judiciary Committee business meeting. The meeting agenda had votes on six nominees for US District Court judgeships and four gun control bills.

First, five out of the six the judicial nominees were passed out of committee on voice votes. However, Kenneth John Gonzales, the US Attorney for New Mexico and a nominee for a District Court judgeship, was held over. This would appear to mean that according to Committee Rules at least one member of the Judiciary Committee requested that the vote on Gonzales be held over until the next committee meeting. As I mentioned yesterday, Gonzales and his office have been pursuing a vendetta against the Reese family of Deming, New Mexico. Check out the Tea Party of Luna County for complete info on the prosecution of the Reeses.

Second, three of the four gun control bills were held over. The bad news is that Chairman Patrick Leahy's S. 54 - Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013 made it out of the committee. It passed on a 11 to 7 vote. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) was the only Republican to vote for the bill.

Grassley did have an amendment to the bill that would require the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, or Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division to personally review and approve any "Fast and Furious" type of operation. This amendment was adopted unanimously.

The full results of the business meeting with links to the amendments is below:

The Senate Judiciary Committee held an executive business meeting to consider pending nominations and legislation on March 7, 2013. The Committee was not able to complete action on pending matters and the meeting recessed subject to the call of the Chair.

Agenda

I. Nominations

Sheri Polster Chappell, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida
Ordered Reported by Voice Vote

Kenneth John Gonzales, to be United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico
Held Over

Michael J. McShane, to be United States District Judge for the District of Oregon
Ordered Reported by Voice Vote

Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Ordered Reported by Voice Vote

Luis Felipe Restrepo, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Ordered Reported by Voice Vote

Jeffrey L. Schmehl, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Ordered Reported by Voice Vote

II. Legislation

S.150, Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (Feinstein)
Held Over

Amendment ALB13141(Grassley)
As Amended, Adopted by Voice Vote

Second Degree Amendment ALB13196 (Coons)
Adopted by Unanimous Consent

Amendment ALB13190 (Grassley)
Failed by Roll Call Vote, 9-9

Amendment OLL13115 (Cornyn)
Failed by Roll Call Vote, 9-9

S.54, Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013 (Leahy)
Ordered Reported by Roll Call Vote, 11-7

Substitute Amendment HEN13250 (Leahy)
Adopted by Unanimous Consent

Amendment ALB13193 (Grassley)
Adopted by Unanimous Consent

S.374, Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013 (Schumer)
Held Over

S.146, School Safety Enhancements Act of 2013 (Boxer)
Held Over

The Next Round Of Federal Firearms Legislation

Since my last update, there have been three House bills dealing with firearms-related topics introduced and two in the Senate. The House bills probably aren't going anywhere but the two Senate bills have the ability to gain some traction especially since they are the product of negotiations between Democrats and Republicans.

House

HR 848 - Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA)
Armed Prohibited Persons Act of 2013
To direct the Attorney General to make grants to States to develop systems to retrieve firearms from armed prohibited persons.
Co-Sponsors:
Rep. Speier, Jackie (D-CA)
Referred to the House Judiciary Committee

HR 955 - Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL)
Hadiya Pendleton and Nyasia Pryear-Yard Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013
To increase public safety by punishing and deterring firearms trafficking.
Co-Sponsors:
Rep. Kaptur, Marcy (D-OH)
Referred to the House Judiciary Committee

HR 965 - Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)
To prohibit the possession or transfer of junk guns, also known as Saturday Night Specials.
Referred to the House Judiciary Committee

Senate

S. 443 - Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013
To increase public safety by punishing and deterring firearms trafficking.
Co-Sponsors:
Sen Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]
Sen Collins, Susan M. [R-ME]
Sen Durbin, Richard [D-IL]
Sen Franken, Al [D-MN]
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]
Sen King, Angus S. Jr. [I-ME]
Sen Kirk, Mark Steven [R-IL]
Sen Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]
Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee

S. 480 - Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
The NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013
A bill to improve the effectiveness of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System by clarifying reporting requirements related to adjudications of mental incompetency, and for other purposes.
Co-Sponsors:
Sen Begich, Mark [D-AK]
Sen Flake, Jeff [R-AZ]
Sen Heller, Dean [R-NV]
Sen Pryor, Mark L. [D-AR]
Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee
(The text of this bill is not yet available. However, from the press release put out by Sen. Graham, it seeks to clarify when a person loses his or her right to firearms due to mental illness. They do stress it has to come from an adjudicative body.)

S. 374 - Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced S. 374 - the Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013- on February 25th and it will be voted for in the Senate Judiciary Committee today. The text of this Orwellian sounding bill is below. If you read it closely, it seems to be missing something. That something is the action component to go with the so-called findings part of the bill.

S 374 IS

113th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 374

To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 25, 2013

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Congress supports and respects the right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(2) Congress supports the existing prohibition on a national firearms registry.

(3) There are deficits in the background check system in effect before the date of enactment of this Act and the Department of Justice should make it a top priority to work with States to swiftly input missing records, including mental health records.

(4) If the citizens of the United States agree that in order to promote safe and responsible gun ownership criminals and the mentally ill should be prohibited from possessing firearms, it should be incumbent upon all citizens to ensure weapons are not being transferred to such people.

END

The introduction to the bill calls its a bill to require all prohibited persons be listed in the NICS database AND to require a background check for all gun sales. So the question remains where is the action component of the bill. The bill as written reads like a Senate Resolution minus a whole bunch of whereas's.

The devil is always in the details and I expect the devil to be at play with this bill. What will the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee add to this bill today and what will be added as amendments on the floor of the Senate assuming that this bill, as expected, moves out of committee?

In my opinion, the innocuous sounding text of the bill plus the missing action component makes this a dangerous bill. I see it is a vehicle sponsored by one of the most notorious gun prohibitionists in the Congress to saddle us with gun control that we don't want or need.

GOA On The Senate Judiciary Bill Mark-Ups

The Gun Owners of America have sent out a notice about the bills that will be voted on in the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow. While they mention S. 443, I'm wondering if this bill will be substituted for the S. 54 which is on the agenda. I don't always agree with GOA but I think are correct about S. 443 being more dangerous than S. 150 which doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being enacted.

Senate “Deal” Would Impose Even More Gun Bans
Gifts, gun raffles and multiple sales of guns would be effectively banned

Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will mark up four bills arising out of the Newtown tragedy:

* The Feinstein bill — which would ban millions of shotguns, rifles, handguns and magazines that Americans can legally own -- but which will probably die on the Senate floor.

* The universal gun registry — which may also die on the Senate floor — unless a last-minute deal with Sen. Tom Coburn brings it to life.

* Legislation by Barbara Boxer, which throws away $100,000,000 on school safety studies, but doesn’t immediately mention guns.

* And, currently the biggest danger, the Leahy-Gillibrand-Kirk bill, which has ominously been labeled a “gun trafficking” bill.

In regard to this latter piece of legislation (S. 443), the bill is being sold inside the Beltway as a bipartisan “compromise” because anti-gun Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) is a cosponsor of it.

But S. 443 would dramatically threaten to put gun owners in jail with horrendously long sentences for the most minor of infractions.

Essentially, the bill would impose a 15-year prison sentence for “negligent multiple sales by a dealer,” “negligent gifting” or “negligent raffling.”

Increasingly, there are more and more individuals who are “prohibited persons” for non-violent reasons — for instance, they smoke marijuana or they are military veterans suffering from maladies such as PTSD.

But if S. 443 is passed, any person who sells to such prohibited persons two or more firearms ... or gives them a firearm as a gift ... or raffles a firearm (where they are the recipient) ... does so only at the considerable risk of spending 15 years in a federal penitentiary.

You don’t need to know the person is a prohibited person under either example. Nor does the recipient need to know they’re a prohibited person.

In fact, you don’t need to do anything more than plan (“conspire”) to transfer the gun. In addition, the recipient doesn’t need to be on the NICS list to be a prohibited person.

Not only that, under section 4 of the bill, if you even “intend” to sell a firearm to a person who turns out to be a marijuana smoker — or one of the prohibited military veterans suffering from PTSD — you become a prohibited person yourself.

Go here to read the entire analysis of S. 443.

When all is said and done, this bipartisan “compromise” is as bad as the Feinstein gun ban (S. 150).

ACTION: Click here to demand that your U.S. Senators oppose the Leahy-Gillibrand-Kirk bill (S. 443).

Senate Judiciary Committee Votes On Gun Control Tomorrow

The Senate Judiciary Committee will have an executive business meeting tomorrow morning at 10am. There are a number of items that should be of concern to those concerned with the Second Amendment and gun rights.

The first item on the agenda is a confirmation vote on six nominees for US District judgeships. Of particular concern is Kenneth John Gonzales to be a District Court judge for the District of New Mexico. Gonzales is currently the US Attorney for New Mexico and the man behind the egregious prosecution of the Reese family of Deming, NM on charges of arms smuggling. They have already been found not guilty on 24 out of 28 charges and are seeking dismissal of the other four charges due to prosecutorial misconduct.

National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea and the Firearms Coalition's Jeff Knox have been doing yeoman's work in covering this case since the beginning. Here are a couple of their latest reports. The Tea Party of Luna County (NM) has been on the case since the beginning as well.

Based on the prosecution's behavior under Gonzales, I and many others feel he is unfit to sit on the bench. David Codrea is urging that people contact Sen. Chuck Grassley R-IA) to make their opposition known.

The other major items on the Judiciary Committee's agenda are votes on four gun control measures.

II. Bills

S.150, Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (Feinstein)

S.54, Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013 (Leahy)

S.374, Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013 (Schumer)

S.146, School Safety Enhancements Act of 2013 (Boxer)

Given the composition of the committee, I really have no expectation that they won't pass these measures. The only question is whether any Republican votes for any of these measures.  I would hope not but there is no guarantees. Sebastian has a good post up today about the risk of letting gun controllers have any victory. In my opinion, a party line vote is about the best we can expect in the Senate Judiciary Committee and would count as a win.

It's time to tell the Republicans on the committee that we expect them to hold the line. Contact info is available here.

The Topic That Dare Not Speak Its Name

With apologies to Oscar Wilde, for Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) there is a topic that dare not speak its name. That topic is gun control and the Second Amendment.

Sen. Manchin gave an interview to The Journal of Martinsburg, WV that was published on Sunday. At the top of the interview was the following editor's note:

Editor's note: This question and answer session was permitted under the condition that The Journal would not ask questions regarding gun control legislation or the Second Amendment, as requested by the senator's staff.

Given that Manchin was elected to a full six-year term in 2012 and won't be up for re-election until 2018, I find this all rather strange. You must wonder what the good Senator has to hide.

His staff is now denying that they made the topic off-limits. They just said he wouldn't answer questions on gun control or the Second Amendment.

The way I see it is that it is irrelevant whether the topic was off-limits or that Manchin would just refuse to answer the question. He still is hiding. He's backtracked a good deal from the earlier positions he took in January. If I were a resident of West by God Virginia, I'd be demanding answers as a constituent to just where Manchin stands now on gun control. He owes his constituents an honest answer and it looks like he is doing everything in his power to avoid doing that.


H/T Instapundit

Firearms Policy Coalition Has An Easy Way To Comment

The Firearms Policy Coalition has set up a page that lists each firearms-related bill that has been introduced into either the House or the Senate in the 113th Congress. It gives a brief summary of the bill and whether they support or oppose the bill.

You are probably saying to yourself, "So, you've been doing something similar". Yes but their page contains a link for each bill that allows you to send a comment on that particular bill to your Congressman and Senators. If, for example, you just want to send a comment that says, "I oppose S.150" you can do that. However, if you want to personalize your message - and you should do that - it lets you do that.

In addition to sending a message to Congress, the link also tallies your response with other respondents for the website PopVox. For example on the aforementioned S.150 - Assault Weapons (sic) Ban of 2013 - PopVox shows 97% of respondents oppose the bill.

I am all for easy if it looks like it can be effective. Given that you can personalize the message, I think this can be effective.