Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

S.35 -- Gun Show Background Check Act of 2011
Congress ^ | Jan 25, 2011 | US Senate

Posted on 03/29/2011 7:22:21 PM PDT by DBrow

S.35 -- Gun Show Background Check Act of 2011 (Introduced in Senate - IS)

S 35 IS

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 35

To establish background check procedures for gun shows.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. REED, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. KERRY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. BOXER, and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL

To establish background check procedures for gun shows.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 2. GUN SHOW BACKGROUND CHECK.

`Sec. 932. Regulation of firearms transfers at gun shows



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; democrats; donttreadonme; guncontrol; gunshow; lautenberg; liberalfascism; liberals
I've had two calls from NRA and a few emails from other civil rights groups about this. Since there seems to be some interest, I posted the entire bill as introduced into the Senate by Lautenberg and 12, 14 co-sponsors.

I think it's important to read this terrible bill.

It looks like another attempt to close the phony "Gun Show Loophole" (private sales). Lautenberg has another bill going after the phony loophole directly.

1 posted on 03/29/2011 7:22:30 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DBrow

If it gets past the SEnate it won’t get past the Housee but we need to heads up all of our legislators.


2 posted on 03/29/2011 7:27:40 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

Any bill with the names Lautenberg, Schumer, Fienstien, Boxer, on it, is going to be a pile of statist crap designed to infringe as much as possible on the rights of law-abiding citizens.


3 posted on 03/29/2011 7:28:36 PM PDT by spodefly (This is my tag line. There are many like it, but this one is mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

Elections have consequences. If the Tucson shooting had occured last fall, we’d be looking at this type of legislation. We need to compound our gains in 2012.


4 posted on 03/29/2011 7:29:07 PM PDT by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

Heard about this also. Thank you for posting it. Don’t know how big of a shot it has of passing.


5 posted on 03/29/2011 7:29:07 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

Our thanks go out to Chuck, Frank and Diane for this anti-Second Amendment bill just in time to energize our conservative, Constitution loving base. Especially as it is DOA due to our Republican majority in the House. It will be a good drum to beat for fund raising, too.


6 posted on 03/29/2011 7:31:26 PM PDT by RicocheT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

It needs oppositin anyway, in case the House decides to use it as a token in some deal.


7 posted on 03/29/2011 7:32:18 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: spodefly

“Any bill with the names Lautenberg, Schumer, Fienstien, Boxer, on it, is going to be a pile of statist crap”

Sounds like you know your history!


8 posted on 03/29/2011 7:33:15 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

“Thank you for posting it.”

You are welcome. Sometimes I post a likk, but many don’t read it, so I thought I’d experiment and post the whole thing.


9 posted on 03/29/2011 7:35:02 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

Notice also in the bill all the references to “interstate commerce” ... that is the hammer the Feds are going to beat us to death with. The government has successfully argued that even when commerce doesn’t cross state lines it can “effect” interstate commerce, and they therefore have a right to get their greasy mitts on it.


10 posted on 03/29/2011 7:40:46 PM PDT by spodefly (This is my tag line. There are many like it, but this one is mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
How bout a background check, drug test, and mental health evaluation on all of those that are holding ANY government office?

All in favor say *I* !!!!

11 posted on 03/29/2011 7:41:55 PM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
What the government REALLY wants....


12 posted on 03/29/2011 7:42:34 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Visit the TOMMY FRANKS MILITARY MUSEUM in HOBART, OK. I did, well worth it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spodefly

Yes- probably because the House will insist that the bill include a Constitutional justification.


13 posted on 03/29/2011 7:43:18 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: unixfox

With a pee test before any vote on drugs or money, or once per week, whichever is sooner.


14 posted on 03/29/2011 7:44:53 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

“It needs opposition anyway, in case the House decides to use it as a token in some deal.”

Yes you are right. Our two potted plant RINO’s Chambliss and Isakson always need direction. They are suckers for any Democratic compromise. They never saw an opportunity to cave in they didn’t like.


15 posted on 03/29/2011 8:05:18 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

It’s interesting to me that the founding fathers thought you have a RIGHT to only one consumer product. It wasn’t horses(transportation), houses, clothing, or food. But that is the same consumer product the left wants regulated out of existence. Go figure.


16 posted on 03/29/2011 8:24:52 PM PDT by Boiling point (Beck / Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spodefly
The government has successfully argued that even when commerce doesn’t cross state lines it can “effect” interstate commerce, and they therefore have a right to get their greasy mitts on it.

Wicard v. Filburn is even more insidious than that; it posits that goods which are never entered into ANY market, whether purchase or trade/barter, fall under the Commerce Clause... that is to say that private property itself, something not technically a 'good', falls under such regulation.

17 posted on 03/29/2011 8:25:04 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

My goodness, how many 2nd Amend. can this jackhole post in one day.


18 posted on 03/29/2011 8:51:58 PM PDT by Drill Thrawl (I don't prep for the disaster. I prepare for the rebuilding.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

I’m waiting for the bill that declares that any attempt to introduce new legislation that restricts the 2nd Amendment will be treated as treason, punishable by death.

May be a long wait . . .


19 posted on 03/29/2011 8:56:45 PM PDT by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux

>I’m waiting for the bill that declares that any attempt to introduce new legislation that restricts the 2nd Amendment will be treated as treason, punishable by death.

LOL — You’ve been looking at my proposed Constitutional Amendment, havent you?

The United States may not regulate, in any way, the ability of the Citizen to keep, bear, manufacture, buy and/or sell weapons. Any federal agent, employee, judge, justice, representative, or senator causing this amendment to be violated shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to death which shall be carried out one year from conviction; any and all appeals must be heard and decided prior to a year from the date of conviction.

Just imagine for a moment what that would do to the court-system. :D


20 posted on 03/29/2011 9:56:19 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; dagogo redux
I ran that exercise a few weeks back. A what if... we could re-write the Second Amendment?

Try this.

"The right of all individual United States Citizens to keep and bear all arms and their accoutrements at all times in any circumstance and in any location shall not be infringed in any way, from any domestic or foreign source, forever."

.

21 posted on 03/29/2011 10:21:36 PM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TLI

Nice; however, I do notice that it doesn’t have ‘teeth’ to chew-up those who would violate it.


22 posted on 03/29/2011 11:52:06 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

Craigslist and to hell with the rules.


23 posted on 03/29/2011 11:55:36 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (Any economy based on Keynesian principles and practices are always ponzi/pyramid schemes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

No where, (except once), is the potential fine stated. “May be fined or imprisoned for ***”. This bill would be unconstitutional because of that alone. What is the fine? It must be stated and have a “not more than” attached to it.


24 posted on 03/30/2011 3:09:23 AM PDT by usnavy_cop_retired (Retiree in the P.I. living as a legal immigrant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; wku man; SLB; ...
Enemy action ping.

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

25 posted on 03/30/2011 7:40:51 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
Oh, so firearms rights are one of the things in the Constitution Republicans don't deserve, right, Lautenberg?

Sen. Lautenberg: Republicans "Don't Deserve The Freedoms That Are In The Constitution" (VIDEO)

Lautenberg, you fascist bitch, you will GIVE me NOTHING. I will TAKE my Constitutional freedoms, even if it means crawling over a mound of bodies of people JUST LIKE YOU.

F***ing Nazi Fascist Bastard.

Croak, already, ya f***in' mummy.

26 posted on 03/30/2011 7:44:49 AM PDT by Lazamataz (The Democrat Party is Communist. The Republican Party is Socialist. The Tea Party is Capitalist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: usnavy_cop_retired
This bill would be unconstitutional because of that alone.

What is this Konn-stih-too-shun of what you speak?

Besides, they have a lot of time to work on these sort of bills because, after all, all the 2011 budget work is done, and they have TIME to work on less important things.

Oh, wait.

27 posted on 03/30/2011 7:47:33 AM PDT by Lazamataz (The Democrat Party is Communist. The Republican Party is Socialist. The Tea Party is Capitalist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Boiling point
It’s interesting to me that the founding fathers thought you have a RIGHT to only one consumer product. It wasn’t horses(transportation), houses, clothing, or food. But that is the same consumer product the left wants regulated out of existence.

It shouldn't be surprising.

Collectivist liberals:Founding Fathers::Black:White

28 posted on 03/30/2011 7:51:16 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: usnavy_cop_retired

>No where, (except once), is the potential fine stated. “May be fined or imprisoned for ***”. This bill would be unconstitutional because of that alone. What is the fine? It must be stated and have a “not more than” attached to it.

Ah, Sorry... we were talking about a proposed rewording of the second amendment.


29 posted on 03/30/2011 7:51:38 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

You probably don’t want to crawl over Lautenberg. Whatever he’s afflicted with might be contagious by contact.


30 posted on 03/30/2011 7:52:52 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
Craigslist and to hell with the rules.

Nice plan. Oh, yeah....Craig's a bedwetting liberal who won't allow ads for nasty icky guns on his site. You wanna get a hooker for your son, or your daughter for that matter, he's all over that one, but allowing gun ads would be wrong.

31 posted on 03/30/2011 7:56:12 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

Whose really responsible for this bit of tyranny? Frankie the lout, or the a$$holes in NJ who elected him. Likewise upChuckie schemer and Kerry, etc. They are the symptoms of the fact that a large segment of the US really doesn’t deserve to belong, but should be given to Quebec.


32 posted on 03/30/2011 7:58:20 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

Here it comes.


33 posted on 03/30/2011 8:14:43 AM PDT by wastedyears (It has nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow; Drumbo

Holy crap. That is truly evil.

Thank you for posting the entire content of this monstrosity, DBrow.


34 posted on 03/30/2011 8:29:44 AM PDT by Titan Magroyne (What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spodefly

Precisely. It’s an automatic disqualifier in my view.


35 posted on 03/30/2011 9:00:18 AM PDT by Obadiah (If you were going to shoot a mime, would you use a silencer?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
(9) gun violence is a pervasive, national problem that is exacerbated by the availability of guns at gun shows, flea markets, and other organized events...

This pure unadulterated baloney. This is nothing more than the specious opinion of the author who obviously is an opponent of the 2nd Amendment.

36 posted on 03/30/2011 9:06:14 AM PDT by Obadiah (If you were going to shoot a mime, would you use a silencer?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Nice; however, I do notice that it doesn’t have ‘teeth’ to chew-up those who would violate it.

I thought about that as well. in In formulating my proposed version of the Second Amendment I observed that there are no described levels of penalty in any of the other amendments. In fact there are no levels of penalty described anywhere in the Constitution or in any of the Amendments (according to my rather hasty review). If this is incorrect let me know and I will be quite obliging to describe a fitting penalty for a violation of a “reconstituted” Second Amendment!

I believe the FF understood that the Constitution is not the place to describe penalties for violations of the law. I am sure they did it that way for a reason.

.

37 posted on 03/30/2011 9:38:46 AM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

Freedom and Liberty...now!!

Be Ever Vigilant!!


38 posted on 03/30/2011 10:00:23 AM PDT by blackie (Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TLI

To be perfectly honest I think they did not proscribe penalties because none of them foresaw such a time as we have now: a time where the law is construed to mean whatever suits the government at the time. I point to the quote one had saying that something to the effect that a jury-trial as the best check against tyranny “yet imagined by man” and yet consider how juries are rather unduly chosen or manipulated by the government (that NJ gun case comes to mind).

Furthermore, the amount of tyranny we now live under is far greater than anything King George could have imagined in his wildest fever-dreams.
The Founders would be astounded, all social conventions/morals/customs aside, by the sheer depravity of our “justice” system.


39 posted on 03/30/2011 10:16:45 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

“Here it comes.”

Let’s fight the bill first.


40 posted on 03/30/2011 11:23:27 AM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Drill Thrawl; DBrow
As many as is needed. Be thankful someone's paying attention and keeping us posted.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

41 posted on 03/30/2011 2:54:12 PM PDT by wku man (Still holding my breath, but exhaling a bit after Nov. 2...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Nice; however, I do notice that it doesn’t have ‘teeth’ to chew-up those who would violate it.

Actually, the Constitution would have teeth, were it not a piece of paper that nobody cares to actually follow. The key is the Supremacy Clause. Fundamentally, it means that any government action which violates the Constitution is illegitimate, and those actions which on their face violate the Constitution are legitimate on their face.

If a government agent smashes his way into a dwelling in a fashion which a jury, appraised of the situation, would say fails to meet any of the following requirements, the agent is a robber and should be regarded as such.

  1. The search must be conducted in reasonable fashion; among other things, it must be performed in a way reasonably calculated to minimize risk or harm to persons or property.
  2. Either the person conducting the search must have a warrant and serve it at earliest reasonable opportunity, or must articulate a basis for believing that (a) exigent circumstances exist which would require that the search be conducted before a warrant could be obtained, and (b) there exists sufficient basis for the search that a warrant could be obtained, though not necessarily in timely fashion.
  3. The search must be predicated upon a bona fide and reasonable belief that a crime was committed, and that specific articulable types of evidence would be found at the place to be search. This belief must be supportable using only sworn statements by people attesting to personal knowledge.
If illegitimate government actions were recognized as such, the penalties against things like burglary, robbery, kidnapping, etc. would suffice to discourage a lot of unconstitutional thuggery.
42 posted on 03/30/2011 4:36:28 PM PDT by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TLI
If this is incorrect let me know and I will be quite obliging to describe a fitting penalty for a violation of a “reconstituted” Second Amendment!

How about the following:

Government personnel who would seek to illegitimately disarm free persons, or penalize them for refusal to disarm, shall be regarded as robbers; free persons have a right and duty to treat them as such.
That's better, I think, than any government-imposed penalty.
43 posted on 03/30/2011 4:43:30 PM PDT by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Government personnel who would seek to illegitimately disarm free persons, or penalize them for refusal to disarm, shall be regarded as robbers; free persons have a right and duty to treat them as such.

I was mulling that over today, how could a form of penalty assessment be included and remain legal. Tie it to the States. I.E. generate a statement to be included in the Amendment along the lines of your thoughts and let it be determined by the same range of penalty in that State the offence occurred in. That would be determined by the residence of the Complainant, not the defendant.

Also, the penalty should not be any less than if the Complainant had been injured or killed as a result of the infringement of their Second Amendment right. This would apply whether or not the Complainant got so much as a scratch. Minimum, voluntary manslaughter.

If the Complainant actually did incur bodily harm? Whoooo buddy! Maximum? Same as Attempted Murder.

Around here azzholes like Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. REED, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. KERRY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. BOXER, and Mr. WYDEN could wind up in prison for a very long time.

A TEXAS prison...

And if it was proven the Complainant dies due to not being able to defend themselves adequately in the face of an attack because they could not be legally armed at the time of the attack, Capital Murder and that could include Death Row.

.

44 posted on 03/30/2011 6:12:46 PM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TLI
A TEXAS prison...

I'm not sure you understood my point. Is it necessary to give robbers, especially ones who are not immediately obsequious, any quarter whatsoever?

45 posted on 03/30/2011 9:09:11 PM PDT by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Is it necessary to give robbers, especially ones who are not immediately obsequious, any quarter whatsoever?

None whatsoever. And I would not consider infringement of the Second Amendment mere thievery. When someone causes a Citizen to not be able to defend themselves, I liken that to forms of attempted murder and murder itself.

My reference to a Texas prison stemmed from my statement that if any of the commie politicians, domestic or foreign , did anything to infringe and thus endanger any resident of Texas they would have to pay the price in a Texas prison.

And that is something they would be WELL advised to avoid.

The above would apply to any legislation, local, county, State, Federal or foreign, that resulted in some form of a law or treaty. As far as any idiot actually showing up on the property of a Texas resident and attempted to disarm them as a result of such a law, well, here in Texas we have the Castle Doctrine...

We Texans highly recommend it to all other States that have not yet made it law.

.

46 posted on 03/30/2011 9:38:37 PM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RicocheT

Yup. Nothing sells more guns than an anti-gun legislator.


47 posted on 04/01/2011 2:16:25 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (Great children's books - http://www.UsborneBooksGA.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TLI
My reference to a Texas prison stemmed from my statement that if any of the commie politicians, domestic or foreign , did anything to infringe and thus endanger any resident of Texas they would have to pay the price in a Texas prison.

My point was that if a robber tries to steal someone's gun by force, regardless of whether the robber receives a government paycheck, the robber should consider himself lucky if he lives to see the inside of a prison.

If government-sponsored robbers were properly regarded as such, very few people would want to take the job.

48 posted on 04/01/2011 3:39:52 PM PDT by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson