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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last

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