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 previous 1-2021-4041-48 last
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]


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