Senate bill 374; illegal to let someone use your guns & felony if you leave guns at home for 7 days

[Sam1]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/03/foghorn/breaking-details-of-shumers-mandatory-background-check-bill-s-374/#more-209191

 

There’s also a poorly worded exception for hunting and “sporting purposes,” as well as gifts to family members. What that means is if you go on a trip for more than 7 days and leave your guns at home unattended with a roommate, its now a felony under this law. And if I’m reading this right, this applies if you leave your guns with your spouse, but don’t transfer them as a gift.

There’s also no exception for lending guns to friends for the afternoonon the range. I regularly loan out my older competition guns to friends who want to compete in local matches, as the guns can be expensive and its easier to figure out if competition shooting is right for you if you can give it a try. Under this new bill, that would be illegal.

It also appears that it would be illegal to hand a firearm to someone other than the owner, effectively killing range trips with friends.

 

[dieewigeteufel]

Grasping at straws there. These people make me sick.

[LCPfraTN]

WTF...to use language that he would understand, Shumer is a putz and a schmuck! :down:

[RED333]

Well there goes my blood pressure, O well.

[Guest PapaB]

Hold the tinfoil, it looks like that blog didn't think anyone would actually read the bill.

 

They claim;

"In order to qualify for an exception to the rule of all transfers going through an FFL, the following requirements must be met:

1. The temporary transfer takes place at the owner’s house
2. The gun can’t be moved from the property
3. The transfer must last less than 7 days"

The bill actually says;

 

"(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—
 â€˜â€˜(A) bona fide gifts between spouses, between parents and their children, between siblings, or between grandparents and their grandchildren;
‘‘(a transfer made from a decedent’s estate, pursuant to a legal will or the operation of law;
‘‘(C) a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if —"

Then the info in the blog is mentioned.

 

NOTE: Paragraph (1) refers to "transfers going through an FFL"

 

The temporary transfer isn't required, as they imply, it's simply another option available to avoid using an FFL.

 

They also claim;

"What that means is if you go on a trip for more than 7 days and leave your guns at home unattended with a roommate, its now a felony under this law."

 

Horsehockey. Either the writer is an idiot that can't interpret the english language or they're a liar that's trying to misinform people to gain attention for themselves. This bill is so bad it needs to be defeated, it doesn't need to be lied about to prove it's bad. People like the chicken little writer of this blog do more harm than good with their false claims.

 

I didn't even waste the time to read the rest of the 3 day old fish of an article.

 

Just another of my humble opinions. Your mileage may vary.

Edited March 13, 2013 by PapaB

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I agree that the article doesn't quite quote or explain the proposed bill well enough, but the bill itself is garbage

in that it mandates certain reporting requirements, even while supposedly funding the states' expense, and uses

that commerce clause to greater ends that it was never intended. It also gives the Attorney General and the FBI

more authority to regulate, I think.

 

More Shumer nonsense. Anyway, it needs to fail, or not be brought to a vote.

 

I still stand on the premise that it is not the federal government's right to regulate, due to the

Constitution and enumerated rights afforded the legislative process.

Edited March 13, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Guest Gunbunnie]

Hey PapaB where did you find the Bill? I have been looking for it myself to see what is in it, but for some reason I am not having any luck.

 

Thanks,

Daryl

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It's in the linked page.

[gnmwilliams]

This kind of crap is why I can't wait until the elections next year. I hope someone starts a list of every person up for election or re-election that had anything to do with any kind of gun control. It'd be interesting to keep track of just how many of these pieces of poo get sent to the un-employment lines.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Probably be almost none will be unemployed, but one can wish, can't they?

[Guest Gunbunnie]

Thanks, I found it.

[gjohnsoniv]

So how exactly are they going to enforce the whole 7 day thing? Come around once a week and search the premises?

[Oh Shoot]

So how exactly are they going to enforce the whole 7 day thing? Come around once a week and search the premises?

 

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

- Dr. Floyd Ferris in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged

[Moped]

Without national registration, there is no way anything in that bill can be enforced.  Unless you have bought your firearms through an FFL, the paper trail on most used firearms is very cold.

[hipower]

Probably be almost none will be unemployed, but one can wish, can't they?

 

 In spite of the good intentions of all here, this is the most likely outcome.

[Worriedman]

The tentacles run wide in scope.  You buy ammo at Wal Mart, they give up their receipt data base to .gov, they then assume you have guns in the calibers that you purchase ammo for.

 

Same receipt data base shows you also bought meds for anxiety...

 

Need to create jobs, hire analyst to put 2 and 2 together...

[Titansfan]

I left a post on Facebook on the page of my former National Guard company, I am retired now and don't see myself going out of town for a week at a time.

 

I mentioned on the post, that leaving for Annual Training or Deployment, would require gun-owning soldiers to 'transfer' there weapons to their spouse or signfiicant other.  Then upon return, go through the 'transfer' process again.  I got to thinking about that more...... it would require of wife and I taking a day off from work,  hauling the guns (for me 13 of them) to a gun shop or pawn shop, go through the process and do it again upon return.  If transfers are $25 (don't quote me on that), costs could be $325 each time.  I also pointed out on the post, what if during AT or Deployment, you and significant other split.  The one who had the weapons, that used to belong to you, can legally sell  or pawn all the guns. 

[Chief07]

WTF...to use language that he would understand, Shumer is a putz and a schmuck! :down:

He is more than a schmuck. 

I can;t put down what I think of him. :rant:  :rant:  :rant:  :rant:

[Sam1]

Yeah I failed on this one, last time I reference blogger material again.