S. 54 Would Effectively Ban Even More Guns than Feinstein’s Bill!

[Dan W]

Gun Owners of America
S. 54 Would Effectively Ban Even
More Guns than Feinstein’s Bill!

Violation of state gun bans would make you a “Prohibited Person” all across the country
 
Do you like Cuomo's semi-auto gun ban?  D.C.'s microstamping requirement?  Rahm Emaunuel's licensure laws?

The Senate is about to vote to make all of these into federal crimes, turning gun-owning Americans into prohibited persons — meaning they would NOT be able to own a firearm anywhere in the country!

We have talked about some of the problems with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy's gun “trafficking” bill.  Leahy apparently thinks that, if he puts a shiny label on the bill, he can ban as many guns as he wants.

But, at its core, S. 54 would make it a federal crime to violate virtually any state gun law.

Section 5 creates a new "prohibited person" classification which makes it a federal crime to transfer a gun if “prohibited by State or local law ... from possessing [or] selling ... THE firearm or ammunition.”  [Emphasis added]

Note the use of the word “the.”  We're not talking about a person who's banned from owning ANY firearm.  We're talking about a person who's prohibited by ANY state law from possessing a PARTICULAR firearm.

So do you like Andrew Cuomo's massive gun ban?  He bans more types of guns than would Feinstein’s so-called “assault weapons” ban.  Yet under S. 54, transferring a firearm banned by Cuomo becomes a federal crime, punishable by ten years in a federal prison — at least for New York residents and possibly for others.

Do you like California's proposed ammunition ban?  That also becomes a federal crime — at least for California residents and perhaps for others.

So you like gun licensure?  A person who doesn't have a license in New York and Illinois is also “prohibited by State ... law ... from possessing [or] selling ... the firearm.”  This becomes a federal crime.

Do you agree with D.C.'s efforts to ban firearms by imposing a microstamping requirement?  Transferring a non-microstamped firearm would become a FEDERAL crime under S. 54 — at least for D.C. residents and maybe others.

By voting for S. 54, your senator will be making guns banned by Andrew Cuomo’s expansive law into federally banned guns, as well.  He will be saying, “I like every word of gun control which Rahm Emanuel is pushing.”
 
By the way, Senator Leahy is trying to sell S. 54 as a supposed crackdown on gun traffickers.  But there’s not one word in this bill that would punish (or prevent) what happened in Fast & Furious, where our government helped send thousands of illegal guns south of the border, resulting in the murders of hundreds of Mexicans and at least one federal agent.
 
Moreover, it’s currently illegal to traffic in firearms.  It’s illegal to sell a gun to a prohibited person [18 USC 922(d)].  It’s illegal to serve as a straw man [18 USC 922(d)].  It’s illegal to sell a bunch of guns without a license [18 USC 922(a)].  But that’s not what S. 54 is about.  The one thing S. 54 would do is to make anti-gun bans being passed by every anti-gun state into federal crimes as well.

 

[Lmbass14]

Holy Sh$t Dan.  That's beyond serious, down right scary. 

[f1fanatic]

At this point, it is all but too plainly and painfully clear that big government wants to turn their own law abiding citizens into "enemies of the state" virtually overnite. This has nothing to do with a solution for anything. I can only guess that they seem to be needing to move very quickly right now out of desperation. Perhaps the dam of all their crimes is about to burst and come to light. I cannot believe the lawsuits are not flying all over the place in New York and other states right now. It can only be apparent that this is a "declaration of war" on the American People. With SCOTUS upholding the FISA Act, the NDAA coming into law that removes Habeas Corpus from US Citizens, the establishment and maintenance of mass FEMA Camps across the US, the CIA and the Administration not answering the question if they would use lethal drone strikes on US Soil(As if we didn't know the answer to that). And all the other Constitutional Violations involving due process that have just become a way of life. The big move into full blown fascism is coming. One massive engineered event that will cause chaos and fear and a demand for action. And the solution will be ready in the waiting. "Ordo ab chao."  I want to ignore it, to not give it any validation. But it does seem imminent that the Great American "We The People" will be de-fanged. And the wolves will move in.

[Phantom]

I signed up for Gun Owners of America Alerts a while ago.

I already used their E-mail system.... to respond sending the following (writen by them)


------------------
Thank you for using Gun Owners of America Mail System.

Message sent to the following recipients:
Senator Fischer
Senator Johanns
Message text follows:
---Snip---
Do you like Cuomo's semi-auto gun ban?  D.C.'s microstamping requirement? 
Rahm Emaunuel's licensure laws?

The Senate is about to vote to make all of these into federal crimes,
turning gun-owning Americans into prohibited persons - meaning they would
NOT be able to own a firearm anywhere in the country!

You may already know about some of the problems with Senate Judiciary
Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy's sleazy-packaged gun "trafficking law." 
Leahy apparently thinks that, if he puts a shiny label on the bill, he can
ban as many guns as he wants.

But, at its core, S. 54 would make it a federal crime to violate virtually
any state gun law.

Section 5 creates a new prohibited person classification which makes it a
federal crime to transfer a gun if "prohibited by State or local law ...
from possessing [or] selling ... THE firearm or ammunition."  [Emphasis
added]

Note the use of the word "the."  We're not talking about a person who's
banned from owning ANY firearm.  We're talking about a person who's
prohibited by ANY state law from possessing a PARTICULAR firearm.

So do you like Andrew Cuomo's massive gun ban?  He bans more types of guns
than would Feinstein's so-called "assault weapons" ban.  Yet under S. 54,
transferring a firearm banned by Cuomo becomes a federal crime, punishable
by ten years in a federal prison - at least for New York residents and
possibly for others.

Do you like California's proposed ammunition ban?  That also becomes a
federal crime - at least for California residents and perhaps for others.

So you like gun licensure?  A person who doesn't have a license in New
York and Illinois is also "prohibited by State ... law ... from possessing
[or] selling ... the firearm."  This becomes a federal crime.

Do you agree with D.C.'s efforts to ban firearms by imposing a
microstamping requirement?  Transferring a non-microstamped firearm would
become a FEDERAL crime under S. 54 - at least for D.C. residents and maybe
others.

By voting for S. 54, you will be making guns banned by Andrew Cuomo's
expansive law into federally banned guns, as well.  You will be saying, "I
like every word of gun control which Rahm Emanuel is pushing."

By the way, Senator Leahy is trying to sell S. 54 as a supposed crackdown
on gun traffickers.  But there is not one word in this bill that would
punish (or prevent) what happened in Fast & Furious, where our government
helped send thousands of illegal guns south of the border, resulting in
the murders of hundreds of Mexicans and at least one federal agent.

Moreover, it's currently illegal to traffic in firearms.  It's illegal to
sell a gun to a prohibited person [18 USC 922(d)].  It's illegal to serve
as a straw man [18 USC 922(d)].  It's illegal to sell a bunch of guns
without a license [18 USC 922(a)].  But that's not what S. 54 is about. 
The one thing S. 54 would do is to make anti-gun bans being passed by
every anti-gun state into federal crimes as well.

I insist that you oppose S. 54 and speak out against it

Sincerely,

Me

[SS_N_NE]

What is painful about all this is that there are too many laws. And little enforcement of bills that exist.

Politicians have no function if they don't move onto making the next law.

The motive is money. There will be some touchy topic headering the bill, but ultimately the bill will end up being jam packed full of spending. Every on of these bills are just the smoke screen for agenda spending. The states with big cities need money to direct at their crime issues. Since raising state taxes is very unpopular, they go for the federal hand outs.  Bills are never simple single issue votes. Bills have tons of spending and earmarks pointed at the needed interests to get a passing vote.

The whole gun ban thing has been waiting for something to set it off. Feinstien herself said she sat on her proposal until recent events provided the traction she was looking to get. Ambulance chasing at it's finest.

Best way to curb a lot of these crazy bills is to call out the spending.  Politicians can divide the people with emotional issues but WE can draw people back together against agenda and earmark spending. We need to call out what these people are really trying to get. There would be much less approval when people find out what is at the root of these "issues".

[abbafandr]

I requested Fischer's stand on this but have not gotten an answer yet.

[A-FIXER]

She never answers me either she's scared or she is on the fence I don't like it but I am copying the above post and sending it as well....
AF

I also sent to congressman Smith, and the Govener

[SS_N_NE]

In a reply letter to Fischer I have received and from an aide at her office on phone, there is the basic "believes in Second Amendment" reply, which is very general to anything. Seems to be the general reply from even the worst in their distorted way. Maybe we need to pressure Fischer for a strong stand?


On another point, that whole microstamping process needs to go away. It is obvious that some individual corporation owns this process and wants government money to turn it into something profitable. This process has been pushed politically in a number of ways and is as bad as any anti-gun law they can come up with. It will be the basis of additional cost to gun owners as most proposals have gun owners paying for marking and registration. Yes, registration of the marks allowing every thing bad of registration. And would outlaw any guns not marked, thus catching any guns brought in for marking that someone decides to pull from the public. Does anyone know the name of the individual and entity owning the microstamping process? This government money grab and it's instegators need to be called out for corrupt spending or this will get tucked into any violent crime it can be hidden into.

[A-FIXER]

Thats a great question SS, some how some where it will line and benefit of washington I'll when I get a chance look as well.

[zofoman]

She never answers me either she's scared or she is on the fence I don't like it but I am copying the above post and sending it as well....

In a reply letter to Fischer I have received and from an aide at her office on phone, there is the basic "believes in Second Amendment" reply, which is very general to anything. Seems to be the general reply from even the worst in their distorted way. Maybe we need to pressure Fischer for a strong stand?

I have heard of these kinds of responses (on other topics as well) coming from Fischer.  There is something mysterious (to me anyway) about Fischer that I find her not trustworthy.   Regardless, I will push the emails and await the canned responses.

[SS_N_NE]

Just did some research:

http://www.google.com/patents/US7111423

Inventors: Todd E. Lizotte, Orest Ohar
Original Assignee: Identification Dynamics, LLC

This ill conceived forensic process has huge negative reprecussions in numberous ways but has still passed legistlation in a few places, years ago. Apparently these guys have some politicians in their pockets and need to be outted for corruption.

A 2008? CA law even renders a firearm trash should any marked part fail/need replacement.

[SS_N_NE]

It appears the CA law that included microstamping was signed by Swartzenegger back in 2007 and was to take place in 2010 but was based on having the patent rights eliminated. Apparently the patent issue remains and has blocked things. Would be a nice patent owner profit should government require the process and required gun owners cough up the expense. Again, the root interest is getting money to someone.

It is interesting that NY was recently pushing microstamping. They just had a 10 year run of requiring a fired cartridge case registered with each firearm purchased. It cost NY some $4 million a year. According to an article I read, the program failed to solve a single crime involving a firearm. I call $40 million spent for zero results a pretty poor "Return on Investment".

I used to prepare ROI reports for much smaller investments. Seems our politicians should be responsible for similar ROI efforts (penalty for failure).

[abbafandr]

This was the reply I just got from Fischer:

March 4, 2013
 
 
Dear Donald,
 
Thank you for contacting me about gun control. As a fellow Nebraskan, your correspondence will play an important role in my decision-making on future gun-related legislation that may come before the Senate.
 
With the tragic events that took place in Colorado and Connecticut last year, many are calling for more federal gun laws. I am concerned about these efforts to restrict a law-abiding citizen’s right to own a firearm, which is clearly stated in the Constitution. These efforts do not preclude criminals from obtaining guns, nor do they prevent criminals from using guns to commit crimes.
 
Going forward, you can rest assured that I will continue to be mindful of law-abiding citizens’ right to own guns. I appreciate your input, and I hope you will stay in touch. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know or visit my website at www.fischer.senate.gov.
 
Sincerely,
 
 
Deb Fischer
United States Senator

[A-FIXER]

I must be on the list as many letters I have sent and talked down Johanns on his choice for hagel... what a rino....

[SS_N_NE]

"Continue to be mindful of law-abiding citizens’ right to own guns."

Overall a very non-committal response. "Mindful" is a pretty strong stance (insert sarcasm here).

"A law-abiding citizen’s right to own a firearm". WHAT firearm? Certain kinds? "A firearm", like in one?