The Revised S. 374 – Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013

Today in the Senate Judiciary Committee business meeting, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) submitted a substitute amendment for S. 374. This substitute not only changed the name of the bill from the Protecting Responsible Gun Owners Act of 2013 to the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013 but it also provided that action component that had been missing from the earlier version.

Title I of the bill deals with records submission by the states to the Federal government for purposes of integrating that information into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This section provides a carrot and stick approach to getting the states to submit data. It provides for a $100 million appropriation for grants to the states to improve their databases and to help them submit the necessary data to the FBI for NICS check. Up to 10% of this money could be used for a relief from disabilities program. That is, a program to report those to whom firearm rights are restored. I must say this would be a change coming from Chuck Schumer who has stymied the relief from firearms disabilities for years.

The improved data that the bill concerns would be the court records of  those convicted of a felony and those under either a court order or convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence as well as the mental health adjudications that would cause the loss of firearms rights. The stick component that goes with the grants from Attorney General would be a reduction in monies from the grants under Section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The states would have two years to bring the records submitted to the 50% or greater level or lose 3% of the Federal monies. It goes up to a 4% reduction after three years if the state didn’t submit at least 70% of the required records. Finally, after the third year there would be a mandatory 5% reduction for any state at less than 90% compliance.

All in all, I can’t argue too much about the intent of Title 1. It is in the interest of everyone to have the records at state level be as accurate as possible and it is also in the interest of everyone that the records in the NICS check system be accurate.

Title II of the S. 374 is a gun controller’s wet dream.

First, Section 202 makes it illegal for a firearm transfer to be made between unlicensed persons. It would required a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer to first take possession of it, enter it in their bound book, perform a NICS check, fill out a Form 4473, and then and only then, complete the transfer.

The exceptions include:

  • Bona fide gifts between spouses
  • Bona fide gifts between parents and children
  • Bona fide gifts between siblings
  • Bona fide gifts between grandparents and grandchildren
  • Transfers made from a decedent’s estate by will or operation of law
  • Temporary transfer between unlicensed persons if
    • It occurs in the home or curtilage (adjacent property) of the transferor
    • The firearm is not removed from the home
    • And the duration is less than 7 days.
  • Temporary transfers in connection with lawful hunting or sporting purposes
    • At a range if kept within the premises of the range at all times
    • At a “target firearm shooting competition” under the auspices of a State agency or non-profit organization and the firearm is kept within the premise of the shooting competition.
    • If while hunting to a person with the requisite hunting license during a designated season for a legal game animal.

Section 202 would set a maximum fee for doing the paperwork. It would also require the Form 4473 be kept by the FFL doing the transfer.

The penalty for violating this section is not at all clear. However, it seems to fall upon the FFL who would be liable for a $5,000 civil fine and an up to six months suspension of his or her license. (If you can find another penalty for violating Section 202, please let me know.) Sec. 202 become 18 USC 922 (s) which under 18 USC 924 (D)(5) stipulates a year’s imprisonment and a unspecified fine.

Section 203 is equally egregious. It mandates the reporting of lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours of discovery to the “Attorney General and to the appropriate authorities.” More importantly, the penalty for knowingly violating this provision is 5 years imprisonment!

If passed, the law goes into effect in 180 days from passage. So far, it has passed out of the Judiciary Committee on a 10-8 party-line vote.

While the gun prohibitionists would like to have bans on standard capacity magazines and semi-automatic firearms with ugly cosmetics, universal background checks is what they really want because the only way to make enforcement of them possible is a national firearms and firearm owners database. As Andy Grove, the former CEO of Intel Corporation, famously said, only the paranoid survive.

Results Of Today’s Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting



As I said earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee was going to resume meeting to discuss three gun related bills and the nomination of Kenneth Gonzales. They have released the results of the meeting and I have posted it below. Gonzales’ nomination was not acted upon nor was Dianne Feinstein’s S. 150. However, both Sen. Chuck Schumer’s S. 374 and Sen. Barbara Boxer’s S. 146 were reported out of committee with amendments.


Results of Executive Business Meeting – March 12, 2013
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a continuation of an executive business meeting to consider pending legislation on March 12, 2013. The Committee was not able to complete action on all pending matters and the meeting recessed subject to the call of the Chair.

Agenda
I. Legislation

S. 374, Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013
Ordered Reported by Roll Call Vote, 10-8

Amendment ALB13180 (Schumer)
Adopted by Unanimous Consent

S. 146, School Safety Enhancements Act of 2013
Ordered Reported by Roll Call Vote 14-4

Amendment OLL13111 (Leahy)
Adopted by Unanimous Consent

Amendment OLL13112 (Grassley)
Withdrawn

 Last week I wrote that I found it strange that Sen. Chuck Schumer’s S. 374 – Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013 – did not have an action component. It merely consisted of findings which were more suited to a Senate Resolution than to actual legislation.

That was then and this is now. The amendment that Schumer made today in committee to S. 374 contains the meat of the bill and it isn’t pretty. Not only does it have universal background checks but it contains a provision that requires gun owners to report stolen weapons within 24 hours to authorities. The bill has also been renamed to the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013. There is more to the bill and I will have a separate post up about it after I finishing reading the whole thing.

Here is the link to my separate post on the bill.

Senate Judiciary Committee Meets Again

Last Tuesday the Senate Judiciary Committee met to vote on nominees for various judgeships and on a whole host of gun control bills. They ran out of time and only passed out S. 54 which is Sen. Leahy’s bill on “gun trafficking”.

Today they will continue this meeting. US Attorney for New Mexico Kenneth Gonzales will be back on the agenda as the nominee for a District Court judgeship for the District of New Mexico. Also on the agenda are the three gun control bills that they didn’t vote on last week.

As an aside, Chuck Schumer’s S. 374 – Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013 – still doesn’t have an action component to the bill. It still reads more like a resolution than a bill.


CONTINUATION


A continuation of the March 7, 2013 Executive Business Meeting has been scheduled by the Committee on the Judiciary for Tuesday, March 12, 2013 at 10:15 a.m., in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.


By order of the Chairman.


AGENDA


Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226
March 7, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.


I. Nominations


Kenneth John Gonzales, to be United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico


II. Bills


S.150, Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (Feinstein)


S.374, Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013 (Schumer)


S.146, School Safety Enhancements Act of 2013 (Boxer)

The Judiciary Committee is also scheduled to meet on Thursday, March 14th, on a similar agenda.

Gun Bills In Colorado

Today is the day that the Colorado State Senate votes on five gun control bills. Two other gun control bills – concealed carry on campus and liability for “assault-style weapons” – were killed by their sponsors.

HB 1229 – Universal Background Checks – has passed the Senate 19 – 16. The lone Democrat to vote against it was Sen. Lois Tochtrop (D-Thornton). It will now go back to the House to get agreement on amendments added in the Senate.

HB 1228 – Background Check Fees – was passed by the Senate 19 – 16. Sen. Andy Kerr (D-Lakewood) was the only Democrat to oppose the bill. This bill would impose a $10 plus fee for each background check by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. This bill now goes to Gov. John Hickenlooper who has indicated he will sign it.

SB 197 – bans guns for domestic abusers – was passed by the Senate on a 20-15 party line vote. It now goes to the House for passage there. Anyone with either a conviction for domestic abuse or a protective order would have to surrender their firearms within 24 hours. This could be extended to 72 hours by a judge’s order.


SB 195 – Online Training – passed the State Senate on a 22-13 vote. This bill would ban online training for a concealed carry permit. It no goes to the House for passage.

The final bill – HB 1224 – which would ban magazines with a greater than 15 round capacity is still being debated. This was the most controversial bill due to Colorado magazine manufacturer Magpul’s determination to leave the state if it is passed.

UPDATE: HB 1224 passed the Colorado Senate on a 18-17 vote a few minutes ago. It will now go back to the House because the Senate amended the bill with a change to the shotgun provision.

A Democratic sponsored bill that limits
ammunition magazines of more than 15 rounds passed through the Senate
Monday, despite some members of the party defecting and casting votes in
opposition to the measure.



The bill passed on a 18-17 vote, with
Democratic Sens. Democratic Cheri Jahn of Wheat Ridge and Lois Tochtrop
of Thornton voting against it. Two Republican lawmakers on Monday said
they will disobey the measure if it becomes law.

Unless Gov. John Hickenlooper veotes this bill when it reaches his desk, Magpul and a few other companies will be saying, “Hey, hey, Goodbye!”

Mixed Results From Today’s Judiciary Committee Meeting

There is both good news and bad news from today’s Senate Judiciary Committee business meeting. The meeting agenda had votes on six nominees for US District Court judgeships and four gun control bills.

First, five out of the six the judicial nominees were passed out of committee on voice votes. However, Kenneth John Gonzales, the US Attorney for New Mexico and a nominee for a District Court judgeship, was held over. This would appear to mean that according to Committee Rules at least one member of the Judiciary Committee requested that the vote on Gonzales be held over until the next committee meeting. As I mentioned yesterday, Gonzales and his office have been pursuing a vendetta against the Reese family of Deming, New Mexico. Check out the Tea Party of Luna County for complete info on the prosecution of the Reeses.

Second, three of the four gun control bills were held over. The bad news is that Chairman Patrick Leahy’s S. 54 – Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013 made it out of the committee. It passed on a 11 to 7 vote. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) was the only Republican to vote for the bill.

Grassley did have an amendment to the bill that would require the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, or Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division to personally review and approve any “Fast and Furious” type of operation. This amendment was adopted unanimously.

The full results of the business meeting with links to the amendments is below:


The Senate Judiciary Committee held an executive business meeting to consider pending nominations and legislation on March 7, 2013. The Committee was not able to complete action on pending matters and the meeting recessed subject to the call of the Chair.

Agenda

I. Nominations

Sheri Polster Chappell, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida
Ordered Reported by Voice Vote

Kenneth John Gonzales, to be United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico
Held Over

Michael J. McShane, to be United States District Judge for the District of Oregon
Ordered Reported by Voice Vote

Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Ordered Reported by Voice Vote

Luis Felipe Restrepo, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Ordered Reported by Voice Vote

Jeffrey L. Schmehl, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Ordered Reported by Voice Vote

II. Legislation

S.150, Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (Feinstein)
Held Over

Amendment ALB13141(Grassley)
As Amended, Adopted by Voice Vote

Second Degree Amendment ALB13196 (Coons)
Adopted by Unanimous Consent

Amendment ALB13190 (Grassley)
Failed by Roll Call Vote, 9-9

Amendment OLL13115 (Cornyn)
Failed by Roll Call Vote, 9-9

S.54, Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013 (Leahy)
Ordered Reported by Roll Call Vote, 11-7

Substitute Amendment HEN13250 (Leahy)
Adopted by Unanimous Consent

Amendment ALB13193 (Grassley)
Adopted by Unanimous Consent

S.374, Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013 (Schumer)
Held Over

S.146, School Safety Enhancements Act of 2013 (Boxer)
Held Over

The Next Round Of Federal Firearms Legislation

Since my last update, there have been three House bills dealing with firearms-related topics introduced and two in the Senate. The House bills probably aren’t going anywhere but the two Senate bills have the ability to gain some traction especially since they are the product of negotiations between Democrats and Republicans.

House

HR 848 – Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA)
Armed Prohibited Persons Act of 2013
To direct the Attorney General to make grants to States to develop systems to retrieve firearms from armed prohibited persons.
Co-Sponsors:

Rep. Speier, Jackie (D-CA)
Referred to the House Judiciary Committee

HR 955 – Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL)
Hadiya Pendleton and Nyasia Pryear-Yard Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013
To increase public safety by punishing and deterring firearms trafficking.
Co-Sponsors:
Rep. Kaptur, Marcy (D-OH)
Referred to the House Judiciary Committee

HR 965 – Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)
To prohibit the possession or transfer of junk guns, also known as Saturday Night Specials.
Referred to the House Judiciary Committee

Senate

S. 443 – Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013
To increase public safety by punishing and deterring firearms trafficking.
Co-Sponsors:
Sen Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]
Sen Collins, Susan M. [R-ME]
Sen Durbin, Richard [D-IL]
Sen Franken, Al [D-MN]
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]
Sen King, Angus S. Jr. [I-ME]
Sen Kirk, Mark Steven [R-IL]
Sen Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]
Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee

S. 480 – Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
The NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013
A bill to improve the effectiveness of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System by clarifying reporting requirements related to adjudications of mental incompetency, and for other purposes.
Co-Sponsors:
Sen Begich, Mark [D-AK]
Sen Flake, Jeff [R-AZ]
Sen Heller, Dean [R-NV]
Sen Pryor, Mark L. [D-AR]
Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee
(The text of this bill is not yet available. However, from the press release put out by Sen. Graham, it seeks to clarify when a person loses his or her right to firearms due to mental illness. They do stress it has to come from an adjudicative body.)

S. 374 – Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced S. 374 – the Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013- on February 25th and it will be voted for in the Senate Judiciary Committee today. The text of this Orwellian sounding bill is below. If you read it closely, it seems to be missing something. That something is the action component to go with the so-called findings part of the bill.


S 374 IS

113th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 374

To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 25, 2013

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013′.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Congress supports and respects the right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(2) Congress supports the existing prohibition on a national firearms registry.

(3) There are deficits in the background check system in effect before the date of enactment of this Act and the Department of Justice should make it a top priority to work with States to swiftly input missing records, including mental health records.

(4) If the citizens of the United States agree that in order to promote safe and responsible gun ownership criminals and the mentally ill should be prohibited from possessing firearms, it should be incumbent upon all citizens to ensure weapons are not being transferred to such people.

END

The introduction to the bill calls its a bill to require all prohibited persons be listed in the NICS database AND to require a background check for all gun sales. So the question remains where is the action component of the bill. The
bill as written reads like a Senate Resolution minus a whole bunch of
whereas’s.

The devil is always in the details and I expect the devil to be at play with this bill. What will the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee add to this bill today and what will be added as amendments on the floor of the Senate assuming that this bill, as expected, moves out of committee?

In my opinion, the innocuous sounding text of the bill plus the missing action component makes this a dangerous bill. I see it is a vehicle sponsored by one of the most notorious gun prohibitionists in the Congress to saddle us with gun control that we don’t want or need.

GOA On The Senate Judiciary Bill Mark-Ups

The Gun Owners of America have sent out a notice about the bills that will be voted on in the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow. While they mention S. 443, I’m wondering if this bill will be substituted for the S. 54 which is on the agenda. I don’t always agree with GOA but I think are correct about S. 443 being more dangerous than S. 150 which doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of being enacted.


Senate “Deal” Would Impose
Even More Gun Bans
Gifts, gun raffles and multiple sales of guns would be effectively banned

Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will mark up four bills arising out of the Newtown tragedy:

* The Feinstein bill — which would ban millions of shotguns, rifles, handguns and magazines that Americans can legally own — but which will probably die on the Senate floor.

* The universal gun registry — which may also die on the Senate floor — unless a last-minute deal with Sen. Tom Coburn brings it to life.

* Legislation by Barbara Boxer, which throws away $100,000,000 on school safety studies, but doesn’t immediately mention guns.

* And, currently the biggest danger, the Leahy-Gillibrand-Kirk bill, which has ominously been labeled a “gun trafficking” bill.

In regard to this latter piece of legislation (S. 443), the bill is being sold inside the Beltway as a bipartisan “compromise” because anti-gun Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) is a cosponsor of it.

But S. 443 would dramatically threaten to put gun owners in jail with horrendously long sentences for the most minor of infractions.

Essentially, the bill would impose a 15-year prison sentence for “negligent multiple sales by a dealer,” “negligent gifting” or “negligent raffling.”

Increasingly, there are more and more individuals who are “prohibited persons” for non-violent reasons — for instance, they smoke marijuana or they are military veterans suffering from maladies such as PTSD.

But if S. 443 is passed, any person who sells to such prohibited persons two or more firearms … or gives them a firearm as a gift … or raffles a firearm (where they are the recipient) … does so only at the considerable risk of spending 15 years in a federal penitentiary.

You don’t need to know the person is a prohibited person under either example. Nor does the recipient need to know they’re a prohibited person.

In fact, you don’t need to do anything more than plan (“conspire”) to transfer the gun. In addition, the recipient doesn’t need to be on the NICS list to be a prohibited person.

Not only that, under section 4 of the bill, if you even “intend” to sell a firearm to a person who turns out to be a marijuana smoker — or one of the prohibited military veterans suffering from PTSD — you become a prohibited person yourself.

Go here to read the entire analysis of S. 443.

When all is said and done, this bipartisan “compromise” is as bad as the Feinstein gun ban (S. 150).

ACTION: Click here to demand that your U.S. Senators oppose the Leahy-Gillibrand-Kirk bill (S. 443).

Senate Judiciary Committee Votes On Gun Control Tomorrow



The Senate Judiciary Committee will have an executive business meeting tomorrow morning at 10am. There are a number of items that should be of concern to those concerned with the Second Amendment and gun rights.

The first item on the agenda is a confirmation vote on six nominees for US District judgeships. Of particular concern is Kenneth John Gonzales to be a District Court judge for the District of New Mexico. Gonzales is currently the US Attorney for New Mexico and the man behind the egregious prosecution of the Reese family of Deming, NM on charges of arms smuggling. They have already been found not guilty on 24 out of 28 charges and are seeking dismissal of the other four charges due to prosecutorial misconduct.

National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea and the Firearms Coalition’s Jeff Knox have been doing yeoman’s work in covering this case since the beginning. Here are a couple of their latest reports. The Tea Party of Luna County (NM) has been on the case since the beginning as well.

Based on the prosecution’s behavior under Gonzales, I and many others feel he is unfit to sit on the bench. David Codrea is urging that people contact Sen. Chuck Grassley R-IA) to make their opposition known.

The other major items on the Judiciary Committee’s agenda are votes on four gun control measures.

II. Bills

S.150, Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (Feinstein)

S.54, Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013 (Leahy)

S.374, Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013 (Schumer)

S.146, School Safety Enhancements Act of 2013 (Boxer)

Given the composition of the committee, I really have no expectation that they won’t pass these measures. The only question is whether any Republican votes for any of these measures.  I would hope not but there is no guarantees. Sebastian has a good post up today about the risk of letting gun controllers have any victory. In my opinion, a party line vote is about the best we can expect in the Senate Judiciary Committee and would count as a win.

It’s time to tell the Republicans on the committee that we expect them to hold the line. Contact info is available here.

The Topic That Dare Not Speak Its Name

With apologies to Oscar Wilde, for Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) there is a topic that dare not speak its name. That topic is gun control and the Second Amendment.

Sen. Manchin gave an interview to The Journal of Martinsburg, WV that was published on Sunday. At the top of the interview was the following editor’s note:

Editor’s note: This question and answer session was permitted under the condition that The Journal would not ask questions regarding gun control legislation or the Second Amendment, as requested by the senator’s staff.

Given that Manchin was elected to a full six-year term in 2012 and won’t be up for re-election until 2018, I find this all rather strange. You must wonder what the good Senator has to hide.

His staff is now denying that they made the topic off-limits. They just said he wouldn’t answer questions on gun control or the Second Amendment.

The way I see it is that it is irrelevant whether the topic was off-limits or that Manchin would just refuse to answer the question. He still is hiding. He’s backtracked a good deal from the earlier positions he took in January. If I were a resident of West by God Virginia, I’d be demanding answers as a constituent to just where Manchin stands now on gun control. He owes his constituents an honest answer and it looks like he is doing everything in his power to avoid doing that.

H/T Instapundit