Nobody said anything about not registering you.
S.2449 – Federal Firearm Licensing Act
SEC. 2. License for the purchase of firearms.
(a) In general.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
Ҥ 932. License for the acquisition or receipt of firearms
“(a) In general.—Except as provided in subsection (d), it shall be unlawful for any individual to purchase or receive a firearm unless the individual has a valid Federal firearm license.
Bill by Sen. Booker and Sen. Blumenthal.
Dear Bloomie and Spartaculo:
Go flock yourselves. We are not gonna tell you squat nor we seek a a reservation in the train going East.
Hat Tip to Harvey F.
“or receive a firearm” so if I’m at the range with a new shooter, and let them try one of my guns, would she need a valid federal firearms license? how much would it cost?
Despite assurances to the contrary, I’ll bet that to be “honored” with a FFL under this act, a current inventory of your firearms will be required and any losses must be reported within a few days. Also, if you have “too many” of a designated “evil gun” no more for you. Not applicable to military, law enforcement, congress critters, or Democrat elites like Bezos, Zuckerberg, et. al. Basically a may issue permit system at the Federal level run by the deep state.
Nuke, it’s worse than you think, because that “transfer” to your student has to go through an FFL.
Did you notice that the proposed license is good only for a single firearm, with the serial number and identity of the seller specified? So you have to select the gun and ask the seller to hold it for you. Then you take the test, get fingerprinted, etc., submit that to the feds, wait up to 30 days, and then within 30 days from issue you pick up the gun. You can’t get a license in advance. Want 5 guns? You need 5 licenses.
The licenses expire in 5 years. The text isn’t very clear, but it looks like licenses are renewable, provided you go through the whole application process all over again.
There are “red flag” provisions, where among the red flags is “any recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons”. So buying guns is a red flag that can be used to deny your right to buy guns.
It says that licensees “shall be enrolled in the Rap Back service”. I can’t tell what that means. Does it mean anyone who monitors arrest records through the FBI’s Rap Back program is told about you getting a license? Or does it mean that the FBI will track arrests of licensees? The latter is relatively benign; the former isn’t at all.
There’s also a section near the end that says all firearms transfers have to go through an FFL. I wonder if they intend “transfer” in the draconian fashion that WA state did. Presumably yes, given who we’re dealing with.
Two interesting things not mentioned: while all sales have to be reported, loss does not. And second, to my surprise I don’t see a prohibition on making your own, something not covered because it isn’t the sale or transfer of a “gun”.
Nevertheless, I agree with Miguel’s “dear Bloomie” reply. I might add, paraphrasing a phrase I saw the other day, “go autofornicate with a full grown Saguaro”.
And, unlike current NICS checks, they have 30days to get you your license, but if they don’t? Nothing. They don’t actually have to issue that license.
Of course the NICS check does not allow them to create a registry, this one most certainly does.
There also seems to be language in there to allow for removal of firearms if your license expires. So it seems like you need to have a license per firearm. That the license must be acquired before the transfer. That the license must be kept with the firearm (to prove you had the license when you bought it, see NFA tax stamp requirements). That you must renew that license every five years or loose that weapon.
I can easily see the case where you are paying for a new license every couple of months. Just how much will it cost to get “training” “to take a firing test” and so forth. Got 10 guns in your safe? That’s 2 licenses per year.
Of course we have the old Jim Crow game of “Show accuracy”. It would not surprise me to learn that “showing accuracy” for the lowly would be 5 out of 5 in the red at 25yards. You know, the sort of accuracy that most cops can’t obtain.
I remember that when IL did their FOID that they were good for a certain number of years. You were suppose to renew before the FOID expired. If you missed the deadline, you had a grace period. And amazingly enough, the state that manages to send out “please get a new drivers license” 6,4,2, and 1 month before expiring and then a “your drivers license has expired” to millions of drivers every year, was unable to send out any warnings to those who held FOIDs.
The were able to send the State Police to collect the firearms of gun owners who had failed to renew thier FOID within the grace period.
Reminds me of my boss down in MA telling me of returning to the state. While he was out of state he had transferred his firearms to his father. When he got back he asked his father for his firearms back. His dad asked if he had a FOID. “Dad, you know I do. You and I got them at the same time. They’re good for life”. “They changed that. They expire now.” My boss had to go and get a new FOID.
And my US senator’s called. They are not on the Committee but I respectfully requested that they use their powers of persuasion to keep this bill from ever leaving committee.
Spartaculo is a waste of skin that needs to take a long walk off a short peer. He’s as redunkulous as “Fake Taco” O’Rourke
IANAL Warning
OK, enough about my personal life.
Few things that I find particularly disturbing about the proposed text.
1. The AG has to deny the license if receipt of the firearm violates any provision of State law. Now, all of a sudden, the Feds are subservient to state law? Or is the AG an expert on all 50 States. Exactly how will this particular section be carried out? Paragraph (b)(3)(A)(ii)
2. Paragraph (b)(3)(B)(i) requires the local officials to notify the AG if there is any “red flag” information on the individual requesting the license. Curiously, the Federal Government cannot rely on the States to inform them when an individual in their custody that is here illegally. In fact, I bet Mr. Booker would be in favor of the States not cooperating in that situation, but for some reason believes that the States will fully comply in this situation.
3. Do not overlook the UBC clause, sec. 3 Point of Sale. Page 10 starting at line 4. Guess that means having a license for the firearm does not make you NICS exempt, even in a private sale.
This steaming pile of dung has no possibility of getting passed in the current Congress, but I would be wary depending on the make up of the next Congress/President.
MSNBC POLL,
https://tinyurl.com/qao7ffh
It isn’t going their way. Time to pile on.
Wow, that’s quite a beating, as of this post, 93% say “Yes! The 2A allows it!”
Following up on what Therefore pointed out:
It’s a bit mixed up. It speaks of a license that you need to “purchase or receive” a firearm. So it sounds like a permit for a transaction. And it is described as good for that transaction for 30 days from day of issue.
Ok, but then it speaks of expiration in 5 years, with a renewal of sorts (if you jump through the hoops again). That doesn’t fit, because earlier it said the transaction is only allowed within 30 days. So what is the meaning of the license after the transaction? It doesn’t say that you have to have a license to OWN a firearm.
On the other hand, it does say that if the government revokes the license you have to surrender the gun. So that implies, though it doesn’t say explicitly, that you can only own a gun so long as the license remains valid. In other words, every 5 years you have to get N new licenses for your N guns, and hope they all will get renewed.
It also isn’t clear whether license issue is “shall issue” or “may issue”. The wording is that qualified persons “shall be eligible” but it doesn’t say that a license “shall be issued” to anyone eligible. Given the evil people we’re dealing with here, one has to assume they intend it to be “may issue”. Probably Chicago and Hawaii style (“will not issue”).
Bottom line: this is a bill designed not just to register all your guns, but to take them away from you. All of them, every type, from your ancestor’s flint lock musket to your wife’s bolt action deer rifle.
Some more items.
First, this bill is absolutely explicitly about a national registry. That’s clear in two ways. One, if you get a license you’re automatically placed on an FBI watch list (“Rap Back”). Two, “the Attorney General shall establish procedures to ensure that any firearm is removed from any individual when the individual’s license is revoked” — which can only be done if the AG knows what firearms each individual owns.
Second, due process. You can challenge a license denial in court. You can challenge a license revocation in court. For neither of this is there any statement about who has the burden of proof, or what that burden is. Preponderance? Reasonable doubt? Does the citizen have the presumption on his side, or do we have one of those “Chevron” cases where the court assumes the bureaucrat is always right?
The hearing in case of revocation is after the revocation, so presumably your guns get taken first, and then afterwards you have to try to convince the courts to get them back. And even then you don’t necessarily get them back — the bill says “A firearm removed … may be returned to the individual…” (emphasis added). It doesn’t say “shall be returned”.
Some smaller points:
It says you have to get your license “at a designated local office, which shall be located in both urban and rural areas”. It’s not clear how many. The letter of the text is satisfied by two each, perhaps in DC and LA, and in Mentone, TX and Dixville Notch, NH. Nor does it say whether those offices will be open more than an hour every other month.
There is no funding for any of this, which arguably could be because this is a Senate bill. But it’s clearly possible that there is a license requirement, but no way to get a license because the license issuing machinery has not been funded.
And of course: the first name on the bill is Booker. So we have written proof that Robert Francis is not an outlier; he and Cory are the new mainstream anti-Constitution Democrat party.