Democrats Plan to Force Through Anti-Gun Bills


Senate Democrats are preparing to force through anti-gun legislation which they claim will be “common sense” measures. Some Democrats are not shying away from the words “gun confiscation” as Barack Obama made clear in his speech the day of the Oregon shooting and which has since appeared in media outlets simpatico with him.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

According to The Washington Post, Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., wrote to Senate Democrats advising them that their effort “will be a rallying point for a public that is eager for congressional action and will be the basis for future legislation that we will demand”.


Sen. Debbie Stabenow
Sen. Debbie Stabenow

They intend to use procedural delays to thwart legislation if Republicans refuse to allow votes on their gun proposals. As predicted at the Sentinel, their proposals include broadening federal background checks for all purchases even if it’s from an inheritance from one gun owner to another and making them felons if they don’t abide by it. All domestic abusers and even people with only restraining orders will be barred from purchasing any firearms.

If they get too much control over the background check, the anti-gun activists can find all manner of excuses to confiscate guns and establish a national registry. In terms of people under restraining orders, many are innocent. It’s often used as a ploy in divorce and custody cases.

On Thursday, Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) introduced a resolution to create a special committee to examine gun violence that would issue a report and recommendations 60 days after being established. There are predetermined conclusions.

This is all reminiscent of the Manchin-Toomey bill that failed in the Senate.

Sens Manchin and Toomey
Sens Manchin and Toomey

In April, 2013, Sens. Manchin and Toomey came up with bipartisan legislation that came close to passing.

The Toomey-Manchin gun bill sought to build on and expand background checks of gun sales at gun shows/events using the National Instant Criminal Background Check.

The measures did not establish a national registry and was intended to keep guns out of the hands of the severely mentally ill and criminals. However, there was a dangerous exception which allowed the DOJ to pass any regulations s/he wants: (4)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, except for section 923(m), the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations.

The bill proposed a study to determine whether medical doctors and other mental health professionals have the ability, without negative legal or professional consequences, to notify law enforcement officials when a patient is a danger to himself or others. This would be done without due process and would require the patient to go through difficult bureaucratic procedures to get his/her gun rights back. Due process was ignored under this clause.

There were other problems.

The authors alleged it did not expand the authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. However, the ATF and state governments would have had to step up “investigations” of legal gun owners.

The data mining from this bill would have set up the framework for a potential national registry.

The bill had a severability clause – if one part of the bill fails, it does not affect the rest of the bill.

It established a record keeping system which would have been available to the NCIS in four years. It made arrest and conviction records, court orders, and mental health adjudications or commitments available to Federal and State record repositories. It was intended to be kept in real time, a costly and near-impossible undertaking which could easily be misused.

Transport of weapons was specified to the extreme with government overseers and tight regulations.

As The Washington Post editor wrote in Wednesday’s paper, Democrats want a “gun-free America”. They can get it by regulating gun manufacturers, dealers and sellers into oblivion which has been the intent of many bills proposed by Democrats on the state level.


  1. The problem is with liberal minded people who still think that a law they pass will stop criminals and nut cases from having guns. The major problem with that is, criminals and nut cases don’t follow the law, never have, never will. The laws will only affect legal gun owners AGAIN. This is NOT about stopping the madness this is about CONTROL of legally owned guns by an oppressive government. This is just what our forefathers warned us about when they created the 2nd amendment to keep such a government in check by We The People.

  2. This is America, we have a Constitution and part of it says:
    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
    Key here being “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. Now, with all they could have said, why would the Framers say that? Is that included with any other Amendment? Is that added to any other Right? Why would they include this in the 2nd Amendment, “Shall NOT be infringed.”?
    Could it be because they knew, that out of all the other rights, this one, these 27 words out of all the rest, would be the one future Politicians would try to remove, limit and/or change?
    The problem most or all opponents of the 2nd Amendment have is interpretation. “It doesn’t mean this or that”, they say. “It really means this or that”, they’ll argue. But in reality, it means exactly what it says and says exactly what it means and to make sure no one tries to say otherwise or change it, the Framers added “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
    To change, limit and/or take away the 2nd Amendment is unconstitutional, plain and simple.

    • What are they going to do about the 2nd amendment? It is very clear and the people have not changed it. The recent shooting in Oregon was due to mental illness. If the democrats have their way the only ones to have guns will be law enforcement and the criminals. The citizens will be vulnerable., especially with all the Muslims coming in with guns. This is nothing more than to try to take away the people’s rights. You took an oath and we the people expect you to live up to your oath. If you can’t do that, then you should resign and find a new line of work .

    • Jim M, you are correct but I would add; the second amendment clearly distinguishes between the militia and the People. It acknowledges that to have a free state a militia is needed. We had just fought a war with a tyrannical government’s militia. The reason why the People’s right to keep and bear arms is there is in case we have to do it again and it is to NOT be infringed upon by ANYONE including our militia. It most certainly does not say that the militia’s right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed upon but the People’s in CONTRAST to the militia. No interpretation needed. It’s abundantly clear. And again, you are correct, ANY limit on the People’s right to keep and bear arms is clearly unconstitutional.

  3. What happens when someone has a few guns and passes away. That person cannot transfer those guns to his children at that point. I suppose at that time they will come and confiscate they. Your proposed law is bad for all gun owners. I vote no.

  4. The problem is with gun free zones. Mass shooters flock to them because they are like a smorgasbord for psychopaths. Why? Because schools, movie theaters and malls are false gun free zones i.e. no means to detect guns and no armed law enforcement present to enforce the no gun policy. Airports and courthouses, on the other hand, are real gun free zones, they try to detect concealed guns and there are armed people present to enforce the no gun policy. Compare the number of shootings at schools to those occurring in airports and courthouses.

Leave a Reply