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.
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”.
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.
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.