Clinton/Bloomberg “Background Checks” Would Outlaw Shooting With Friends On Private Property
The 2016 presidential election is just a year out, and it’s clear that the Democrat frontrunner (and FBI espionage investigation suspect) Hillary Clinton has decided to bizarrely focus on gun control and confiscation as one of her main campaign issues.
Unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton, the next 12 months will give Americans plenty of time to dissect the radical nature of what she is actually proposing, including the “universal background checks” scheme being pushed by the Mrs. Clinton, her billionaire ally Michael Bloomberg, and the various gun control groups that the latter funds.
Dave Kopel took a look at the difference between how the Clinton/Bloomberg campaign is marketing their background checks plan versus what it actually contains, and the scheme may shock you. Here are two things that a person might do with a firearm: 1. Sell the firearm to a complete stranger in a parking lot. 2. Share the firearm with a friend, while target shooting on one’s own property. Michael Bloomberg’s “Everytown” lobby is promoting “universal background checks” as a means of addressing activity No. 1. But the Bloomberg laws also outlaw activity No. 2. In a previous post, I detailed how the unusual Bloomberg laws about “background checks” for “private sales” constrict safety training and self-defense; and also obstruct safe storage. This post addresses another non-sales activity, firearms sharing.
We know from Heller that “to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; … it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.” D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 617-18 (2008); see also United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 236 (5th Cir. 2001) (both cases quoting Thomas Cooley’s 19th-century constitutional law treatise). Thus, “the right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to … maintain proficiency in their use; the core right wouldn’t mean much without the training and practice that make it effective.” Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 704 (7th Cir. 2011). Just as the First Amendment includes the right to learn how to read and to practice reading skills, the Second Amendment includes the right to learn how to use arms and to practice. This includes formal classroom instruction and practice at established ranges. But the right is not limited only to those structured settings; as historically practiced in the United States, the right also includes instruction from, and practice with, friends and family in informal settings in private locations.
Even if there were no Second Amendment, any sensible firearms policy would encourage firearms practice and training to build and improve safe proficiency. Yet the Bloomberg system does the opposite.
One very common activity of gun owners is sharing their firearms on their own property. A person who owns 30 acres might have a small target range set up. He invites friends over for the afternoon, shoots at targets with rifles or handguns, and lets the friends use the family’s guns. Or a farm family might have a skeet or trap thrower, which flings clay disks into the air. Informal shooting events like this are at the heart of the American gun culture. They promote friendship, community and practice in the safe handling of firearms.
They are also criminalized by some versions of the Bloomberg laws. For example, the Bloomberg law enacted in Washington state in 2014 has no exemption for sharing a firearm on one’s property.
Sharing does not have to involve firing a gun. Inside the home, an owner might allow a visitor to handle his unloaded gun. Perhaps the visitor is interested in buying a new gun like the gun the owner owns. Or the visitor is just interested in guns. Perhaps the gun needs an adjustment that the visitor knows how to perform well, but the owner does not. Or the visitor might teach a new owner how to clean a gun. Under the new Washington law, sharing may take place at a corporate target range, but not on one’s property.
Instead, the owner and the friend are supposed to travel to a gun store to get permission, fill out all the paperwork as if the store were selling a firearm out of inventory, and pay various fees. Only then may the gun be loaned for a few minutes. When the friend is done with the gun, everyone must revisit the gun store and repeat the process, before the gun can be returned to its owner.
The federal version of the Bloomberg law, Sen. Charles Schumer’s Fix Gun Checks Act, does allow sharing a firearm within one’s own home or curtilage. (113th Cong., S.374, § 202(2)(C)). This takes care of letting a friend examine one’s new firearm. But if the gun owner brings his new gun to someone else’s house (because the friend has the gunsmithing or cleaning equipment, for example), it is a federal felony if the friend handles that gun for a few minutes.
Put bluntly, the claimed purpose of the Clinton/Bloomberg “background checks” is far more than a background check system, it is an attack on the part of the Second Amendment that liberals claim to value above all others, the “well-regulated” component.
Anyone with a decent grasp of the language knows that “well-regulated” means in proper working order, and for the militia (defined by the Founders as the people) to be in proper working order, they need to be able to train and become skilled with arms.
Far from that, this scheme is designed to make it illegal to train and use arms in the most common of American manners, with the obvious goal of undermining and infringing upon the use of firearms by law-abiding citizens.
Hillary Clinton has promised an all-out war on the right to bear arms.
It appears she’s very serious about it, consequences be damned.
A Doe walks out of the woods today and says, that is the last time I'm going to do that for Two Bucks.
Just look at Washington State for examples of his agenda.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
They started in Colorado and want to push it out to the rest of us. I still won't spend any time or money in Colorado, let the place rot until they repeal those freaking gun laws.
“The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
They started in Colorado and want to push it out to the rest of us. I still won't spend any time or money in Colorado, let the place rot until they repeal those freaking gun laws.
Plus 2
A Doe walks out of the woods today and says, that is the last time I'm going to do that for Two Bucks.
By the terms of this bull, I think it would be a felony to hand your shotgun to another person while crossing a fence.
Just like Washington State.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
more and more often, with regards to the most far reaching proposed Federal laws, the public is not allowed to know what is in the bill. We have reached the point in our Country, where we have no representation in Washington, no input into the process, and no method to redress grievances. This has changed Americans from Citizens into subjects.
Good thing to have some decent research/writing about such agendas and ample discussion out in front of any moments of truth. Yes, although approached differently and with different results (both bad), the law situations in Colorado and Washington are bold warnings and impetus for dealing with those devious operators. It still is very difficult for me to grasp the fact that the folks in WA sat back and let that happen.
Am not arguing it's not her agenda and that guys like Bloomberg and Gates would not chip in heavily, but she is politically alert and likely very wary about broad negative voter impact if she were to reveal and push such a stance in the campaign. More than all else, she wants/craves/needs to be elected and that won't be easy given the way things are going. Am thinking she is too smart to paint a 2nd Amendment target on herself before the election.
Now, if this country were so misguided (stupid) and unfortunate as to allow her to be elected, the battle could become much more serious. I think, and hope, that she will not get elected.
The proposed “Expanded background check”, along with the current background check law has less to do with background checks and more to do with developing a “data base” or de-facto registration.
The evidence of this is two fold. #1, the fact that they (the Gov.) do not prosecute many of the violators, showing they are more interested in gathering the information then enforcing the law.
#2 The people who wrote the new law refused to even consider removing the registration component from the background check system.
If “they” really want to close the “gun show & private sale loophole”, all they need to do is modify the form 4473 to remove any mention of the firearms “make, model and serial number” then make the background check mandatory for all transfers. Period.
There are other changes that would make the law/system of background checks better, more efficient and user friendly, but the main thing is this Government “database”.
I have no problem with a mandatory, universal back ground check, it’s the de-facto registration that I oppose.
The universal background check will create a universal registration, but it's mainly intended to make it more difficult to buy and sell firearms.
Think of the reduction in new firearm sales if the used gun market dries up by 30% or more. There comes a time when doing the paperwork and paying the fees makes people just say "Screw it".
“The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
Just look at Washington State for examples of his agenda.
Look at semi-rural Arizona for a pretty straight up working example of just how BAD this sorta' "Agenda" can play out.
Redneck relaxation
Member, Clan of the Border Rats -- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain
If your claiming ptsd in order to fraud the VA outta a few extra bucks, you need to turn your guns in. Either you are or you arent a head case.
Hired and bought out fink of some sort just self ratted.
Chit,...as though we never knew.
lilderrick,....put up that little short azzwhole kicking up and around.
That was you, or your Dad, IIRC.
GTC
Member, Clan of the Border Rats -- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain
Clinton/Bloomberg “Background Checks” Would Outlaw Shooting With Friends On Private Property
The 2016 presidential election is just a year out, and it’s clear that the Democrat frontrunner (and FBI espionage investigation suspect) Hillary Clinton has decided to bizarrely focus on gun control and confiscation as one of her main campaign issues.
Unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton, the next 12 months will give Americans plenty of time to dissect the radical nature of what she is actually proposing, including the “universal background checks” scheme being pushed by the Mrs. Clinton, her billionaire ally Michael Bloomberg, and the various gun control groups that the latter funds.
Dave Kopel took a look at the difference between how the Clinton/Bloomberg campaign is marketing their background checks plan versus what it actually contains, and the scheme may shock you. Here are two things that a person might do with a firearm: 1. Sell the firearm to a complete stranger in a parking lot. 2. Share the firearm with a friend, while target shooting on one’s own property. Michael Bloomberg’s “Everytown” lobby is promoting “universal background checks” as a means of addressing activity No. 1. But the Bloomberg laws also outlaw activity No. 2. In a previous post, I detailed how the unusual Bloomberg laws about “background checks” for “private sales” constrict safety training and self-defense; and also obstruct safe storage. This post addresses another non-sales activity, firearms sharing.
We know from Heller that “to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; … it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.” D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 617-18 (2008); see also United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 236 (5th Cir. 2001) (both cases quoting Thomas Cooley’s 19th-century constitutional law treatise). Thus, “the right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to … maintain proficiency in their use; the core right wouldn’t mean much without the training and practice that make it effective.” Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 704 (7th Cir. 2011). Just as the First Amendment includes the right to learn how to read and to practice reading skills, the Second Amendment includes the right to learn how to use arms and to practice. This includes formal classroom instruction and practice at established ranges. But the right is not limited only to those structured settings; as historically practiced in the United States, the right also includes instruction from, and practice with, friends and family in informal settings in private locations.
Even if there were no Second Amendment, any sensible firearms policy would encourage firearms practice and training to build and improve safe proficiency. Yet the Bloomberg system does the opposite.
One very common activity of gun owners is sharing their firearms on their own property. A person who owns 30 acres might have a small target range set up. He invites friends over for the afternoon, shoots at targets with rifles or handguns, and lets the friends use the family’s guns. Or a farm family might have a skeet or trap thrower, which flings clay disks into the air. Informal shooting events like this are at the heart of the American gun culture. They promote friendship, community and practice in the safe handling of firearms.
They are also criminalized by some versions of the Bloomberg laws. For example, the Bloomberg law enacted in Washington state in 2014 has no exemption for sharing a firearm on one’s property.
Sharing does not have to involve firing a gun. Inside the home, an owner might allow a visitor to handle his unloaded gun. Perhaps the visitor is interested in buying a new gun like the gun the owner owns. Or the visitor is just interested in guns. Perhaps the gun needs an adjustment that the visitor knows how to perform well, but the owner does not. Or the visitor might teach a new owner how to clean a gun. Under the new Washington law, sharing may take place at a corporate target range, but not on one’s property.
Instead, the owner and the friend are supposed to travel to a gun store to get permission, fill out all the paperwork as if the store were selling a firearm out of inventory, and pay various fees. Only then may the gun be loaned for a few minutes. When the friend is done with the gun, everyone must revisit the gun store and repeat the process, before the gun can be returned to its owner.
The federal version of the Bloomberg law, Sen. Charles Schumer’s Fix Gun Checks Act, does allow sharing a firearm within one’s own home or curtilage. (113th Cong., S.374, § 202(2)(C)). This takes care of letting a friend examine one’s new firearm. But if the gun owner brings his new gun to someone else’s house (because the friend has the gunsmithing or cleaning equipment, for example), it is a federal felony if the friend handles that gun for a few minutes.
Put bluntly, the claimed purpose of the Clinton/Bloomberg “background checks” is far more than a background check system, it is an attack on the part of the Second Amendment that liberals claim to value above all others, the “well-regulated” component.
Anyone with a decent grasp of the language knows that “well-regulated” means in proper working order, and for the militia (defined by the Founders as the people) to be in proper working order, they need to be able to train and become skilled with arms.
Far from that, this scheme is designed to make it illegal to train and use arms in the most common of American manners, with the obvious goal of undermining and infringing upon the use of firearms by law-abiding citizens.
Hillary Clinton has promised an all-out war on the right to bear arms.
It appears she’s very serious about it, consequences be damned.
EFF THEM and the horse they rode in on!!
Ex- USN (SS) '66-'69 Pro-Constitution. LET'S GO BRANDON!!!
The laws passed in WAshington and Oregon...as stupid as they are...aren't overly enforceable...
the liberals know that, but they don't care they want them on the books just to have them, the few times they can enforce them and penalize someone over it, and then grandstand the crap out of it...
typically tho, they don't think the laws apply to them...and you have none gun owners liberally passing laws against gun owners...
kind of as stupid as allowing pedestrians to pass motor vehicle laws....
but logic doesn't have to make sense, especially to liberals....who aren't overly liberal...
Lets face it, Hillary and Bloomberg both are a detriment to this nation... their money and status keep them out of a nut house and a rubber room wearing a straight jacket
Trump: I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within seventy-two hours if a potential gun owner has a record.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
