Senate Committee Passes Gun Trafficking Bill
A Senate panel passed the first piece of proposed gun legislation out of committee Thursday morning with an 11 to 7 vote in favor of a bill to stem weapons trafficking.If you answered "that was made illegal by the Gun Control Act of 1968", have another cookie. It's hard to tell, from the article, if there is something additional in this bill that would differentiate it from the '68 GCA; but I am reasonably certain that buying a firearm and giving it to someone that cannot legally possess it is already illegal. This bill apparently makes it double-plus illegal. So, is this what's going to happen? We're going to pull up existing laws and duplicate them? You know, this is not the worst thing that could happen with this subcommittee... Maybe next they can make killing people illegal, too! I keep hoping there's more to it - or perhaps this is some grand judicial ju-jitsu that will keep things tied up so that no new legislation will pass.
The bill, which is sponsored by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., would make "straw" purchasing, which occurs when a buyer buys a gun on behalf of someone who cannot legally purchase one, illegal.
I fear, however, that it's simply a case of ZOMG WE MUST DO SOMETHING!!!!!1111eleven! I suspect that this is just bad law shoveled on top of more bad law in some frenzied attempt to capitalize on tragedy while trying to look like they're DOING SOMETHING. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the new bill has some super new amazing powers to actually stop people from breaking the law. Maybe it'll put some teeth into the current law so that - like in the case of the Columbine shooters, who were both ineligible, got a classmate to buy the guns for them, and she was never prosecuted - people will actually go to jail for breaking the law.
While I'm dreaming, I'd like my flying car, too.
That is all.
8 comments:
Is it legally purchase or legally own? Important distinctions, as people under 21 can still own longuns/handguns as long as it is a gift from a relative IIRC.
I saw an article about that committee vote earlier and thought, "but that's already illegal." The woman who bought the rifle for the guy who shot those firefighters in Webster, NY is facing federal charges for doing just what they described.
If it is indeed a case of re-making an already existing law, then they're just following precedent set by private industry. If the SHOT show can 'surprise' us with the latest color of AR or 1911, if Hollywood can re-make movies and Nashville can re-make music, then of course Congress can re-make laws.
Very few 'original' ideas out there.
I seem to recall from my daily reading of Uncle's entire blogroll that the kicker was expanded asset forfeiture.
So you do what you think is legal transfer, get popped and they keep your car and guns after you are eventually cleared.
Congress needs to put the kibosh on asset forfeiture, it's another RICO/non-knock/drug war tactic that has been applied far afield from its stated original intention.
They can pass all the Laws in the World, but until they START charging the Goblins with them and sending them to Jail FOR breaking them, then it's all Smoke and Mirrors.
I was taught in history class back at State U that one sign of ineffective laws is the repeated issuing of similar or identical laws.
No, no, Jay! Straw purchases are already illegal... so passing another law is a double negative, making it legal again.
While you're up, buy me another AR-15, willya? Thanks.
I remember finding somewhere that the 9mm handgun used in columbine was straw purchased by a regional director something or another of Handgun Control Inc.
Also didn't Feinstein? straw bale a shotgun for a nephew?
And if you guess for both charges where never filed you win
THOTpolice
Post a Comment