(Natural News) Democratic Senators Corey Booker (NJ), Bob Menendez (NJ), and Richard Blumenthal (CT), recently introduced a gun control bill that would amend Chapter 44 of Title 18, US Code.
(Article by Mitch McKinley republished from LawEnforcementToday.com)
It is as big an example of firearms overreach as any seen in recent memory.
“In our nation, gun violence has become eerily routine, and we’ve done little to stop the horrific mass shootings that devastate the lives of victims and their loved ones,” said Sen. Booker.
“Accepting this shameful status quo will continue to lead to deadly consequences. We need to adopt proven, common-sense measures that will address the scourge of gun violence and make our communities safer.
This bill moves us in the right direction and is based on a simple concept – if you need a license to drive a car, you should need one to buy and possess a gun,” Sen. Booker said in a statement on his Senate website.
It should be noted that the right to purchase, possess and operate a motor vehicle is not expressly mentioned in the US Constitution, while the right to do so with firearms is.
The bill, shared by Politico, puts gun control in the hands of the US Attorney General, by requiring the AG’s office to establish guidelines based on the bill’s language.
Those guidelines are less about procedure and more about restriction and limiting the absolute freedom provided by the 2nd Amendment.
RT if you agree: these requirements are a direct attack on the Second Amendment and are blatantly unconstitutional:
-Minimum age of 21
We will fight back. https://t.co/YEm2tQjVEd
— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) May 19, 2022
Among the requirements – a federal firearms license for everyone who wishes to purchase a single gun. Current law requires that new gun purchases be facilitated through someone who has that license.
The change would require every purchaser to also bear an FFL. The “Federal Firearms Licensing Act” opens:
“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.”
For the record, subsection (d), says that the Attorney General will not require a FFL for individuals issued one by a state that requires the same or greater requirements than the federal standards.
To obtain that license, should the bill become law, an individual would have to apply, submitting to all requirements and fee structures.
The prerequisites for issuance listed in Section 2 are:
- complete firearms safety training, which will include written exams to demonstrate knowledge of applicable firearms laws and hands-on testing, to include firing testing to demonstrate proficiency and accuracy.
- complete background and criminal history investigations.
- submitted proof of identity.
- submit fingerprints as part of background.
- provide all necessary qualifying information of the intended gun purchase, to include make, model, serial number and the identity of the individual selling the gun.
In essence, they want to know who owns what. But wait, it gets better.
These licenses will either be approved or denied within 30 days of their submission. Once you obtain the license, you must make your gun purchase within 30 days of the issue date of the license. If you receive the notification of issuance via mail, you will have less than the prescribed timeframe.
That license will be good for only one firearm purchase.
While the bill is unclear whether you can hold multiple licenses simultaneously, the bill’s language arguably allows for only on license, good for only one gun purchase every 60 months, possibly even longer.
It is possible that this bill, if passed into law, could limit every individual to purchase only one firearm after the law was passed.
The licensing requires the weapon to be purchased within 30 days of issuance. However, the license is valid for 5 years.
Assuming the intent is to allow only one license at a time, that would legislate that law-abiding Americans could purchase only one gun every five years.
Not sure if that would be accurate? Keep reading.
Furthermore, the bill allows the AG to deny a license based on any of the following reasons.
- history of threats or acts of violence toward self or others;
- history of use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force by the applicant against another person;
- whether the applicant is the subject of or has violated a domestic violence or stalking restraining order or protection order;
- any prior arrest, pending charge, or conviction for a violent or serious crime or disorderly persons offense, stalking offense, or domestic violence offense;
- any prior arrest, pending charge, or conviction for an offense involving cruelty to animals;
- history of drug or alcohol abuse or involvement in drug trafficking;
- any recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons;
- involvement in firearms trafficking or unlawful firearms transfers; and
- history of unsafe storage or handling of firearms.
Hey America, are you paying attention?
If you have made a recent purchase of a gun, or ammo, or other “deadly” weapon, you can, and probably will be, denied, additional licenses, depending on how they clarify “recent” and “deadly weapon.”
If you recently bought a bow for deer hunting, is that construed as a deadly weapon, and would it preclude you from obtaining a license?
Did you also note that a history of alcohol abuse could be a disqualifier?
Be careful posting the photo of you receiving your 10-year sobriety chip from AA…they may take away your right to purchase a gun.
Remember when we mentioned that this could potentially limit your ability to only buying one gun, for the rest of your life?
The bill states:
“The Attorney General shall establish procedures for the renewal of a license that requires the applicant satisfies the requirements described in paragraph [Section] 2.”
As long as you stay compliant, you would be able to renew your license. It isn’t a new license. It is the original. The bill articulates clearly that a license may only be used to obtain one firearm. Renewing it would still be attached to that original purchase.
Through the ambiguity of the bill language, Booker and his cohorts have chiseled out a way to mandate that gun owners are able to legally purchase one gun ever again.
Sadly, we aren’t done with the overreach this bill would provide a weaponized and politicized Attorney General.
The bill’s language allows a license to be revoked.
Here is a breakdown.
If, at any time, during the 5-year life cycle of the license, the Attorney General can revoke that license if they determine that the holder is threat to themselves or others by possessing, purchasing or receiving a firearm, or, if through regular background checks, they would be in violation of Section 922 of Title 18 of the US Code.
In other words, they aren’t just looking into your past for obtaining the license, they will continue to run random checks, digging into your privacy without your knowledge.
Should your license be revoked, the bill stipulates that the AG shall remove your firearms. Not just the one purchased with the license. All of them.
“The Attorney General shall establish procedures to ensure that ANY firearm is removed from any individual when the individual’s license is revoked under this paragraph.”
Guess what. You only get those weapons back if your license is reinstated during a hearing. If it isn’t, they are forfeited.
What the bill doesn’t answer is what happens if you do not renew your license. Does gun ownership require the license, or only buying and selling? You lose your gun(s) if the license is revoked. Does the same happen if it simply expires?
Booker’s bill also creates a record keeping process.
If Joe sells Mike a 9mm, they have three days to notify the Attorney General of that sale. They must provide their information, to include their identifying details as well as that of the pistol being bought/sold. Both Joe and Mike have to have a valid FFL to make the transaction.
So, given the previous provisions, this would be Mike’s first and only purchase with his license. It would also leave Joe, assuming it was his only weapon, without a gun until he was able to obtain another license, as he used up the allowable number of purchases (1) under his FFL.
Incidentally, the requirement to notify the AG should already have been accommodated when the license was applied for by Mike, as he has to identify the gun and the seller with all identifying information.
One other aspect that the bill does not cover is the cost associated for the license.
Assuming that they intended to use the existing price structure, it would have to be revamped. The current licenses range between $150 and $3,000 but are only valid for 3 years. The cost associated with a 5-year license would likely increase.
While it is highly unlikely that this bill would ever get the required number of votes in the Senate to pass, it is important to know exactly how far Democrats are willing to go to dictate gun ownership limitations on Americans, as they completely ignore the fact that the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend already dictates to them that those very limitations shall not be infringed upon.
Read more at: LawEnforcementToday.com