Chuck Schumer wants to observe your hunting habits and shooting
practice.
By Ray V. Hartwell, III
For months now the Washington Post and its polling
partner, ABC News, have been doing their utmost to support the
Obama administration’s campaign against the Second Amendment. The
“gun show loophole” has been a recurring theme in this campaign,
with the Post recently
reporting that “nine in 10 Americans support requiring
background checks on people buying firearms at gun shows.”
With this barrage continuing, we should all be clear about
what’s in play here. First of all, there is no “gun show loophole.”
Sales at gun shows by dealers already require background checks. As
anyone who’s actually been to a gun show knows, background checks
are the norm. Moreover, as a private seller, today one is not
allowed to conduct a background check on a prospective purchaser.
Only licensed dealers are allowed to do that.
Enter Senator Chuck Schumer, who has introduced S. 374, quaintly
titled the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013. Believe it or not, I have
yet to see in the national press, or hear on national broadcast
news, a single straightforward description of exactly what this
bill would do, and to whom.
Because S.374 is not as long as the so-called Affordable Care
Act, we need not pass this bill to find out what’s in it. I have
read the bill. I know what’s in it. As a result, I now understand
why the President’s supporters in the mainstream media have not
rushed to describe just how drastically this legislation would
infringe the rights of law-abiding gun owners, or how little it
will do to make it more difficult for “dangerous people to own
guns.”
The Schumer bill would regulate not just sales, but gun
“transfers” of all sorts. It requires reporting gun ownership to
licensed dealers in almost all circumstances involving any kind of
“transfer,” including one in which a friend or relative is given
temporary possession of a firearm on a hunt, at a shoot, or to
examine for possible purchase. A simple, “Here, fire a few rounds,
see what you think,” brings into play vast federal regulatory and
prosecutorial machinery.
The bill’s purported “family” exemption provides almost no
shelter. It applies only to “bona fide gifts,” not (gotcha!) to
sales or temporary transfers. Even the narrow exemption for gifts
does not benefit cousins, or uncles and nephews, or in-laws.
Moreover, an exemption for “hunting or sporting” purposes defines
the eligible premises, such as shooting ranges, so narrowly that
many venues will not qualify.
If enacted, this bill’s impact on the ordinary activities of
law-abiding citizens will be sweeping and unprecedented. By design
the law will criminalize safe and responsible conduct that has been
legal throughout the history of our republic.
Considering some specifics illustrates my point. Accordingly, I
invite readers to think about whether, and how, they believe the
federal government should regulate the following:
1. Uncle George owns a farm, where he has taught his nephew
Abraham shooting skills and gun safety over a number of years. On
Abraham’s 18th birthday, Uncle George gives Abraham a 20-gauge
shotgun once owned by Abraham’s grandfather.
2. Abraham lends the shotgun to his long time hunting buddy and
best friend, who uses it on a hunting trip and returns it to
Abraham ten days later.
3. Uncle George and his friends have an informal hunting
club, which leases “hunting rights” from a rural landowner. The
“club” holds shooting competitions on an open field on the
landowner’s property. At one of these “shoots,” George allows
another “club” member to use a pistol George inherited from his
father.
4. George’s friend asks about purchasing the pistol. He
visits George’s farm to discuss a possible purchase and examine the
pistol carefully. George and his friend walk to a hillside well
away from George’s house, where the friend shoots the pistol at
targets on a dirt embankment.
5. George agrees to sell the pistol to his friend. Before
doing so he calls a licensed gun dealer he knows, asking the dealer
to run a background check on the prospective purchaser, just in
case. The dealer agrees, and tells George by telephone that the
purchaser checks out. After hearing this, George sells his friend
the pistol.
6. George takes his family on a month-long vacation to
Europe. Concerned about a break-in during his absence, he leaves
his firearms and other valuables with a trusted neighbor for
safekeeping while he is away.
7. Nephew Abraham’s apartment is burglarized. Thieves steal
his prized 20-gauge shotgun. The day after the burglary he calls
the local police. They come to his apartment, interview him, and
tell him they’ll make some inquiries and get back in touch. Abraham
takes no further action, waiting to hear back from the
police.
Under the Schumer bill, George or Abraham, or both, can be
prosecuted for federal felonies in each and every one of the
situations described above. As a bonus, the licensed dealer who ran
the background check can also be charged for failure to examine the
firearm sold and include data on it in federally required
records.
Any chance implementing regulations will temper the bill’s
potential for raising the cost and burden of responsible gun
ownership? Not likely with Attorney General Eric Holder responsible
for issuing the regulations. If you’re a Mexican drug cartel, he’s
already supplied you with assault weapons you’ve used to kill
thousands of your countrymen and more than a few Americans as well.
But if you’re a hunter in Arkansas, or a suburb dweller in Detroit
who wants a weapon for home defense, my guess is Mr. Holder is not
going to be much help.
All guns to be sold privately — or even loaned temporarily
during target practice or on a hunting trip — must first be taken
to an approved federal agent for inspection and registration. There
will be inconvenience, forms to complete, and delays and invasions
of privacy of unpredictable magnitude. The bill expressly empowers
Mr. Holder to determine how high a fee federal agents can charge
for every backyard loan or sale to a cousin. Experience teaches
that over time the fees will escalate along with the expense and
complexity of the entire process.
Under Mr. Schumer’s bill, the burden of exercising one’s Second
Amendment rights will grow steadily. The bill will impose onerous
burdens on law-abiding individuals. It will make it far more
difficult and expensive than ever before for people to acquire,
own, and use firearms — in safe, ordinary, and currently lawful
ways. Inevitably, it will lead to the creation of a faceless
bureaucracy that will impose costly and intrusive controls on
activities that law-abiding citizens have engaged in for a couple
of centuries now without federal “assistance.”
The Schumer bill is yet another federal scheme that will
transfer power and wealth from the people to our (by the way,
well-armed) ruling elites here in The Nation’s Only Boom Town. And,
as intended, it will result in the incremental erosion and
infringement of Second Amendment rights.
We read these days that purchases of firearms and ammunition by
private individuals are at an all time high. It is no wonder.
Perhaps the phenomenon is what Henry Wadsworth Longfellow would
call “a cry of defiance, and not of fear.”
http://tinyurl.com/cnmu7n2
No comments:
Post a Comment