Chinese Terrorist Attack and Gun Control

Handgun ownership deserves second amendment protection agaainst gun control groups. It is a rightChinese Terrorist Attack and Gun Control

Gun Control

Knife-wielding men attacked people at the Kunming Railway Station in Yunnan province in southwestern China Saturday, March 1st. Chinese authorities called it a terrorist attack.  Police were able to respond and kill four of the terrorists. However, all-in-all 28 people died and 113 were injured according to Chinese state media.

According to news agencies, one of the injured stated “I saw a person come straight at me with a long knife and I ran away with everyone.” He also stated that people who were slower ended up severely injured.

This was a horrific act carried out against an unarmed civilian population. Luckily there were police. They needed to be nearby in order to have acted to stop further violence.  As I read the article I thought:

Would it have been any different if China had a second amendment?

If one or two people had a handgun would the attack have been thwarted before it even began?

What would the outcome have been if police were not nearby?

What does the anti-gun crowd think of this article, this report of an unarmed population susceptible to such a simple, yet violent attack?

What I find interesting is that China is a very controlled society. Guns are not in the general populace, central authority gun control, so what does a crazy group do – improvise. Knives became the weapon of choice and the result was still mass attack, many dead and even more injured. The only legal carriers of guns are the police and military. The people at the train station really had no way to protect themselves. The only choice was to run. The slow and those not able to “run” were the first, the easy targets. They were nothing more than sheep being attacked by wolves. The outcome of the attack was easy to foretell.

Could something like this happen in America? The answer is easy, yes absolutely. If the gun banning groups and politicians get their way, the answer to the question takes on a more ominous response – hell yes. Take away all guns from the evil as well as the law-abiding. It really does not matter, evil in whatever form it decides to manifest itself in will always find a way. Crime will be committed, murder will happen, terrorism will be planned and executed. The only difference is how the targeted respond, maybe more rightly put – how they can respond. In the case of the Chinese rail station attack – run and if caught die or suffer attack.

Today, thanks to our heritage and constitutional rights everyone has the ability to protect themselves. A grandmother, place your name here because this editorial is written for you, today has the ability to level the playing field by way of owning a gun, whether rifle, shotgun or handgun. She may not be able to physically fight off an attack in hand-to-hand combat but she does not need to. Criminals or others with evil intent think twice here in the US. Their question is: if I act, can the targeted victim respond with sufficient force? In fact a study by the U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, “The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons,” Research Report (July 1985): 27. – stated 3 out of 5 polled felons say they won’t mess with an armed victim.

Many people attempt to trivialize the second amendment right to own a gun – after all they only want “gun control”. The governor of New York infamously stated “you don’t need seven bullets to kill a deer.” when he attempted to demonize gun ownership in his pitch for gun control. He equated gun ownership to nothing more than a tool used by hunters. In the five seconds of politics in New York before the “Safe Act” was passed there was no real substantial debate about how guns in American history have provided safety and protection. Today few know how the familiarity with guns and their use in previous generations had helped shape events to the good, helped troops in war, put food on tables and provided protection at home. As a New Yorker, and after reading the article, my response today to Cuomo, the governor, is: “Yes Andrew, I may not need seven bullets to kill a deer BUT I may need 20 to protect my wife and family from harm!!”

The gun control groups really have no answer to how anyone would be able to protect themselves if attacked and I don’t know if they really care. The mantra for them is that we will all be safer if we ban guns, if there is real gun control. How wrong they are!! They say gun crime is out of control – again how wrong they are!! A Pew study, drawn from numbers obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found a dramatic drop in gun crime over the past two decades. Their accounting shows a 49 percent decline in the homicide rate, and a 75 percent decline of non-fatal violent crime victimization.

According to the website www.americangunfacts.com, “Every year, guns are used over 80x more often to protect a life than to take one!” and “200,000 times a year women use a gun to defend against sexual abuse.” The second one is for governor Cuomo – again Andrew these women didn’t need their guns to “kill” deer.

An analysis of FBI crime statistics, again published at  www.americangunfacts.com,   found that states that adopted concealed carry laws reduced Murders 8.5% Rapes 5% Aggravated Assaults 7% and Robberies 3%.

I for one fully believe in the right to bear arms. I do enjoy getting out into the woods. I like to just plink targets. I do feel safer in my house should someone break in. I know that in most cases the police can only arrive in time to investigate a crime not stop it. The liberal media does not publish the good that a gun can do. We read about violence caused by criminals not the protection provided. Every person that believes in the second amendment needs to be vocal. They need to participate in the discussion, join an organization that has the clout to lobby for the right to bear arms. As long as we have this right, we may not be able to immediately stop an attack like the Chinese train station, but we may be able to protect ourselves and other innocent people. Please remember the words “gun control” is nothing more than gun elimination, second amendment destruction.

New Jersey Gun Law News

Handgun ownership deserves second amendment protection under New Jersey gun law. It is a right

Second Amendment Brief Filed Concerning Current New Jersey Gun Law

Evan Nappen, a criminal defense attorney who has focused on New Jersey firearms and weapons law for Handgun ownership deserves second amendment protection under New Jersey gun law. It is a rightover 23 years has filed a brief with the New Jersey Supreme Court concerning a current New Jersey gun law. If heard it will be the first time in 45 years New Jersey will consider Second Amendment rights. The brief argues against New Jersey’s gun laws specifically handgun law: NJS 2C:39-5b

Right now any person who knowingly has in his possession any handgun, including any antique handgun, without first having obtained a permit to carry it as provided in N.J.S.2C:58-4, is guilty of a crime of the second degree.

Nappen argues that today anyone who possess a handgun, even in their home, without a permit to possess (so called – “permit to carry”) do so under a “presumption of illegality.” They must prove they fall under one of the “strictly construed” exemptions listed in N.J.S. 2C:39-6 to establish their innocence. (N.J.S. 2C:39-6e exempts possession in one’s residence.)

Without a permit to possess, the only way to legally possess a handgun in one’s home is by exemption under New Jersey gun law. Individuals, who rely on exemptions, are perpetually at risk of arrest, prosecution and having to prove facts at trial necessary to establish one’s innocence.

The rub is that for a resident to be granted a New Jersey permit to possess a handgun they must demonstrate “justifiable need.” Apparently the requirement is damn near impossible. According to the law, in order to be issued a permit you must be able to:

“specify in detail the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun.”

A bit of editorial here – this train of thought is absolutely ridiculous. The fact that New Jersey residents have had this pile of crap shoved down their throats is far from what the founders of this country envisioned. Every New Jersey resident has the right – THE RIGHT – to own a firearm (including pistols) for protection, target practice, hunting, etc not just the “people” judges or politicians deem eligible under current New Jersey gun law. What the great politicians have done is to effect a defacto ban – a ban that needs to be repealed.

All sportsmen/women need to voice their opinion. You need to call your local representatives. Keep in touch with the NRA so that you can follow what is happening. Also, if you care to get your rights back, maybe you should join the NRA and local state gun rights groups so that your opinion will be heard so that this unfair New Jersey gun law is changed.

New York SAFE Act Turns One Year Old This Week

New York SAFE Act Turns One Year Old This Week

This week marks the one-year anniversary of New York’s gun grab known as the New York SAFE Act. A year ago this week, Governor Andrew ar 15 a great gun for hunting, self defence and just plinkingCuomo in an attempt to gain a national name for himself, and anti-gun lawmakers in the middle of the night (really it was in the middle of the night), passed an anti-gun law on all New Yorkers. Cuomo conspired with legislative leaders to bypass the normal legislative process by quickly passing a bill with no public input.This legislation took less than 24 hours to be printed.

Immediately after passage the short sited legislation showed just how flawed it was. With a limit of seven bullets allowed, all NY police were effectively turned into criminals along with many law abiding gun owners. This law has shown that it is ineffective at reducing violent crime in the Empire State. It has been a huge embarrassment following a recent court decision where many provisions in the law were flagged. The SAFE Act has done nothing but attempt to make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding gun owners.

repeal the new york safe actVirtually every upstate county legislature passed a resolution in 2013 condemning the New York SAFE Act. The major features of this law have either been unworkable or struck down by the courts. On New Year’s Eve, a federal district judge invalidated the arbitrary seven-round magazine limit. Another detrimental component was the mandatory background checks to be imposed on ammunition sales. These background checks were set to take effect now; however, that portion of the law has been suspended because it is unworkable, and the New York State Police have no means of implementing it. Gun shop owners were thrown for a loop in trying to figure out what their responsibility would be and what would happen if they “got it wrong”.

The NRA , some law maker’s and many New York Gun Clubs continue to fight for repeal. It is essential that they are supported. If you are a New Yorker: Get in your state senator’s and legislature’s calendar – call them, write them, blog them and remember the squeaky wheel gets the grease. If you are not a member of the NRA – become one. If you are a member – let them know you support what they are fighting for.

One last piece of editorial here: This lousy law is a prime example of how a city and its surrounding suburbs can control the remainder of a state. New York City liberals, their backers and a governor desperate to gain name recognition ran rough-shod over the “Up-State” people. Many of the no votes came from the northern New York counties yet because of “NYC” and its influence they win and up-state loses. Maybe time to split New York into two separate states.

New California Gun Law for 2014

California has a new gun law coming in 2014 that will require registration of long guns (rifles & shotguns) and it has gun owners involved in rush purchases before January 1, 2014. Previously when someone would purchase a long gun, dealers would destroy personal information on long gun owners after a background check had been completed. Now they’ll register those purchases with the state.

The registry goes into effect on Jan. 1, and would require long gun owners to register their weapons like handgun owners already do. It would track the make, model and serial number of the gun, as well as the person who owns it. Sounds eerily like 1930’s Germany. Make no mistake the fine people that brought the citizens of California this law have a total gun ban as the end result.

Gun Protects Family in Home Invasion

February 24, 2013

A quick-thinking 21-year-old man protected his mother and father when three armed intruders burst into the parents’ home in Houston, Texas. Of course it was a gun that protected the family.

According to a KHOU-TV report, last Thursday the family was in their kitchen when what appeared to be a young man knocked on the door. The father began to open the door when two more men joined their partner already at the door and pushed open the door and knocked the father on the ground. They then went after the mother, telling her to get on the ground. She ran to her bedroom, where her son was already grabbing the gun from under the bed. “I just hear a couple of times, boom, boom, boom,” the father said.

The son opened fire and struck one of the suspects, who died in one of the back bedrooms. The other two fled the scene, but deputies responding to the call picked up two men matching their description and took them in for questioning.
The entire attack lasted less than a minute, the family said. No charges are expected to be filed against the son, but they’re not taking any joy in the outcome.

This can happen to anyone in any place at any time, realistically, the only way this family could have protected itself was with a gun – and an AR with 10 rounds would have ideal (dig on the Governor of NY). Get active and tell your representatives to protect the second amendment.

Gun Control and Chuck Schumer

I recently sent emails to my federal representatives concerning all the talk about gun control and gun violence. What I received back from Charles Schumer was interesting. I have attached the following:

1. My email to Charles Schumer.
2. Mr. Schumer’s response back
3. A copy of legislation Mr. Schumer proposed that was “tabled”

Mr. Schumer’s response (it was professional of Mr. Schumer to respond in a quick and polite way) sounds nice on the 1st read but when you dig deeper and read what he proposed you find an over-reaching law that would give extraordinary power to federal bureaucrats, power to college administrators/teachers and take liberty from the states. I have added my comments in bold in Mr. Schumer’s email. At the end I have provided a copy of the legislation he proposed. What everyone needs to learn is never to trust a politician – there is too much double-speak and you must read the laws they are proposing!! Also and more important – it is necessary for everyone to fight for freedom, the second amendment and our rights and bring to the light what they are being told by their representatives. Remember they work for us – even though they might think otherwise.

Letter sent to Charles Schumer:

As a New York State resident I need to know where you stand on gun rights. I firmly believe President Obama’s attempts are misguided and his actions will do nothing but reduce American liberty – as I believe you well know.

Please do not use buzz words such as “common-sense” in describing what is being bantered in congress or what has been pushed onto New Yorkers, it is anything but. In New York Cuomo pushed legislation in the dark of night that many Senators never had a chance to read. Votes were made that turned many honest New Yorkers into criminals.

Common sense is putting away criminals. Common sense is working to maintain freedom. Common sense is limiting government and allowing people to succeed or fail on their own. Common sense is not demonizing people because they earn an income. Common sense is being honest in dialog and debate. Common sense is not pitting groups of people against each other.

As you well know, guns have been used many times for self protection and many times if a gun was not used an innocent person would have become a victim.

Please do not be patronizing by saying guns for hunters because as we all know the second amendment transcends that argument.

Charles Schumer’s Reply:

Dear Mr. XXX:

Thank you for contacting me regarding gun control legislation. Like you, I believe the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution’s Second Amendment. The recent Supreme Court decisions reinforced this fact, but I believed that this was the case prior to those decisions. I have attached a copy of the legislation he proposed – it limits states’ rights, gives power to people that do not have the skill to act as required by this law and limits the second amendment.

While I certainly respect the Second Amendment to the Constitution, I believe that we have a collective interest in keeping guns out of the hands of those who want to harm the innocent. Then the federal government needs to enforce the laws already passed – something Obama and Holder are being blasted for not doing!! I believe it is possible to strike a reasonable balance. I have long advocated for faster and more accurate background checks so legal purchasers can receive their guns quickly while ensuring criminals do not illegally purchase and possess firearms. In 2011, I proposed S. 436, the Fix Gun Checks Act to provide more funding to states to compile required background data for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Actually, Schumer’s proposal would give the Attorney General Of the US the power to withhold federal money if those states did not comply with this law – a far cry from “providing” more funding. It gives the federal government superior and dictatorial power over otherwise sovereign states!!! This legislation builds on the National Rifle Association-supported NICS Improvements Amendment Act, passed by Congress in 2007. Builds on and totally destroys independence and state rights. Remember be careful of double-speak. Ensuring that this information is comprehensive and up to date will protect law enforcement from criminals with illegally obtained weapons while speeding up the process for purchasing legal firearms. There is a section that defines adjudicating mental competence that gives college administrators and teachers the ability to determine a person’s mental state. Think of how dangerous this type or power can be in partisan hands – in the hands of people not skilled in judging.

You may also be pleased to know that I have successfully fought to create new opportunities for law abiding citizens to exercise their right to use guns. For example, in the 109th Congress, I secured federal money to expand the scarce hunting grounds in New York State by creating a financial incentive for private landowners to allow hunters access to their property. Question – what about the right of people to protect themselves & their families? Chuck it’s not about hunting!!

Thank you for contacting me about this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can ever be of assistance to you on this, or any other matter.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator

 


 

Charles Schumer’s proposed regulation:

S 436 IS

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 436

To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 2, 2011
Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mrs. GILLIBRAND) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
________________________________________
A BILL
To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the ‘Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011’.
(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
TITLE I–ENSURING THAT ALL INDIVIDUALS WHO SHOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM BUYING A GUN ARE LISTED IN THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM
Sec. 101. Penalties for States that do not make data electronically available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
Sec. 102. Requirement that Federal agencies certify that they have submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System all records identifying persons prohibited from purchasing firearms under Federal law.
Sec. 103. Adjudicated as a mental defective; mental health assessment plan.
Sec. 104. Clarification of the definition of drug abusers and drug addicts who are prohibited from possessing firearms.
TITLE II–REQUIRING A BACKGROUND CHECK FOR EVERY FIREARM SALE
Sec. 201. Purpose.
Sec. 202. Firearms transfers.
Sec. 203. Effective date.
TITLE I–ENSURING THAT ALL INDIVIDUALS WHO SHOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM BUYING A GUN ARE LISTED IN THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM
SEC. 101. PENALTIES FOR STATES THAT DO NOT MAKE DATA ELECTRONICALLY AVAILABLE TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.
Section 104(b) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended to read as follows:
‘(b) Penalties-
‘(1) DISCRETIONARY REDUCTION- For each of fiscal years 2011 and 2012, the Attorney General may withhold not more than 3 percent of the amount that would otherwise be allocated to a State under section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3755) if the State provides less than 50 percent of the records required to be provided under sections 102 and 103.
‘(2) MANDATORY REDUCTION-
‘(A) FISCAL YEARS 2013 TO 2017- For each of fiscal years 2013 through 2017, the Attorney General shall withhold 15 percent of the amount that would otherwise be allocated to a State under section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3755) if the State provides less than 75 percent of the records required to be provided under sections 102 and 103.
‘(B) SUBSEQUENT YEARS- During fiscal year 2018, and each fiscal year thereafter, the Attorney General shall withhold 25 percent of the amount that would otherwise be allocated to a State under section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3755), if the State provides less than 90 percent of the records required to be provided under sections 102 and 103.
‘(3) WAIVER BY ATTORNEY GENERAL- If a State provides substantial evidence, as determined by the Attorney General, that the State is making a reasonable effort to comply with the requirements of sections 102 and 103, including an inability to comply due to court order or other legal restriction, the Attorney General may reduce the percentage of the amount that would otherwise be allocated to a State under section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3755) withheld–
‘(A) under paragraph (2)(A) to be not less than 5 percent; and
‘(B) under paragraph (2)(B) to be not less than 15 percent.
‘(4) TRANSFER OF WITHHELD FUNDS- Any funds withheld by the Attorney General under this subsection shall be transferred to the appropriations account appropriated under the heading ‘STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE’ under the heading ‘Office of Justice Programs’ under the heading ‘DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’.
‘(5) SENSE OF CONGRESS- It is the sense of Congress that any funds transferred under paragraph (4) should be used to carry out the activities described in the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note).’.
SEC. 102. REQUIREMENT THAT FEDERAL AGENCIES CERTIFY THAT THEY HAVE SUBMITTED TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM ALL RECORDS IDENTIFYING PERSONS PROHIBITED FROM PURCHASING FIREARMS UNDER FEDERAL LAW.
Section 103(e)(1) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘(F) SEMIANNUAL CERTIFICATION AND REPORTING-
‘(i) IN GENERAL- The head of each Federal department or agency shall submit to the Attorney General a written certification indicating whether the department or agency has provided to the Attorney General the pertinent information contained in any record of any person that the department or agency was in possession of during the time period addressed by the report demonstrating that the person falls within a category described in subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code.
‘(ii) SUBMISSION DATES- The head of a Federal department or agency shall submit a certification under clause (i)–
‘(I) not later than July 31 of each year, which shall address any record the department or agency was in possession of during the period beginning on January 1 of the year and ending on June 30 of the year; and
‘(II) not later than January 31 of each year, which shall address any record the department or agency was in possession of during the period beginning on July 1 of the previous year and ending on December 31 of the previous year.
‘(iii) CONTENTS- A certification required under clause (i) shall state, for the applicable period–
‘(I) the number of records of the Federal department or agency demonstrating that a person fell within each of the categories described in section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code;
‘(II) the number of records of the Federal department or agency demonstrating that a person fell within the category described in section 922(n) of title 18, United States Code; and
‘(III) for each category of records described in subclauses (I) and (II), the total number of records of the Federal department or agency that have been provided to the Attorney General.’.
SEC. 103. ADJUDICATED AS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE; MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT PLAN.
(a) Definition- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘(36) The term ‘adjudicated as a mental defective’ includes an order by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, in response to marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness or incompetency, be compelled to receive services–
‘(A) including counseling, medication, or testing to determine compliance with prescribed medications; and
‘(B) not including testing for use of alcohol or for abuse of any controlled substance or other drug.’.
(b) Mental Health Assessment Plan for Institutions of Higher Education- Part B of title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1011 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘SEC. 124. MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.
‘(a) Restriction on Eligibility- Each college, university, or postsecondary institution that receives Federal funds under this Act or any form of financial assistance under any Federal program, including participation in any federally funded or guaranteed student loan program, shall develop and implement, not later than 1 year from the date of enactment of this section, a mental health assessment plan that, at a minimum, includes–
‘(1) a framework through which such college, university, or postsecondary institution will address the risks posed by students, including full-time students and part-time students, who, as a result of apparent mental illness or incompetency, pose a safety risk to themselves or others;
‘(2) the establishment of a team that will assess the mental health needs of, and safety risks posed by, any such student, consisting of–
‘(A) educators;
‘(B) administrators;
‘(C) counselors; or
‘(D) other qualified members of the educational community;
‘(3) a procedure for reporting such students to the team described in paragraph (2);
‘(4) a procedure for making voluntary referrals for such students to on- and off-campus mental health resources;
‘(5) a procedure for making involuntary referrals for such students to State or local mental health authorities for mandatory evaluation, which shall include reporting such referrals to a State agency responsible for identifying persons described in section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code; and
‘(6) a procedure for informing and educating the families of students who have been identified as posing safety risks to themselves or others.
‘(b) Information Availability- Each college, university, or postsecondary institution that provides the plan described in subsection (a) shall make available to the students, faculty, and staff at such college, university, or postsecondary institution, a copy of the mental health assessment plan required under subsection (a).’.
SEC. 104. CLARIFICATION OF THE DEFINITION OF DRUG ABUSERS AND DRUG ADDICTS WHO ARE PROHIBITED FROM POSSESSING FIREARMS.
(a) Inferences of Abuse- Section 921 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘(c) Unlawful User of Any Controlled Substance-
‘(1) IN GENERAL- An inference that a person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) may be drawn based on–
‘(A) a conviction for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past 5 years;
‘(B) an arrest for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past 5 years;
‘(C) an arrest for the possession of drug paraphernalia within the past 5 years, if testing has demonstrated the paraphernalia contained traces of a controlled substance;
‘(D) a drug test administered within the past 5 years demonstrating that the person had used a controlled substance unlawfully; or
‘(E) an admission to using or possessing a controlled substance unlawfully within the past 5 years.
‘(2) MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES- For a current or former member of the Armed Forces, an inference that a person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance may be drawn based on disciplinary or other administrative action within the past 5 years based on confirmed use of a controlled substance, including a court-martial conviction, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative discharge based on use of a controlled substance or drug rehabilitation failure.’.
(b) Application to Federal Courts- Section 103(e)(1) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note), as amended by this section 102, is amended–
(1) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ‘(including any record of a Federal court of any person ordered into a diversion program as described in section 921(a)(37))’ after ‘any person’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘(G) APPLICATION TO FEDERAL COURTS- In this paragraph–
‘(i) the terms ‘department or agency of the United States’ and ‘Federal department or agency’ include a Federal court; and
‘(ii) for purposes of any request, submission, or notification, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall perform the functions of the head of the department or agency.’.
(c) Definition- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 103(a), is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘(37) The term ‘addicted to any controlled substance’ includes a person ordered by a court into a diversion program designed for abusers of or addicts to controlled substances as part of a criminal or juvenile delinquency proceeding, regardless of whether the person was convicted, whether the court made a finding of guilt, or whether the program accepts participants who are abusers of or addicted to substances other than controlled substances.’.
(d) Conforming Amendment to NICS Improvement Amendments Act- Section 102(b)(1)(C)(iii) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended by striking ‘(as such’ and all that follows through ‘adjudications,’.
TITLE II–REQUIRING A BACKGROUND CHECK FOR EVERY FIREARM SALE
SEC. 201. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this title is to extend the Brady Law background check procedures to all sales and transfers of firearms.
SEC. 202. FIREARMS TRANSFERS.
(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘Sec. 932. Background checks for firearm transfers by unlicensed persons
‘(a) Definitions- In this section–
‘(1) the term ‘unlicensed transferee’ means a person who–
‘(A) is not licensed under this chapter; and
‘(B) desires to received a firearm from an unlicensed transferor; and
‘(2) the term ‘unlicensed transferor’ means a person who–
‘(A) is not licensed under this chapter; and
‘(B) desires to transfer a firearm to an unlicensed transferee.
‘(b) Responsibilities of Transferors Other Than Licensees-
‘(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for an unlicensed transferor to transfer a firearm to an unlicensed transferee, unless the firearm is transferred–
‘(A)(i) through a licensed dealer under subsection (d);
‘(ii) through a law enforcement agency under subsection (e);
‘(iii) after inspecting a permit that confirms a background check under subsection (f); or
‘(iv) in accordance with an exception described in subsection (g); and
‘(B) in accordance with paragraph (2).
‘(2) CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS- Except as provided in subsection (g), an unlicensed transferor–
‘(A) subject to subparagraph (B), may not transfer a firearm to an unlicensed transferee until–
‘(i) the licensed dealer through which the transfer is made under subsection (d) makes a notification described in subsection (d)(3)(A);
‘(ii) the law enforcement agency through which the transfer is made under subsection (e) makes a notification described in subsection (e)(4)(A); or
‘(iii) the unlicensed transferee has presented a permit that confirms that a background check has been conducted, as described in subsection (f); and
‘(B) may not transfer a firearm to an unlicensed transferee if–
‘(i) the licensed dealer through which the transfer is made under subsection (d) makes the notification described in subsection (d)(3)(B); or
‘(ii) the law enforcement agency through which the transfer is made under subsection (e) makes the notification described in subsection (e)(3)(B).
‘(3) ABSENCE OF RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this section shall permit or authorize the Attorney General to impose recordkeeping requirements on any unlicensed transferor.
‘(c) Responsibilities of Transferees Other Than Licensees-
‘(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for an unlicensed transferee to receive a firearm from an unlicensed transferor, unless the firearm is transferred–
‘(A)(i) through a licensed dealer under subsection (d);
‘(ii) through a law enforcement agency under subsection (e);
‘(iii) after inspecting a permit that confirms a background check in accordance with subsection (f); or
‘(iv) in accordance with an exception described in subsection (g); and
‘(B) in accordance with paragraph (2).
‘(2) CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS- Except as provided in subsection (g), an unlicensed transferee–
‘(A) subject to subparagraph (B), may not receive a firearm from an unlicensed transferor until–
‘(i) the licensed dealer through which the transfer is made under subsection (d) makes a notification described in subsection (d)(3)(A);
‘(ii) the law enforcement agency through which the transfer is made under subsection (e) makes a notification described in subsection (e)(4)(A); or
‘(iii) the unlicensed transferee has presented a permit that confirms that a background check described in subsection (f) has been conducted; and
‘(B) may not receive a firearm from another unlicensed transferor if–
‘(i) the licensed dealer through which the transfer is made under subsection (d) makes a notification described in subsection (d)(3)(B); or
‘(ii) the law enforcement agency through which the transfer is made under subsection (e) makes a notification described in subsection (e)(4)(B).
‘(d) Background Checks Through Licensed Dealers- A licensed dealer who agrees to assist in the transfer of a firearm between unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee shall–
‘(1) enter such information about the firearm as the Attorney General may require by regulation into a separate bound record;
‘(2) record the transfer on a form specified by the Attorney General;
‘(3) comply with section 922(t) as if transferring the firearm from the inventory of the licensed dealer to the unlicensed transferee (except that a licensed dealer assisting in the transfer of a firearm under this subsection shall not be required to comply again with the requirements of section 922(t) in delivering the firearm to the unlicensed transferee) and notify the unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee–
‘(A) of such compliance; and
‘(B) if the transfer is subject to the requirements of section 922(t)(1), of any receipt by the licensed dealer of a notification from the national instant criminal background check system that the transfer would violate section 922 or State law;
‘(4) not later than 31 days after the date on which the transfer occurs, submit to the Attorney General a report of the transfer, which–
‘(A) shall be on a form specified by the Attorney General by regulation; and
‘(B) shall not include the name of or other identifying information relating to the unlicensed transferor or unlicensed transferee;
‘(5) if the licensed dealer assists an unlicensed transferor in transferring, at the same time or during any 5 consecutive business days, 2 or more pistols or revolvers, or any combination of pistols and revolvers totaling 2 or more, to the same unlicensed transferee, in addition to the reports required under paragraph (4), prepare a report of the multiple transfers, which shall–
‘(A) be prepared on a form specified by the Attorney General; and
‘(B) not later than the close of business on the date on which the transfer requiring the report under this paragraph occurs, be submitted to–
‘(i) the office specified on the form described in subparagraph (A); and
‘(ii) the appropriate State law enforcement agency of the jurisdiction in which the transfer occurs; and
‘(6) retain a record of the transfer as part of the permanent business records of the licensed dealer.
‘(e) Background Checks Through Law Enforcement Agencies- A State or local law enforcement agency that agrees to assist an unlicensed transferor in carrying out the responsibilities of the unlicensed transferor under subsection (b) with respect to the transfer of a firearm shall–
‘(1)(A) contact the national instant criminal background check system under section 922(t); and
‘(B)(i) receive an identification number as described in section 922(t)(1)(B)(i); or
‘(ii) wait the period described in 922(t)(1)(B)(ii);
‘(2) conduct such other checks as the agency considers appropriate to determine whether the receipt or possession of the firearm by the unlicensed transferee would violate section 922 or State law;
‘(3) verify the identity of the unlicensed transferee by–
‘(A) examining a valid identification document (as defined in section 1028(d)) of the unlicensed transferee containing a photograph of the unlicensed transferee; or
‘(B) confirming that the unlicensed transferor has examined a valid identification document described in subparagraph (A);
‘(4) notify the unlicensed transferor and transferee–
‘(A) of the compliance by the law enforcement agency with the requirements under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3); and
‘(B) of any receipt by the law enforcement agency of a notification from the national instant criminal background check system or other information that the transfer would violate section 922 or would violate State law;
‘(5) not later than 31 days after the date on which the transfer occurs, submit to the Attorney General a report of the transfer, which–
‘(A) shall be on a form specified by the Attorney General by regulation; and
‘(B) shall not include the name of or other identifying information relating to the unlicensed transferor or unlicensed transferee;
‘(6) if the law enforcement agency assists an unlicensed transferor in transferring, at the same time or during any 5 consecutive business days, 2 or more pistols or revolvers, or any combination of pistols and revolvers totaling 2 or more, to the same unlicensed transferee, in addition to the reports required under paragraph (5), prepare a report of the multiple transfers, which shall be–
‘(A) prepared on a form specified by the Attorney General; and
‘(B) not later 24 hours after the transfer requiring the report under this paragraph occurs, submitted to–
‘(i) the office specified on the form described in subparagraph (A); and
‘(ii) the appropriate State law enforcement agency of the jurisdiction in which the transfer occurs; and
‘(7) maintain records of the transfer at such place, and in such form, as the Attorney General may prescribe.
‘(f) Purchase Permits Confirming Background Checks- An unlicensed transferor may transfer a firearm to an unlicensed transferee if the unlicensed transferor verifies that–
‘(1) the unlicensed transferee has presented a valid permit or license that allows the unlicensed transferee to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm;
‘(2) the permit or license was issued not more than 5 years before the date on which the permit or license is presented under paragraph (1) by a law enforcement agency in the State in which the transfer is to take place;
‘(3) the law of the State provides that the permit or license is to be issued only after a law enforcement official has verified that neither the national instant criminal background check system nor other information indicates that possession of a firearm by the unlicensed transferee would be in violation of Federal, State, or local law; and
‘(4) if the permit or license does not include a photograph of the unlicensed transferee, the unlicensed transferor has examined a valid identification document (as defined in section 1028(d)) of the unlicensed transferee containing a photograph of the unlicensed transferee.
‘(g) Exceptions- Unless prohibited by any other provision of law, subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply to any transfer of a firearm between an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee, if–
‘(1) the transfer is a bona fide gift between immediate family members, including spouses, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, and grandchildren;
‘(2) the transfer occurs by operation of law, or because of the death of another person for whom the unlicensed transferor is an executor or administrator of an estate or a trustee of a trust created in a will;
‘(3) the transfer is temporary and occurs while in the home of the unlicensed transferee, if–
‘(A) the unlicensed transferee is not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms; and
‘(B) the unlicensed transferee believes that possession of the firearm is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the unlicensed transferee;
‘(4) the transfer is approved by the Attorney General under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
‘(5) upon application of the unlicensed transferor, the Attorney General determined that compliance with subsection (b) is impracticable because–
‘(A) the ratio of the number of law enforcement officers of the State in which the transfer is to occur to the number of square miles of land area of the State does not exceed 0.0025;
‘(B) the location at which the transfer is to occur is extremely remote in relation to the chief law enforcement officer (as defined in section 922(s)(8)); and
‘(C) there is an absence of telecommunications facilities in the geographical area in which the unlicensed transferor is located; or
‘(6) the transfer is a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title that takes place–
‘(A) at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms;
‘(B) at a target firearm shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by a State agency or nonprofit organization; or
‘(C) while hunting, fishing, or trapping, if–
‘(i) the activity is legal in all places where the unlicensed transferee possesses the firearm; and
‘(ii) the unlicensed transferee holds any required license or permit.
‘(h) Processing Fees- A licensed dealer or law enforcement agency that processes the transfer of a firearm under this section may assess and collect a fee, in an amount not to exceed $15, with respect to each firearm transfer processed.
‘(i) Records- Nothing in subsection (e)(7) shall be construed to authorize the Attorney General to inspect records described in such subsection or to require that the records be transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States.’.
(b) Penalties- Section 924(a)(5) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘or section 932’ after ‘section 922’.
(c) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘932. Background checks for firearm transfers by unlicensed persons.’.
SEC. 203. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

X
- Enter Your Location -
- or -