RaleighReloader
Well-Known Member
The bill actually isn't that long. Here's the text of it:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8/text
In addition to the usual exemptions for law enforcement and military, the following exemptions to the background check are stipulated:
The dangers of this legislation:
1. The "family exemption" has some pretty specific criteria for what constitutes family. Does this also apply to in-laws? What about the legal custodian of a child?
2. The transfer to an executor is interesting, since it implies that the ownership is being transferred -- when in fact, an executor doesn't actually "own" anything in an estate unless specifically bequeathed. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be curious to hear from an attorney what implications this would have, especially given that state laws vary regarding how estates are handled.
3. The "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm" provision sounds nice for self-defense, but is this going to be a "guilty until proven innocent" type of provision that will be practically impossible to apply in real life? Its vagaries make it sound like a nightmare for courts to interpret, which I suspect is deliberate.
4. The "at a shooting range" provision is the back door to get guns banned outside of shooting ranges. While is all sounds lovely and reasonable, this is all currently the law of the land and doesn't need to be spelled out here, and certainly not with the vague provisions for things like "reasonably necessary" and "reason to believe." Make no mistake: if a firearm is loaned and misused, this legalese will allow for a witchhunt.
And here's the final gem:
Oh, thanks. So when this little nugget gets repealed, we then have carte blanche to setup a gun registry?
The only real question will be how many turncoat RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) support this crap.
Mike
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8/text
In addition to the usual exemptions for law enforcement and military, the following exemptions to the background check are stipulated:
(B) a transfer that is a loan or bona fide gift between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, between siblings, between aunts or uncles and their nieces or nephews, or between grandparents and their grandchildren;
(C) a transfer to an executor, administrator, trustee, or personal representative of an estate or a trust that occurs by operation of law upon the death of another person;
(D) a temporary transfer that is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, if the possession by the transferee lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death or great bodily harm;
(E) a transfer that is approved by the Attorney General under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
(F) a temporary transfer if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms under State or Federal law, and the transfer takes place and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively—
----- (i) at a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other area designated for the purpose of target shooting;
----- (ii) while reasonably necessary for the purposes of hunting, trapping, or fishing, if the transferor—
---------- (I) has no reason to believe that the transferee intends to use the firearm in a place where it is illegal; and
---------- (II) has reason to believe that the transferee will comply with all licensing and permit requirements for such hunting, trapping, or fishing; or
----- (iii) while in the presence of the transferor.
The dangers of this legislation:
1. The "family exemption" has some pretty specific criteria for what constitutes family. Does this also apply to in-laws? What about the legal custodian of a child?
2. The transfer to an executor is interesting, since it implies that the ownership is being transferred -- when in fact, an executor doesn't actually "own" anything in an estate unless specifically bequeathed. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be curious to hear from an attorney what implications this would have, especially given that state laws vary regarding how estates are handled.
3. The "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm" provision sounds nice for self-defense, but is this going to be a "guilty until proven innocent" type of provision that will be practically impossible to apply in real life? Its vagaries make it sound like a nightmare for courts to interpret, which I suspect is deliberate.
4. The "at a shooting range" provision is the back door to get guns banned outside of shooting ranges. While is all sounds lovely and reasonable, this is all currently the law of the land and doesn't need to be spelled out here, and certainly not with the vague provisions for things like "reasonably necessary" and "reason to believe." Make no mistake: if a firearm is loaned and misused, this legalese will allow for a witchhunt.
And here's the final gem:
Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to authorize the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a national firearms registry
Oh, thanks. So when this little nugget gets repealed, we then have carte blanche to setup a gun registry?
The only real question will be how many turncoat RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) support this crap.
Mike
Last edited: