On Feb. 3, the Congressional Research Service, the policy and legal analysis branch of the Library of Congress, released a report titled “Gun Control Legislation” by William J. Krouse, Specialist in Domestic Security and Crime Policy.
Here’s what it does:
This report provides basic firearms-related statistics, an overview of federal firearms law, and a summary of legislative action in the 111th Congress and selected legislative action in the 110th Congress that involved issues revisited in the 111th Congress. The report concludes with a discussion of other salient issues that have generated significant congressional interest in the past, including the 1994-2004 LCAFD ban.
Importantly, here is what is under consideration:
Other salient and recurring gun control issues that have generated past congressional interest include (1) screening firearms background check applicants against terrorist watch lists; (2) reforming the regulation of federally licensed gun dealers; (3) requiring background checks for private firearms transfers at gun shows; (4) more-strictly regulating certain firearms previously defined in statute as “semiautomatic assault weapons”; and (5) banning or requiring the registration of certain long-range .50 caliber rifles, which are commonly referred to as “sniper” rifles.
It is, of course, the Brady Campaign wish list (the one for this year), one that's being sold to us by oath-breaking politicians, media cheerleaders, anti-defense special interests and their useful idiot followers as “common sense” and “a good first step.”
It is neither, of course, and is hardly the end game, although anyone pointing to a “slippery slope” will quickly be derided as nutty and paranoid.
For now, gun rights advocates should be aware of the report. Take some time and study it. There is useful information there.
Hopefully, your representative already knows where you stand on the issue—if not, now is as good a time as any to remind him that any acceptable legislative action needs to focus on repealing existing gun laws, not turning up the infringements.
We'll find out how many of the newly-empowered Republicans turn out to be opportunistic 'teajackers," and how many "pro-gun Democrats" are party members first.
Click here to read the CRS Report.
-----------
Help wanted--inquire within
Regular readers: If you agree that mainstream press coverage of the gun rights issue demands a counter-balance, please help me spread the word by sharing Gun Rights Examiner links with your friends via emails, and in online discussion boards, blogs, etc. (Also note “Share” options, below.) Then get more commentary at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.
Comments
Slippery slope is no fallacy. Gun control that began in the 70's eventually led to complete bans in certain cities and to the "assualt weapons" ban. Neither of which demonsrated any reduction in firearms crimes. Both succeeded in disarming the law abiding. Background checks are already in place. The "gun show loophole" is a fallacy. People can legally transfer private property anywhere, including gun shows. I would have no problem with background checks at gunshows or anywhere else if citizens had free or almost free access to the NICS database to perform the background check themselves. All the systems says is yes or no, it doesn't detail a person's criminal history. Why are the anti-gun groupls opposed to this measure?
They oppose it because they think it's not enough. Why ask for an inch when you could get a mile?
Here in Oregon, there is no "gun show loophole." Literally. Background checks are required for gun show sales, too. If that weren't enough, state law requires background checks to be run through the State Police, and they charge $10 per check (price also written into state law), which the buyer usually has to pay. The gun-grabbers here have tried to pass amendments that would increase that price, presumably to make firearm ownership more prohibitively expensive. Luckily, private transfers without background checks are still legal (for now), but not at gun shows.
Hopefully, I didn't just give the antis any ideas....
I have a problem -- 2 problems at least -- with expanded NICS checks and everyone interested in freedom should have.
Do you really want someone being able to find out that you are a prohibited person? Maybe before attacking you, or maybe when you apply for a job? What you aren't prohibited? What is there is a clerical error and you are listed mistakenly as many are?
Second (and third also), no gun control has been (or likely can be) shown to work -- including NICS/Brady background checks which aren't even enforced on criminals.
None of the US Department of Justice, CDC, nor the National Academy of Science has been able to identify any (ANY!) gun control law which can be shown to reduce any (ANY!) of murder, violent crime, suicides nor accidents.
Less than 100 criminals are prosecuted each year for Brady/NICS violations -- and the vast majority of these are because the authorities needed to arrest or prosecute a criminal but can't make the real charge stick, or as a "predicate felony" for a conspiracy or RICO charge.
www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/final.pdf
Gun Control Laws don't apply to criminals. They didnt buy thier gun from a gun range or gun show. They didnt get a CCW in order to conceal his gun. The drug dealer didn't do a back groud check when he sold this drug runner a 9mm. Look at the recent FBI and Justice Department Crime reports. When interviewed by police officers most criminals buy thief guns from illegal sources or steal them.
I deleted the troll Mr. Caven is replying to. If he doesn't like it, he can contact me and I will explain why to him, and what he needs to do if he wants disagreeing comments to remain posted.
Any idea what happened to the anti-gun comment
Thank you
How can someone supposedly be a "Specialist in Domestic Security and Crime Policy" and advocate this crap?
His suggested "laws" would undermine "domestic security" and the only effect it would have on crime is make good people into "criminals" by outlawing normal, non-aggressive behavior and increase real crime by making it safer for bad guys to attack the innocent who are dumb enough to obey the new "laws".
Unless William J. Krouse is a specialist, but his specialty is destroying society by undermining domestic security and by making "crime policy" insane and counterproductive. That would make sense.
Kent, in fairness, he's not advocating it--he's presenting what the sides are saying, what's happened before and what is being considered now.
David Caven,
I do have a problem with background checks. You're another gun owner willing to meet the Brady bunch half way. Why do you feel the need to give in to these loonies? Something in you just feel a need to be PC? Just like all of you who just can't wait to line up and get a CC permit. It's like a merit badge for compliance to Big Brother.
When will you learn to RESIST instead of groveling at their feet, begging for permission to have a few scraps, instead of taking the whole steak for yourself. Disgusting!!
We own the guns, we have the means to use them, and then we cry like little girls because some gender confused politicians and their followers deny us a right that is ours in the first place. You cannot TAX a right, what part of that do you not understand? Class 3 permits, CCW, background checks, ALL ILLEGAL!!! Do me a favor, don't surrender any more of my rights for me, OK?
But I don't think that's even the point. You don't have to believe that every gun sale should be background checked to point out the hypocrisy involved in the gun banners whining and wailing about how awful it is that private gun sales are not background checked WHILE THEY SIMULTANEOUSLY REFUSE PRIVATE SELLERS ACCESS TO THE BACKGROUND CHECK PROCESS. This makes it 100% crystal clear that their aim is not to make sure private buyers are background checked, but to eliminate private purchases completely, forcing all sales to go through "registered government agents" just to create a paper trail.
Bravo, David. It's high time we started treating the hoplophobes among us as the unthinking bigots that they are. Let them spew their ill-informed hate elsewhere.
What jumped out to me recently is a bit of terminology rustling. The grabbers all want discussions about "gun safety." Gun control is NOT "gun safety."
As much as my emotional self would like to see the rabid hoplophobes crawl off somewhere and leave us alone, my logical self understands that we must keep abreast of their viewpoints and arguments and meet their ill conceived attempts to disarm us with the clear light of logic. That approach of course will not convince them, but it hopefully will help those on the sidelines, who may be undecided on whether gun owners should be saddled with additional control legislation, to discount the anti-gunners illogical and untruthful verbosity.
[W3]
Logic wins only logical arguments… not political ones.
I don't use the term "gun control" at all anymore. I simply say "victim disarmament" and tell my own story of armed self defense. If I had not been armed that night, I would be dead. That pretty much says it all for me.
Tell that to Border Patrol agent Brian Terry's ghost. He died on a slippery slope created by the ATF.
It is interesting that all of the "salient and recurring gun control issues" are anti-gun. Have we really been that ineffective at pushing pro-gun legislation at the federal level for none of it to be salient and recurring? Or does that show the author's bias? I would say that national CCW reciprocity should have qualified for the list as a recurring gun control issue. I know that ATF reform has been a recurring legislative issue but that isn't directly a gun control issue. Honestly I am at a loss besides reciprocity of what should be on the list. There has not been a serious recurring push for things like Hughes amendment repeal, SBR or suppressor removal from NFA, sporting purpose language removal, and gun free school zone law modification. I hope that I am just forgetting something or that is kinda sad.
on Friday the 11th Utah is voting to make positive changes to HB 75 which covers gun free schools zones
No new Gun laws unless it is Nation wide concealed carry . We have laws that make buying/selling a gun hard enough already . It is time to put the same restrictions on the "BIASED PRESS" that wants to violate our rights to own firearms.
For example, now that we have the national background check process, the law prohibiting interstate purchase of handguns is outdated and redundant. So why haven't we repealed it?
On the subject of the usual suspects (the Progressives that used to call themselves Liberals) trying to co-opt the term "gun safety" and make it a synonym of "gun control, there is an interesting picture you may still be able to find on the web.
I'm referring to the picture of Senator Dianne Feinstein, self appointed "gun safety expert" looking into the camera as she holds one of those "semi-automatic military-style assault weapons" (what us bitter clingers would call an AK). If you find the picture, please note that the bolt is closed, the mag is in place, and her finger is firmly on the trigger as she sweeps the heads of the adoring crowd with the muzzle.
If that's the left's idea of "gun safety" I'll have no part of it.
DDS -- NRA Life Member
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." -- Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) CA
“We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We’re going to beat guns into submission!” --Senator Charles Schumer (D) NY
"What good does it do to ban some guns.
All guns should be banned." -- the late Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D) OH
Yes Sir! You'd have to be nutty and paranoid to believe any of that slippery slope propaganda.
But here's another one that always raises a chuckle. It has several different versions as it evolved along with his early career in stand up comedy. Be careful looking it up as I got an attempted trojan attack at one site.
"The fact that you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you!" -- Woody Allen
DDS -- NRA Life Member
A. Rex,
Yes, those are some famous quotes from the antis. The MORE they bleat they're not trying to take our guns away, the LESS we should believe them.
Take Bloomberg. He says that he's only against "illegal guns". In Bloomberg's mind:
Illegal gun - (1) any firearm not in the care, custody or control of the police, military or other law enforcement entity.
(2) any firearm legally owned by any person not employed or engaged in law enforcement, military or security occupations.
To Dave Codrea:
Pease clear up something that's confusing me. Is Ken Melman still the acting head of BATFE , or is Traver the head?
I ask because, I've visited some 2A sites that say Obama appointed Traver to head BATFE, and he's in charge now.
Thanks,
Melson is still AD. Traver has been nominated/no action taken yet.
The only thing I can say about the national media that's positive is "They're very good Rectal Speech orators".
The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States December 15, 1791
PREAMBLE Congress OF THE United States.
"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.."
Amendment II "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
In an effort to provide those who do not yet possess understanding of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States…
The Second Amendment does not grant, confer, award, afford or guarantee any ’Right’.
The IIA
1) cites common knowledge and wisdom gained from experience, 2) declares a specific ‘Right’ which predates and preexisted not only the establishment of the Federal government, but every form of American government
3 ) specifies as written law into a legally-binding Contract/Compact between those within or acting on behalf of the Federal government that said Right ’shall not be infringed’.
That’s ‘shall not be infringed’ by those within and acting on behalf of the Federal government.
In terms of written law specifying a prohibition against government, ‘shall not be infringed’ is as all encompassing and all powerful a statement as can be made.
( Bear in mind here, this was at a time in American history after the fortuitous conclusion of a bloody and brutal struggle of American Patriots in the American Revolutionary War for Independence--when anyone who had want, need or desire was already ‘well Armed‘ )
Under the terms and agreements embodied as that of a Constitutional Republic form of government, people have ‘Rights’, government has ‘powers’ afforded to those within it only by consent of the people.
I for one, would not reasonably expect anyone who has not been so informed to be able to recognize the IIA for the prohibitive law written against government it actually is.
For those that didn’t know, now you do.
“But whom then?”, might one inquire, “is responsible for the continuation of existing illegitimate, illegal, Constitutionally-prohibited, thus null-and-void, Rights-violating Federal codes and laws?”
Not the screaming vindictive shrews trying to bring to rise to the new Nanny Nation, not the weak-minded males stuck at the heads of groups in vain attempts to bring legitimacy to failing ban-the-gun orgs, not the herds of unarmed, hoof-waving victims-in-waiting, not even blood-sucking legal leeches positioned to offer their services to gov’t or rallying to their mantra that ‘Every Shooting is Legally Actionable‘, nope…
none other than those in the Federal Congress.
One in the same body of individuals who could strike any law written, or have the best excuse there is for refusing to enact even one more Rights-violating Gun Control Law---
“Sorry, I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and under law via the IIA, the Constitution prohibits it.”
David - while we're taliking about repealing unconstitutional gun laws, have you read the bloggers talking about repealing the poison pill part of FOPA 1986, closing the registry of Class III weapons? This is the most reprehensible anti-gun law The NRA ever accepted in my opinion. Once the government decides one type of weapon is too dangerous for lawful citizens to own, then eventually legally they can decide that any and ALL firearms are too dangerous for citizens to own. Your thoughts?
I agree with those who wrote the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!