Sen. Chuck Schumer’s background check bill raises red flags with gun rights supporters

Even the most radical of you gun nuts out there can’t possibly have a problem with universal background checks, right? It’s all a part of being a responsible gun owner. Sen. Chuck Schumer’s “Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013” passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee today on a 10–8 party line vote, but a close reading of the provisions has some responsible gun owners concerned about the criminalization of private gun ownership.

While the placeholder bill would require background checks for transactions between private individuals, gun rights activists note that the sweeping definitions of “transaction” and “transfer” severely limit what private gun owners can do with their firearms.

Denying gun rights to gays? explains:

  • If you left town for more than 7 days, and left your gay partner, or unrelated roommate at home with the guns, you’d be committing a felony. This should be called the “denying gun rights to gays act.” Remember that the federal government does not recognize gay marriage, even if you’re state does, thanks to DOMA. 5 years in prison.
  • Actually, even married couples are questionably legal, because the exemption between family only applies to gifts, not to temporary transfers. The 7 day implication is if you leave your spouse at home for more than 7 days, it’s an unlawful transfer, and you’re a 5 year felon. I suppose you could gift them to your spouse, or related co-habitant, and then have them gift them back when you arrive back home. Maybe the Attorney General will decide to create a form for that.

Schumer’s bill as it stands is only a “placeholder,” as the “compromise” version is reportedly still under development, although it currently has no GOP co-sponsor after a breakdown in negotiations. “This isn’t going to be a perfect bill,” said Schumer, “but it will sure reduce crimes.”

Less stringent and more Constitutional?

  • Zombie Prep Network

    This will reduce crime by creating a whole new class of crimes – makes perfect sense.

    • Calcat36

      It is targeted to LEGAL gun owners who abide by laws as a way around the second amendment. Didn’t Hitler teach this Jew a lesson? Oh, that’s right, liberalism trumps Judaism. He could give a crap about the past. He is comfy now…

      • kenai

        Schumer doesn’t have a problem with what Hitler did, he only has a problem with who he did it to.

      • Randall Silverman

        I believe that you meant “couldn’t” give a crap

    • Mikki Mead

      The goal is not to reduce crime. The goal is the loss of our freedoms and the gaining of more power by them.

  • Calcat36

    This, from the scumbag that got a hold of Michael Steele’s social security number and made Michael’s credit history available to the world in an effort to ASSAULT Michael’s credibility! Time to make this panty waste a history. Isn’t murder, by any means, already illegal? Do criminal gun owners submit to background checks? Did one fast and furious gun recipient get a background check done?

    • SpinMeNot

      Pls pls pls … the emergency rooms are jammed with liberals in crisis over a George P. Bush running for Texas Land Commissioner — logic like this is just going to exacerbate the problems. Our healthcare workers are stretched to the limit as it is.

      Well done.

      • WisconsinPatriot

        Valium. Stocks. running. low. must. get. more.

        • Ken Alan Draper

          Why. must. spock.die. LOL! couldn’t resist.

    • Ken Alan Draper

      Appearently Identity theft isn’t a crime if you are a democraft senator.

  • bonnieblue2A

    Today Sen. Schumer introduced legislation to create unintentional criminals of currently law abiding gun owners. It will be as unrealistic to comply with the restrictive and onerous language as the current federal tax code, HHS rules for Obamacare, and D. C. parking laws.

    Schumer’s legislation again proves this is all about CONTROL and not about stopping mass murderers and violent felons from killing.

  • SpinMeNot

    Protecting responsible gun sellers? Why do responsible gun sellers need protection, they’ve got guns? DOH!

    I know, but I have to find the humor in this stuff, I’m too old and cranky.

    • Grumpa Grumpus


      • SpinMeNot

        Good to see you back, you’ve been missed.

  • GaryTheBrave

    According to anti-gunners the only “reasonable” gun laws are ones they propose.

  • massjim

    In order to have universal federal background checks won’t the federal government have to maintain a list of citizens with any sort of perceived mental disorder? Good luck with that.

    • Renee Cain-Rojo

      The only names on there would be liberals because they all live in wonderland…

    • Grumpa Grumpus

      Why do you think there was the pooling of all a person’s medical info into a single database?
      The Government is out to enslave you— and they don’t want to have to have a lengthy search…

  • Tabitha Bliss

    So how do they know who officially owns what firearm?? Sounds a lot like requiring registration records for them to enforce such a law & guess what..? WE will NOT comply with ANY registration because historically it ALWAYS leads to confiscation!

  • GaryTheBrave

    I’m not a mind reader but Schumer is easy to read.

    “Schumer’s bill as it stands is only a “placeholder,” as the “compromise” version is reportedly still under development, although it currently has no GOP co-sponsor…”

    If it was just a placeholder it would not have all of these restrictions and definitions. No wonder he cannot get a Republican co-sponsor. I doubt he could get ANY co-sponsors. Maybe Laughtenburg. This could very well kill his chance of reelection even in NY.

    • $35072932

      My point as well: How can a “place holder” bill protect our rights? Someone is Lying here.

      Senate Dems pass background check bill, ignoring Grassley warning
      The bill, sponsored by anti-gun U.S. Senator Charles Schumer, is described as a “place holder” by

      Opponents are concerned about record-keeping and possible privacy issues, along with the potential for abuse of the background check system to build a de facto registry. Sen. Schumer… insisted that the bill prohibits registration and confiscation.
      According to Bloomberg News, armed teams of lawmen have been moving in to various residences, confiscating guns from people who have legally-registered them under state statute.
      Police took three guns, one registered to her, and two registered to her husband, who apparently had done nothing wrong, and there were no arrests.

      But with the California report, Grassley’s objection – quoted by the Times – might hit a nerve. He told the committee that “mass shootings would continue to occur despite universal background checks. Criminals will continue to steal guns and buy them illegally to circumvent the requirements.”
      “When that happens,” Grassley said, “we will be back here debating whether gun registration is needed. And when registration fails, then the next step is gun confiscation.”

      • GaryTheBrave

        “Shall not be infringed” is used in only one place in the entire Constitution. Maybe the founders realized it would be the keystone to all our rights so would likely be the one that is under the most intense attacks by those who seek “power” and “control” of the people.

        • $35072932

          Judge for yourself on their intentions:
          Quotes on gun from the Liberty side:

          “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.” Thomas Jefferson

          “A free people ought to be armed.” George Washington

          “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose rulers are afraid to trust them with arms.” James Madison

          “The people have a right to keep and bear arms.” Patrick Henry

          Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.

          Senator Hubert H. Humphrey

          Quotes on Guns from the Pro-tyranny side:

          Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas. Stalin

          All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party. Mao

          A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie. Lenin

          We want them registered Nancy Pelosi

          We don’t let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns? Stalin

  • WisconsinPatriot

    Hemp rope……… stretch………….crisp snap………long life(of the rope)……invest…..

  • $35072932

    California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms
    California is the only state that tracks and disarms people with legally registered guns who have lost the right to own them, according to Attorney General Kamala Harris.
    In an interview as agents inventoried the guns, Lynette Phillips said that while she’d been held involuntarily in a mental hospital in December, the nurse who admitted her had exaggerated the magnitude of her condition.

    Just recall that back in Old Progressive Soviet Union, one way of dealing with dissidents was to place them mental institutions.

    • Calcat36

      Or, on the Kennedy plantation, a lobotomy did the trick!

      • $35072932

        Just recall that back in Old Progressive Soviet Union, one way of dealing with dissidents was to place them mental institutions.

    • ProfShadow

      Yeah, but “registration won’t lead to confiscation…that’s just silly” ….Low info Liiberals.

      • $35072932

        You are correct – just reference page 75 of Gun Facts:

        Myth: Registration does not lead to confiscation

        Fact:It did in Canada. The handgun registration law of 1934 was the source used to
        identify and confiscate (without compensation) over half of the registered handguns in2001.

        Fact:It did in Germany. The 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition (before the Nazis
        came into power) required all firearms to be registered. When Hitler came into power,
        the existing lists were used for confiscating weapons.

        Fact:It did in Australia. In 1996, the Australian government confiscated over 660,000
        previously legal weapons from their citizens.

        Fact:It did in California. The 1989 Roberti Roos Assault Weapons Control Act required
        registration. Due to shifting definitions of “assault weapons,” many legal firearms are
        now being confiscated by the California government.

        Fact: It did in New York City. In 1967, New York City passed an ordinance requiring a
        citizen to obtain a permit to own a rifle or shotgun, which would then be registered. In
        1991, the city passed a ban on the private possession of some semi automatic rifles and
        shotguns, and “registered” owners were told that those firearms had to be surrendered,rendered
        inoperable, or taken out of the city.

        Fact:It did in Bermuda, Cuba, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, and Soviet Georgia as well.

        • ProfShadow

          Yep! One of my favorite “Myth Buster” publications!

          • $35072932

            Proppressives hate dealing with facts instead of emotions.

    • sardiverdave

      In Soviet Russia, gun registers YOU!

    • sardiverdave

      In Soviet Russia, gun registers YOU!

  • $35072932

    The Revised S. 374
    Title II of the S. 374 is a gun controller’s wet dream.

    First, Section 202 makes it illegal for a firearm transfer to be made between unlicensed persons. It would required a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer to first take possession of it, enter it in their bound book, perform a NICS check, fill out a Form 4473, and then and only then, complete the transfer.

    Section 203 is equally egregious. It mandates the reporting of lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours of discovery to the “Attorney General and to the appropriate authorities.” More importantly, the penalty for knowingly violating this provision is 5 years imprisonment!

    While the gun prohibitionists would like to have bans on standard capacity magazines and semi-automatic firearms with ugly cosmetics, universal background checks is what they really want because the only way to make enforcement of them possible is a national firearms and firearm owners database. As Andy Gross, the former CEO of Intel Corporation, famously said, only the paranoid survive.

    • Calcat36

      Is that how illegal gun owners do it? Hmm, seems to me that that paperwork is a waste of time and the burden of “proving” ownership falls on the dead ATF agent that knocks on my door! Remember what G Gordon Liddy said, Head Shots!

      • $35072932

        Some days it just seems easier to be a criminal.

        Did you know that criminals are exempt from prosecution for gun registration since it would be self-incrimination?

        • mike_in_kosovo

          And, if I recall correctly, registration is illegal under FOPA.

          • $35072932

            Watch them simply use another term for it like a ‘gun archive’ so they can pretend to not be infringing on our rights and violating the law.

            Just as they are trying to use the Scam on “Assault Weapons” and the “High Capacity” Con in the case of the 2nd amendment and ‘Hate speech’ in the case of the 1st.

  • DavidKramer

    I do not own one registered gun and never will.

    • almarquardt


      • Calcat36

        Amen! All of my weapons are “undocumented” and in the shadows…

    • ProfShadow

      My darn guns went overboard last summer when we were taking a boat trip. Darn shame…

  • $35072932

    Biden: ‘I’d Rather Have an Ex-Felon Have Access to a Weapon’ Than a ‘Fugitive’

    “The one person I don’t want to have a weapon is a fugitive from justice,” Biden said. “I rather have an ex-felon have access to a weapon than someone fleeing the justice system.”

    • Calcat36

      That’s just brilliant. Randy Weaver was a “fugitive from justice” and his son, dog, wife, and baby were murdered by Lon Horiuchi before any trial was conducted, and when it was, Randy Weaver was exonerated of all of the BS charges against him.

      Now, we have to fight drones without a trial. Just an accusation by an America hating mooslim is enough to get a hellfire missile in your front door.

      • $35072932

        Oh. I’m sure we can trust the Dear Liar regime not to use drones on us citizens…. Just like we can trust them to tell the truth about things like Benghazi and Obama’s Guns for Gangsters operation.

  • Renee Cain-Rojo

    Thank a liberal today for the madness that is growing in this country.

  • Moue La Moue (D)

    Ah, Schmucko. You should know by now that no Repub is going to co-sponsor that piece of crap. They want to keep their jobs. Silly.

    • Calcat36

      as do dems in gun states!

    • Craig Jacobs

      Don’t be to sure about that. See also John McCain…

    • captaingrumpy

      You forgot about “cross the aisle” McCain.

      • Moue La Moue (D)

        Dang it! I did. I guess I just don’t see him as a Republican anymore. Or Graham for that matter.

  • sigh

    Anyone want to know what pure evil looks like?

  • Hiraghm

    Republican who “works with” schumer on compromise bill will be committing political suicide…

  • Marty Luther

    You voted them in.

  • Frustrated Teacher

    ”This isn’t going to be a perfect bill,” said Schumer, “but it will sure reduce crimes.” – Said a man who knows NOTHING about what causes crime, how to prevent it, how to apprehend criminals, or really anything practical about crime. He also knows NOTHING about gun laws and crime or he would make such a blatantly stupid pronouncement about a bill which history shows will do NOTHING but make currently law-abiding citizens into criminals. IDIOT!

  • greenthinks

    Orwellian Doublespeak criminalizing private gun sales. Gun registration must precede confiscation . Registration is the line in the sand. Instead of enforcing existing laws they are going after the law abiding. Why is that? Homeland security buying up tons of ammo thousands of weapons mine proof armored cars training with targets that depict children pregnant women old people . PRETTY FUCKING CLEAR WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW ISNT IT!

  • Michigan_REB

    Universal background checks on all politicians

  • TocksNedlog

    Thats right, folks. The federal government now wants to tell legally married spouses what personal property they can and cannot share.

  • Larry Miller

    It doesn’t matter what the Socialist Party ‘bill’ says, the second amendment is all you need to tell the Hammer & Sickle gang to go straight to hell.

  • [email protected]

    Perhaps we ought to just ban Charles (Chuckie) Shumer. Mere possession of life and existance on this planet ought to get him 5 years in prison, what do you think?

  • Cate Porter

    Seriously, is this guy playing with a full deck?

  • jsteele98

    “”This isn’t going to be a perfect bill,” said Schumer, “but it will sure reduce crimes.””

    Care to explain to us unenlightened peasants, the non-elite liberals that you are forced to tolerate among you, how this will reduce crime? I didn’t think so. More of the same Liberal crap: Sit down, Shut Up and DO As WE Tell You.

    Liberals: Self-Important SOBs

  • Pelayo

    Has anyone ever checked Chuckie’s background meticulously? Isn’t he also the one who wanted a ID engraved stamp on every round of ammo that is manufactured? Meanwhile the “youths”, “teens”, ” youngsters” and “young people” are running through the streets of Bedford Stuyvesant Brooklyn, South Chicago, Riviera Beach, North Phila., West Phila., East St.Louis Il. St. Louis Mo., , Liberty City (Miami), Overtown ( Miami), Trenton NJ, ,Camden NJ, The Oranges NJ,, Atlanta, Gary, Atlantic City NJ, Pleasantville NJ, Detroit ( is it still there?), Baltimore ( it soon won’t be there) , Compton Ca.Newark, NJ, Fort Pearce Fl. ( another policeman shot dead there last week) and a thousand other places in this country, flash mobbing, Knock out Kinging, Polar Bear Hunting ( I don’t need to explain who the Polar Bears are), individual raping, gang raping and shooting, but never a mention from the DOJ about “youth” control. They seem to have Carte Blanche to do whatever they want to do as long as they;re “keepin’ it real”.

  • theBuckWheat

    This is all just sensible regulation of firearms, at least that is what the advocates say. At what point do all these regulations actually start to infringe on the right that “shall not be infringed” and thus become clearly unConstitutional?

    Character is defined as what a person will do when there are no downside consequences to the action. Any politician who takes the oath of office to defend the Constitution (as written) but who advocates such destruction of a fundamental point, even as a negotiating tactic, is a dangerous liar.

  • BeeKaaay

    If they mandate a certain government how they cut funding for that service until it takes forever to get the background check.

    Gun ban without the need to actually ban guns.

  • Allan Howell

    One would think by now, any bill shu-shiester puts out would be voted down.

  • Ezra Gonzalez

    Chuck is right, this bill WILL save lives, the lives of the savages who bust down your door while you defend yourself with a “Gun Free Zone!” sign.

  • GaylePutt

    Schumer reminds me of a gorilla pounding his chest. Looks impressive. Not much else.

  • David_E_Young

    It’s time for a review of exactly how the Founders used “shall not be infringed” related Bill of Rights language. Shall not be infringed and shall make no laws have the same intent. The Meaning of ‘Shall Not Be Infringed’ at On Second Opinion Blog gives documented examples of James Madison, Samuel Adams, the First Congress, the New Hampshire Ratifying Convention, and the Pennsylvania Minority efforts to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms and the language they used for that purpose.

  • klumbus

    If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no
    recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which
    is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the
    usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better
    prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In
    a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers,
    the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having
    no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The
    citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system,
    without resource; except in their courage and despair.

    — Alexander Hamilton

  • ChurchSox

    “[B]ut it will sure reduce crimes.”

    Could somebody run the mental gymnastics for me: How do you reduce crime by making felonies out of things that are now legal?

  • ronwf

    Why is Sen. Schumer looking for a GOP Senator to craft a less stringent version? If his version is overly stringent and he can see there are changes to be made, why doesn’t he make them himself?

    Perhaps it’s because his base doesn’t think they are common sense, and rather than craft a law that is actually suitable to what’s necessary and that conforms to the Constitution he wants to keep hanging out far left and then blame the GOP for trying to make sense out of it. I say leave the bill exactly as it is and let the Democratic Senators in states that favor 2nd Amendment rights choose between supporting their party or getting voted out of office. Why should the GOP do them any favors?

  • Federale

    Hhhmmm, Jewish Senators want to criminalize possession of firearms by Christian Americans.

  • Arlie Box

    Where’s a link to the Whole bill?
    to run a search of “Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013″ has produce nothing but a two page PDF that says NOTHING of what you people are claiming.
    I would like to read it myself & draw my own conclusions.
    Surely this isn’t what all the fuss is about.

    • DIYinSTL

      Yeah, this:

      If you don’t see how egregious this is, …well even the thought leaves me speechless. For a simple example, several years ago my competition gun broke and there were several tournaments I needed to shoot in before my gun could be repaired. A shooting buddy loaned his gun to me to use for the next 5 or 6 weeks. Other than it being very generous, nothing extra-ordinary or dangerous with that. We would both be felons if it were done under Shumer’s bill. This legislation has nothing to do with crime or safety, it is only about tightening down the screws on our liberties.

  • Steve Graves

    What do you expect, obama’s boys club only know one thing, screw america because we are exempt from whatever we propose, guns, money or alcohol, we will always have ours.

  • $35072932

    The Scam on “Assault Weapons” and the “High Capacity” Con are still being pushed by the Gun grabbers:

    Senate committee poised to approve assault weapons ban

    WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats are poised to pass a renewed and strengthened assault-weapons ban out of committee Thursday as part of a package of measures advancing to the floor, but are appealing to President Obama to help battle opposition from Republicans and gun-rights supporters.

  • $35072932

    Details of Schumer’s Mandatory Background Check Bill (S. 374)
    The main provision of the bill is that any transfer of a firearm, no matter how fleeting, needs to go through an FFL and the transferee needs to have a background check performed through the NICS system. There are some exceptions, but they aren’t very good ones. Page 11 starts off the meat and potatoes for those following along at home.

    In order to qualify for an exception to the rule of all transfers going through an FFL, the following requirements must be met:

    The temporary transfer takes place at the owner’s house
    The gun can’t be moved from the property
    The transfer must last less than 7 days

    There’s also a poorly worded exception for hunting and “sporting purposes,” as well as gifts to family members. What that means is if you go on a trip for more than 7 days and leave your guns at home unattended with a roommate, its now a felony under this law. And if I’m reading this right, this applies if you leave your guns with your spouse, but don’t transfer them as a gift.

    I quote from the bill the definition of “transfer” includes:

    shall include a sale, gift, loan, return from pawn or consignment, or other disposition

    As one of the provisions designed to “alleviate the fears” of the gun-owning public, it looks like there’s a provision in here that permanently sets the price of all FFL transfer fees to the same amount. That number will be set by the Attorney General, which these days is still Eric Holder. The current speculation is that this FFL fee will be used to do what the NFA tax was originally designed to do — make buying or transferring a gun so expensive that almost no one can do it.

    In addition to the transfer requirements, it also makes it a federal felony to fail to report a lost or stolen firearm. If the gun isn’t reported to the authorities within 24 hours, that’s a 5-year stretch in a federal pokey you just earned yourself.

    It allows the government to regulate the price of background checks, enacting a mandatory fee (read tax) to be paid every time you want to exercise a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and lets the government set the fee at whatever level they choose with no recourse. It also creates de facto registration through the NICS checks as well as the paperwork preservation requirements already in place.

    You don’t have to pay a fee to vote, as the supreme court ruled that unconstitutional. But for Chuck Shumer, its okay to charge a fee to exercise your Second Amendment right. And he’ll tell you how much to pay.

  • $2956794

    Never ever buy a gun and fill out the background check! Even if you pass they will know were you live. The right to defend yourself is basic to the existence of life. This is
    more important that any right. Freedom of speech, press, etc are only subsets of this need of life. You can be denied a gun for minor offences or youthful indiscretions that occurred 50 years ago. The background check as it stands now is draconic and confusing, asking the sentencing guidelines for minor offences that may have occurred in your youth. No one but a DA would know this and there is no option for don’t know. If you answer wrong, in spite of years of responsible gun ownership being a teacher, having past numerous other background checks, etc. you could be charged with a felony for what amounts to failing a true false test.
    We don’t threaten to cut out someone’s tongue and take their
    freedom of speech if they yell fire in a movie theater. In fact if your convicted
    for yelling fire in a theater you will lose your right to have a gun not your
    freedom of speech. Why shouldn’t people be required to take a background check
    before they can read the communist manifesto which is responsible for perhaps a
    100 million deaths in the last century? Obviously in the wrong hands this book
    is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon.

    The 2nd amendment should be more cherished than any other.
    The second amendment should be the one that no one can lose unless they use a
    gun in an irresponsible manner that results in injury to another person. There
    should also be a forgiveness doctrine which allows someone that losses there
    right to have a gun to show they have changed and get a gun in the future. We let those convicted of DWI get their
    license back, yet we wont let someone who mooned there professor in college 40
    years ago get a gun. This is insane and shows that the government will use
    every means at their disposal to take your guns.

    Some day in the future you will be denied a gun if you
    remove a tag from a pillow case. Background checks are all that is needed to
    take your guns.

  • Kenneth James Abbott

    I’m almost grateful. If this thing passes, Americans will finally start saying “pass whatever you want; I’m not going to obey it.”

  • DavidEKnight

    and only elect Congressmen that will implement term limits. What fresh hell will this create. They will find a way. I’m pissed off too.