Gun trafficking bill moves toward Senate vote

CBS/iStockphoto

The Senate is moving forward with its first piece of legislation aimed at reducing gun violence in America since the Obama administration announced its big legislative push this year, pushing a gun trafficking bill through committee in preparation for a full Senate vote.

The bill, which would outlaw "straw purchasing" - wherein one person buys a gun for someone who isn't legally eligible to do so him or herself - advanced through the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday with the support of Democrats and one Republican, the co-sponsor, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. Now it will proceed to the Senate for a full vote.

"The practice of straw purchasing firearms is undertaken for one reason--to get a gun into the hands of someone who is prohibited from having one," Leahy said at the Committee's executive business meeting. "We know that many guns used in criminal activities are acquired through straw purchases. We need a meaningful solution to this serious problem."

The legislation is just the first piece in a comprehensive package of measures the White House proposed this year to curb gun violence nationwide. The Senate is also expected to consider an assault weapons ban, a bill mandating universal background checks, and increased access to research on the subject. But it's unclear how any of these proposals - including the gun trafficking bill - will fare in either the House or Senate in the face of Republican opposition.

Nevertheless, the president, who has recently embarked on a charm offensive aimed at building up a rapport with some of his Republican opponents, thanked members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for taking "another big step toward sensible gun safety reforms."

[peter_out]

The penalty for conviction for straw purchasing should be life imprisonment without the possibility for parole if guns so purchased result in the death of a human. If seller and buyer are complicit, as was the case with the US departmental gun walking, both should be charged and brought to justice.

The law should be retroactive, and the first to be charged should be the US Justice Department chief and the US Administration chief for their alledged complicity in the gun walking of the 2000 AK-47s to Mexican Drug Cartel resulting in the death of US Officer Terry and the deaths of some of the 65,000 poor Mexicans murdered by the Cartel.

For appearance of fairness, Obama should not pardon charges for crimes alledgedly committed by top officials, including himself, by executive order. He can defend himself in court just like any other citizen.

[highlndr55]

I have not seen any reports of Gabriel Gifford's husband, Kelly giving a speech on gun control then he goes out and buys an AR-15 and a semi-automatic pistol. Such hypocrites. It is again OK for them to possess weapons but not everyone else. When will the LIBERALS wise up? Probably not until the DRONES are leased upon them.

[romvik]

Let citizens protect themselves, their families, and their property. Stop letting criminals out, punish those who commit crimes, report madman to the proper databases, so they cannot buy guns. This is how you decrease crime.e
Before voting on the new laws, people should visit other places where individual rights to self protection have already been taken away (Chicago, Newark, etc.). GUN CONTROL IS JUST PEOPLE CONTROL and it always leads to MORE CRIME!

In the five years following a gun ban in Australia the number of ARMED ROBBERIES TRIPPLED: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/robbery.html.
Even 10 years later it was 50 percent higher than before the ban.

If you believe that gun bans make streets safe check out the video of a recent armed robbery in Australia. http://youtu.be/yHSS35CjRLk

All the Australian ban really did was to take the means of self protection from law abiding citizens.

59 gun deaths every day in Venezuela. Guns should be banned there. Oh, wait they already are but the country was run by a progressive leader that demanded that rich people pay their fair share and the country be transformed. Venezuela has lower rates of gun ownership than the US or most of the Scandinavian countries, yet it is more dangerous than Iraq: http://youtu.be/i2uoMlBvp2k.

[sandiegopete]

The very first clause of the 2nd Amendment referrs to a well regulated militia. That clause was put in there for a purpose. It is not meaningless. So, what did the term militia mean at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified? Well, a good place to start is with Federalist 29 entitled Concerning the Militia. There are other references to the militia in other Federalist papers.

At the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified it was not contemplated that the United States would keep a large standing army. It was contemplated that there would be a small standing army in peace time in order to do such things as staff garrisons on the Western frontier. The militia was to be armed private citizens who could be called upon in times of national threats to protect the nation while an army was raised. The militia was to be an emergency response pending assembly of a larger army. The founders knew an untrained, unregulated militia would not be as valuable as a well regulated militia. The 2nd Amendment was to ensure there would be an armed population step in and protect the nation while the army was being raised.

The founders knew the militia needed to be regulated so they would know their duties when and if called upon. The 2nd Amendment not only permits regulation of those that own arms, it requires it.

The only issue is how broadly the regulation requirement of the 2nd Amendment is to be interpreted. At the very least, the government should know what type and how many weapons are owned by the citizens. Such a registration requirement meets the definition of a regulation and provides valuable information of readiness for homeland defense by the militia should they ever be necessary.

[Cowdogpete]

So close! But not quite....

You are completely correct on who the militia is and what it is for. The 2nd ammendment is in place to allow private citizens arms.

And just for clarification the entire Bill of Rights, are personal rights, not collective.

Where you errer ever so slightly is in the definition of 'regulated". Well regulated at the time meant well trained and/or well equiped. Not regulated as subject to governemental restrictions.

[winchester70]

A feel-good measure much like the nocturnal vice of teen-age boys.

[RemainFree]

I am almost positive it is already illegal to traffic guns and make
straw purchases. If we could all concentrate on the economy and jobs
creation instead of this political agenda, we would all be better off.





Pro Second Amendment Attorneys
GunRightsAttorneys.Com