Dimocrats Signal Mid-Term Election Cheating

That’s about the only way to explain the “Federal Firearm Licensing Act”.

Traditionally, Dims have avoided gun people control bills when elections are coming. It’s a campaign killer (right, Duke Nukem?). Certainly the money is on the same thing being the case this cycle.

But if you have no intention of allowing fair and honest elections (again), what’s the harm in pushing a bill to license gun owners register all firearms and owners via a “may issue” federal licensing system?

Except as provided in subsection (d), it shall be unlawful for any individual to purchase or 5 receive a firearm unless the individual has a valid Federal 6 firearm license.

No.

Your move.

Let’s look at some other provisions.

has submitted proof of identity;

That’s racist!

No.

You would have to undergo training, written testing, and practical testing. Before you can apply for that license you may not be…granted.

No.

has submitted identifying information on the firearm that the person intends to obtain, including the make, model, and serial number, and the identity of the firearm seller or transferor;

If you’re buying from an FFL, you have to tie up his inventory for a potential sale that may not ever be allowed. Whomever you’re buying from, you have to register the firearm and current possessor… for a license that may never be granted.

No.

There are the usual disqualifications for a license, including, but not limited to, 18 U.S. Code § 922 restrictions. What else could disqualify you?

Ever being arrested. For almost anything. Not indicted or convicted. Arrested.

No.

Here’s another disqualifier.

any recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons;

Bought some steak knives for the kitchen? Sorry; deadly weapons. Ammo for another — licensed/registered — firearm? You’re screwed.

No.

Let’s say you managed to pay for the training and testing, found a dealer willing to tie up potentially unsellable inventory for a month or more, hadn’t bought any ammo or pocket knives recently (and what constitutes “recent” anyway; the bill doesn’t say), and got your cattle tag and a home defense gun.

The Attorney General shall revoke a license issued under this section if the Attorney General determines that—

(i) the licensee poses a significant danger of bodily injury to self or others by possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm;

Huh. While the original issue sections specify some ways to determine that a would-be licensee is a threat to self or others, this revocation parts leaves all that out. It’s solely up to the AG’s “determination.”

And — by definition — you pose a significant threat merely by possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm that you jumped through the licensing and registration hoops for. Obeying this law would be proof that you’re a threat.

No. Wait; not just no. That’s “H— f—— NO.” And fold that bill up until it’s all sharpy pointy corners, and shove it somewhere personally painful. Preferably in a place from which surgical removal would be necessary.

And you expect to (re)elect dims this fall?

No.

Thus, the expected cheating.

Amusingly, in a sadly morbid way, as I was wrapping up this column, I received an alert from the Firearms Policy Coalition. About this very bill.

I’m ahead of you, guys.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *