9/14/2020

No. 194  September 14, 2020

GUN RIGHTS POLICY CONFERENCE

100% online  Sep. 19 - 20, 2020

Watch and participate entirely online: www.saf.org/grpc/

32 Panels, 100+ Presenters, books available as downloads

You can thank the communist Chinese plague for no-in-person attendance

(Left-wing radicals dispute that fact)

ENJOY GRPC FROM THE COMFORT OF YOUR HOME!

The entire program schedule will be posted.

This will be unique, the 35th annual conference, VIRTUAL, we're all eager to see how it turns out, tune in!

Headquarters is busting hump to get it to run right. So many firsts! Wish them well!

I will be presenting.

The Democrat's text for effectively ending the Second Amendment, HR 5717

I’m starting with Parts One and Two below (called Title I and II, it goes on to Title X, or Ten).

It is complete federal discretion over firearms freedom.

“Shall not be infringed” may as well be erased from The U.S. Bill of Rights.

The Republicans who are standing by silently deserve to be removed.

Mass media, leaving you uninformed, are indeed among the greatest enemies our nation faces.

This is total infringement from its opening line:

“It shall be unlawful for any individual

who is not licensed under this section to knowingly

purchase, acquire, or possess a firearm or ammunition.”

You can’t have or get guns, not even the ones you already own, without federal permission.

If democrats sweep the election, they have already written this, introduced it, just need majorities to enact it.

"But the Supreme Court would overturn that!" you shout.

And Democrats have promised to overrun the Supreme Court.

The conditions for granting gun permission are literally whatever the leadership says it should be. Including determining if you are fit, by their standards.

That’s what Biden and his gang’s new law (in plain English, below) will require when enacted. Compare that to: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You can’t. The “officials” have absolutely no legitimately delegated power or authority to do what their bill says. So how is it they can even propose such a thing? Ask how they can propose an ineligible person for the job. They know they will not get shot for proposing it—the arms you keep are a nullity. The opposition party is AWOL (Republicans), without warrants they have earned for their arrest, for dereliction of duty.

The license HR 5717 refers to is an abomination. With few terms spelled out, those are left open for bureaucrats to define later. Exceptions are provided for “authorities” which basically means the government, law enforcement, special agents -- in other words, the public (you) must be heavily processed to keep the guns or ammo you now own, or anything new going forward, otherwise you are subject to arrest.

And they ask you to vote for them, so they can enact this. The media have done everything they can to prevent this from being clear, or even known. How much have republicans told you? Where are their roadblocks and the PR machinery to stop this illegal behavior?

HR 5717, §932 “Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020” of the 116th Congress (2019-2020)
(A)
It shall be unlawful for any individual who is not licensed under this section to knowingly purchase, acquire, or possess a firearm or ammunition.

The gist:
Unspecified training will be required to get the license, including taking and passing a class, taking a written test, passing a shooting test, demonstrating knowledge of firearms laws, and knowing the government’s concept of safe use, with undisclosed conditions, times and places, instructor qualifications and duration, to keep the guns you already own, or get any new ones.

Procedures for obtaining a license to own a firearm will be established by the Attorney General, and must include explanations of why you may be ineligible. The expiration date is currently set at 10 years. Expect some “rights” groups to argue over dates and minutiae.

You cannot have a gun if there are:

"...factors that suggest that the individual could

potentially create a risk to public safety."

These factors are not defined.

They will be defined later by bureaucrats, if they are defined at all.

Tell me: "What armed citizen does not create a potential risk to public safety?"

In other words, owning firearms is ultimately at the discretion of the issuing authority -- the federal government at its discretion. This has a name: infringement. Freedom of ownership and possession is taken away under this proposal. Owning guns is of course a risk to public safety, since guns are dangerous. Arguing with any of the terms of this bill is futile, since the infringement is total on its face, the specific conditions hardly matter. It would be like arguing to edit phrases out of the Bible to increase its accuracy, absurd.

If a state already meets the new standards, in the federal government’s judgment, it will be exempt. Officials will be exempt. All proper authorities can access the license database of people who are accepted into the gun database. This is what the bill says. Hmmm, gun-owner database? Rifle- shotgun- pistol-owner database? Gun-student database? Gun-student-who-failed database? Gun-range visitor, renter, shopper, hunter, inventory, ammo quantity, stash location, frequency of use, preferred-sidearm database? Cost? With 300 million guns and 100 million gun owners, it’s a federal jobs program by itself. Pardon me, I’ve slipped into commentary. Occupational hazard.

An annual federal background check of everyone with a license who is in the database shall be conducted to ensure compliance. The terms of the repeated annual check will be spelled out later. No tax or fee is described at this time for the required annual background check.

The federal government will grant money to states for three-year periods so states can run the licensing scheme. You’ll need a federal firearm license at the time of purchase, rental, or lease of a firearm or purchase of ammunition during the entire period of ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition. You won’t be able to legally buy, rent or lease more than 10 firearms in any year. I can already hear some people arguing, in their minds, that the ten-per-year is too low. It is immaterial, a red herring, there should be no such thing, government has no power to set such limits. HR 5717 is illegal, period.

Federal authorities plan to commandeer local law enforcement officers to administer the licenses. We thought they learned their lesson after the Brady law fiasco, they can’t do that, but here it is again. They can’t implement this grand scheme, so they expect local police to do it for them. How that comports with defund the police is a mystery.

You must be of

"sound mind and character"

to have or get firearms—

including the guns you already have.

FEDERAL AGENTS GET TO DECIDE.

There is a “sound mind and character” requirement for gun involvement, and “any other requirements the State determines relevant;” to “make a determination of suitability” so the chances of actually gaining access to firearms may be quite remote.

Standards will be set later, with no time frame provided. Which apparatchiks will set the standards here in anyone’s guess, and a delegation of power -- a mentality police -- formally unknown.

States “shall establish standards and processes by which licensing authorities can revoke, suspend, or deny the issuance or renewal of a covered license (referring to gun stores) including for family requested red flag ERPO (emergency risk protection orders) and extensions of them.

Under an ERPO, the person so charged, “shall surrender or transfer all firearms and ammunition in the possession of the individual;”

"Accessible Guns" Are Outlawed

This item left me aghast; I’ve called it the leftist’s: “Guns are OK as long as they don’t work” condition, but it’s even worse than I ever imagined, because of paragraph (ii) --

“(V) (i) it shall be unlawful to store or keep a firearm in any place unless the firearm is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render the firearm inoperable by any individual other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user; and

“(ii) for purposes of clause (i), a firearm shall not be considered to be stored or kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user.”

You read that right. In plain English, it appears to say if you carry your own firearm, discreetly with a proper permit, legally open, or under Constitutional Carry, it is not considered properly stored, and so you could be subject to arrest for an improperly, unlocked up firearm. I know, I know, it is outrageous -- the people who drafted this probably belong in prison.

In fairness, one trusted authority reads the section to say a carried gun is exempt from the lock-up requirement, because it isn’t stored or kept (which it of course is, in plain terms). I don’t see it that way, and if that is the intent, it is so vague an ambitious prosecutor could read it differently and let you tell it to the judge. "He carried a gun that wasn't secured your honor," we had those sorts of shenanigans here in Arizona. Judges of course sided with prosecutors as a rule, every time. That sort of legal interpretation is used all the time to ensnare the innocent.

If they really wanted to exempt carry, they could have been simple and crystalline:
“(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to a legally carried firearm.” They didn't. Go ahead, trust them.

No handing a gun to someone you know

Virtually no private transfer is legal unless you turn over your firearm to a dealer first and wait. The dealer must treat it like new inventory, log it in, go through the whole rigmarole, and “sell” it back, for some sort of fee or paperwork. You get to wait, for days or weeks, to transfer a gun to a friend you know since high school, or anyone. Or go to jail if you get found out.

Exceptions exist for family and at ranges and sport, with narrowly defined easily violated exceptions. You can unlock and load a gun to save your life, immediately during and only during a deadly threat. I'm not making this up.

Seven-day waiting periods with horrible conditions, and anything else they may think is needed later are included. I stopped here because nausea overtook me.

So Mr. Biden is running on this platform. Everyone on stage with him and cheering from the audience during the big democrat shakeout (the primaries) had no objections, or knew nothing. All the people behind Joe Biden are running on this too, hoping you won’t find out. Now, you’ll only hear about his VP choice, peripheral nonsense, fluff interviews, gender and race wedge issues, certainly not qualifications with meat on the bones, and certainly not The Bill of Rights.

The gun grab is an open secret they’ll spring on you later. It’s already written. If enough of them get elected, TRANSLATION -- if enough of you don’t vote -- this is what you get. Is it illegal, immoral, corrupt, infringement? Yes. Will they do it anyway? They already plan to. Have it in writing. Who you gonna shoot? Don’t shoot. Vote.

The democrat socialist takeover of government, and gun removal program is under way.

Oh, I didn’t get up to the part where if your gun has a removable magazine and a grip -- yes, a grip -- it becomes contraband and illegal to own altogether. That’s in chapter 5. I’m only up to chapter 2. Stay tuned.

Thank you mess media for informing the public.

And now that we have learned Kamala Harris is slated to be Joe's running mate, this is her plan as well. The woman whose parents are from India and Jamaica, which apparently makes her a natural born Citizen, she wants your guns too. I remember Ted Cruz was born in Canada... who isn't eligible to be president?

Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman
Author of 14 books, ten on gun law. Three more on the drawing board.
Consultant to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, http://www.jpfo.org
They don’t care if you’re Jewish, they just care if you love freedom.
They get it.

Or try Title V, with the gun-ban part. The Table of Contents there is all live links.

This part here isn't in the bill... it's on Joe Biden's website.

His anti-gun plan is straight out of the Bloomberg/Brady/Griffin-Kelly/Soros anti-gun-rights playbook.

(Note: Kelly is running for the U.S. Senate in Arizona with so much cash he is constantly in TV ads.)

Read it and you can tell the whole thing was drafted and posted by them.

Joe Biden had nothing to do with it, he can't even know everything that's in it.

His "people" simply granted access and permission to list whatever they wanted.

Don't believe that? Have any reporter ask him about it. He won't be able to answer.

I know, it's an easy bet to win. No reporter will ask. Ever. Right. The fix is in. So, look!

Go take a look yourself, see if you agree, the link is below. You can read. "Be" the reporter.

Every anti-gun everything I've ever seen, except this one below about banning gun teaching, it's new.

I could not believe it when I saw it, it knocked me flat.

https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/