Bob Owens

The saddest truth in politics is that people get the leaders they deserve

Senate “background checks” are anything but; ban anyone but owner from touching gun at almost any time

Written By: Bob - Apr• 08•13

You’re a young woman at home when you hear a knock at the front door. You aren’t expecting anyone and ignore it, thinking it might be an uninvited sales call. Several minutes later you hear the back door rattle, and your heart starts pounding. You run to your bedroom and pick up the double-barrel shotgun our Uncle Joe let you borrow, check to make sure the gun is loaded, and point it at the door.

You call 911, and wait in the corner of a locked bedroom with your gun trained on the door as you hear the thief rummaging downstairs. A miracle happens; an officer was in the neighborhood, and catches the thief red-handed.

Your defense attorney tells you that the young felon who broke into your home was charged with breaking and entering, and he’s already back on the street. You’re facing five years in prison for having your Uncle Joe’s shotgun.

You would have also faced the same charge if you had been shooting Uncle Joe’s shotgun on his farm, borrowed it to go hunting, touched a handgun at a gun safety class, or examined a firearm at a gun store.

Does that sound completely insane?

It is, but that is precisely what will happen under the Bloomberg-written Senate background check legislation being pursued by Democrat Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, called S.649, the so-called “Fix Gun Checks Act.”

Far from just  background checks, the law bans the most common sorts of short-term “transfer,” from shooters at firing ranges “test-driving” their fellow shooters guns, to loaning a friend a firearm, to the scenario cited above, picking up a firearm to defend your life.

The goal, as firearms expert and constitutional law professor Dave Kopel explains, is turning gun owners into felons.

Any Democrat in the Senate who votes for this bill is aware of its provisions, and if they don’t, it is your job to get on the phone with them and burn up their emails until they do.

Anyone who votes for this bill is voting for the most draconian gun regulation to ever been presented in the United States Senate, designed to gut the heart of the Second Amendment. This bill it poison. this bill is treason.

Let your Senator know that you are aware of this fact, and you will hold them accountable.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.


  1. Klingonwork says:

    That this has been proposed means they have committed treason in their hearts.

    If it passes, treason has become reality and the Constitution has been eliminated.

    It means war.

    • John W says:

      I think you are right. Anti-gun politicians do not realize that they are about to start a war.

  2. David says:

    Battle lines are being drawn. As much as I want to fire off the emails and burn up the phone lines, I know that any and everything I say will fall on deaf ears. Its pointless. I tried this for years and I very rarely even get back a form letter email. Nothing I tell Sen Bill Nelson here in Florida will amount to a hill of beans.

    • Right_2_Bear says:

      I am in Florida too. Bill Nelson never replies. But Rubio does. DON’T GIVE UP. I appreciate your efforts.

      • David says:

        Rubio doesn’t reply. A staffer or intern does. He’s not reading anything from his constituency. I’m not sold on Rubio yet. I voted for him, but for the most part he’s been a disappointment.

    • Klingonwork says:

      Yeah…and we have DiFi and Boxer here in LaLA land…talk about deaf ears. I also don’t need another form letter thanking me for my input but f*** off.

      Does it do any good? My experience is no, on the other hand it won’t stop them but perhaps we can slow down the pace if they know they have a growing insurgency on their hands.

  3. Right_2_Bear says:

    It has 90% opposition on PopVox – but not even 6000 votes – just over 100 people per state. Even if this is defeated there will be another to come along. The libs never give up.

    I was reading that only 1-2% of gun owners are active and fighting for gun rights presently. The rest are doing nothing. We will lose this battle unless somehow more gun owners and sportsmen get proactive. Do they not realize that if the House was Democrat now, this all would be a done deal?

    The second amendment and our gun rights are on life support right now. What the hell is it going to take for people to participate finally?

    • Rob Crawford says:

      I was reading…

      Where? What’s their source? How old is the data?

      • Right_2_Bear says:

        This is going back a couple months now. I *think* it was a GOA spokesman at a rally actually. If I can find it I will update you. Do you think participation is higher?

        Our Feb. state capitol rally turn out was meager at best. And this from the top CCW state in the country. I know it’s not scientific but I don’t see much energy out there.

      • Rob Crawford says:

        Right 2 Bear — I just don’t trust any numbers that seem crafted to demoralize.

        (On the other hand, if the current storm and turnout is ONLY 10%…)

  4. Ken says:

    When I search for the Fix Gun Checks Act, it comes up as being S.374. And S.649 shows up as the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act. Is there an error in the article? Or am I missing something?

  5. Comrade X says:

    “You don’t know what freedom is because you never lost it!”

    Death before slavery!

  6. Right_2_Bear says:

    This is what we are up against – THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE! What ever happened to the Rand filibuster ??

  7. Bill says:

    So they want to encourage violent criminals disappearing mysteriously?

  8. Survival Skvez says:

    This bill is doing exactly what they intend it to:
    To make people who are not gun owners afraid to even touch a gun.
    If non-gun owners are afraid to touch a gun they are unlikely to ever become gun owners.

  9. Real Deal says:

    Sadly Cardin & Milkulski here in the DPRMD will vote for anything the Left proposes no matter what I write.

  10. Real Deal says:

    They ignored her but its good to see younger people fighting for their 2A rights. Especially in the DPRMD.

  11. citizen says:

    6th amendment; entitled to a speedy trial by a jury of your peers.
    NDAA act; no, you’re not

    2nd amendment; shall not be infringed.
    4 states; ban them all, 1 at a time

    Will the courts overturn these illegal laws or must the states be kept so occupied that they cannot enforce them?

  12. Expanded background checks will be abused.

    First instance of abuse is where the background checks are used to create in illegal national gun registry.

    The powers that be… can also lower the bar so that a person with a small misdemeanor for a bar fight back when they were in college is considered a prohibited person. In some states / cities excessive speeding or downloading a lot of music can get you a felony charge. Felonies are no longer restricted to violent crimes. How long before spitting on the sidewalk prohibits you from owning a gun?

    Domestic violence is being stretched to include just grabbing someone’s wrist or shoving someone out of your way as you walk out the door. Something as minor as a wrist grab can be used deny a person their Second Amendment Rights. No end to the amount of abuse that background checks will eventually lead to.

    In NYC if you have a gun permit, the police randomly call your house and ask your family members if you every display any signs of stress or great anger… and then pick at that. The wrong answers by your family will get your permit revoked.

    The purpose of the Second Amendment is to prevent future tyranny.

  13. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm people in order to prevent future tyranny. They need the tools to do this.

    The term “Well Regulated” in the Second Amendment meant “Well Manned and Equipped ” in 1791 as was determined in the 1939 United States v. Miller case after referencing the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. The concept of Government Regulation, as we understand it today, did not exist at the time.

    United States v. Miller also determined that the term “Arms” refers to “Ordinary Military Weapons” (not crew operated). American Citizens have the right to Keep and Bear, which means Own and Carry, any weapons that a soldier carries into battle. That includes past, present and future weapons. A Militia consisted of armed volunteers willing to fight with their personal arms and not under government control.

    The 2008 Heller v. Washington DC decision reaffirmed that the Right to Bear Arms was an Individual right. The 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision reaffirmed it yet again and made it clear that it applies to every state, every city and every town in the United States.

    To limit the Second Amendment to muskets would be the equivalent of limiting the First Amendment to writings in quill pens.

    Liberty is worth the risk of death!

    • Druid says:

      United States v. Miller has its flaws.

      For example, “United States v. Miller also determined that the term “Arms” refers to “Ordinary Military Weapons” (not crew operated).”

      Crew Served?

      When was the Letters of Marquis and Reprisal abrogated by amendment?

      Nonetheless, not too bad.

      • By itself, Miller is not enough of a clarification of the Second Amendment, it brings the ball forward to a point where Heller and McDonald can pick up and expand upon it.

        Hopefully Scalia will bring the ball into the end zone for a touchdown in the near future.

      • You made me do some research about the Letters of Marquis and Reprisal… and I thank you for this. I knew nothing of the existence of the Letters of Marquis within the Constitution.

        It is amazing that within the Constitution, there is even a solution to modern day terrorism. Obviously, for citizens to serve as “licensed privateers” they must have access to suitable arms.

  14. J Rogers says:

    If you read Section 129 of S.649 it does specifically say it does not apply to the various things you list above. Can be loaned for hunting or used by another at a shooting range. Can be evaluated by a perspective transferee.

    We need to stay current with the latest so we don’t be like the gun grabbers in making false statements to get people worked up.

    • Bob says:

      Learn to read more closely, sir. It allows you to shoot at a sanctioned shooting range, but not on your own land. It allows you to loan a rifle for hunting under specific conditions. This bill deeply constrains your freedoms, it does not come close to protecting them.

      This bill turns good people into felons for perfectly normal, safe and sane behaviors. It shall not pass.

  15. Laws create criminals.