Some questions for Bloomberg and Schumer

I have some questions from that pair of rich elitist New Yorkers, Bloomberg and Shumer about their “comprehensive background checks.”

 

This pretend Fudd is saying we need “comprehensive background checks.” to “stop criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from buying guns.”

After reviewing the info on PAGunBlog, I have some questions. Could either Chuck Shumer or Mikey Bloomberg please answer the following?

  1. How will slapping me and my wife with felony charges for leaving my guns in the house and going on an 8 day business trip prevent criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from buying guns?
  2. How will criminalizing me borrowing my friend’s gun to go hunting stop criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from buying guns?
  3. How will criminalizing gay partners and unrelated roommates every time one leaves a gun in the home for 8 days and leaves stop criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from buying guns?
  4. How will criminalizing my borrowing my friend’s rifle to go shoot a weekend Appleseed stop criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from buying guns?
  5. How will criminalizing me teaching someone to shoot on their own land stop criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from buying guns?
  6. I once loaned my rifle to a friend so he could teach my wife, who is afraid of guns, how to shoot. I drove it to his farm and handed it to him. That week, when my wife went up there, they went out on his back 40 and shot holes in a cardboard box. He kept the rifle for a few months, and my wife went up there several times. Then he put the rifle in her truck and she drove it home. I pulled it out of the truck and put it back in my closet. Let’s count the felonies. One for me giving it to him. One for him putting it in her truck (unlawfully transfering it to her). One for me taking it out of her truck (unlawfully transfering it from her to me). And too many to count each time they handed the rifle back and forth to each other when they were shooting. How will each of us getting a mandatory 5 years for each felony stop criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from buying guns?

These are the questions that I expect my Senator will ask about Chuck Shumer’s bill.

UPDATE: If you’re new here, check out my list of gun companies who are boycotting New York.

UPDATE 2: In comments, Roland McDonald asks a pertinant question.

Exactly where in the constitution is the Federal Govt granted the power to in any way regulate legal exchanges between individuals.

The Feds are given exclusive power to regulate “interstate trade.” How is me selling a gun to my friend, or loaning it to him to teach my wife to shoot, considered “interstate trade?”

25 responses to “Some questions for Bloomberg and Schumer

  1. Larry Potter

    He My Useless Senator And I will Ask Him These Questions

  2. How about this one. We would like the name and address of the person in their video, so that we can check to see if he is a real gun owner, and not just some actor they hired to deceive the general public. Also if that person will state in writing that he received no compensation for his performance, and if he did, what was the sum received. Last but not least, was he speaking from his own words, or did he memorize a script or read from a teleprompter. Enquiring minds want to know. :)

  3. He is an actor with finger on the trigger all the time. Probably not even a real gun. The mentally ill and criminal don’t use the background check system anyway.

    This whole thing is pointless.

  4. Red, it isn’t pointless. The point for Bloomberg is to make possessing firearms too dangerous for us – in terms of criminal convictions for innocent behavior.

  5. Let’s not allow the lefties to decide the limits of debate.
    Does Senator Shumer or Mayor Bloomberg have any objection to imposing similar felony punishments on any who use the FBI’s background check system for purposes other than vetting the exchange of firearms?
    How about if the law were explicit that it apply equally to politicians, police or journalists?

  6. Actually, his finger is behind the trigger guard, but some one should check him out and give him hell.

  7. This has everythibng to do with political posturing and/or eliminating the 2nd Ammendment and nothing to do with keeping firearms from those individuals who…wait for it…ALREADY CAN’T OWN FIREARMS!!!!! The laws already exist to “stop criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from buying guns.” Background checks will not change a thing for these two demographics, because they don’t follow the laws anyway.

    Sick and tired of elitists telling me what’s good for me! If I want to drink a large coke and eat a bacon sam’ich, then I should able to do that!!!

  8. First they make bans and seizures only apply to criminals, then they criminalize nearly everything. Eventually, everyone’s a felon.

  9. Roland McDonald

    Exactly where in the constitution is the Federal Govt granted the power to in any way regulate legal exchanges between individuals. This is a much bigger power grab than just weapons. If this stands, it is the death of liberty as they can then regulate anything from garage sales to Christmas gifts. If passed, I will not comply and I would hope millions would join me.

  10. Good question, Roland. I’ve asked myself that one as well. I’ve updated the post to include your question.

  11. How does banning Martha Stewart, a felon, from owning a gun make me or anyone else safer?

    Where is the proof that GCA ’68 has had any crime reducing impact? If one looks at the data, its clear crime increased after its passage.

  12. Well, you having fun at night with your wife is interstate trade according to the Supreme Court because, a) There is a legal market for prostitutes in Nevada. b) By utilizing your wife instead of patronizing prostitutes you are reducing the amount of interstate trade. Therefore in reducing interstate trade you have inadvertantly wandered into the jurisdiction of the federal goverment. [Argument originally made was about growing ones own corn but you get the picture.] So of course selling a gun within the boundaries of a state effects interstate trade, you could have driven to NY and bought one in the black market there.

  13. How is me selling a gun to my friend, or loaning it to him to teach my wife to shoot, considered “interstate trade?”

    Your transaction affects Interstate Commerce in that it denies a manufacturer/distributor in another state the opportunity to sell a gun to a retailer in your state – Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

  14. As bad as they are I think that these measures are for the most part a distraction. The big prize that the anti-gun people are after is universal gun registration even if it is not designated as such.

    Don’t be fooled by the SCOTUS decision–they can always go back and decide that they were “in error” when they ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right. Or they may decide that a tax of $10,000 a year per firearm is within the taxing power of Congress and that failure to pay will give the feds the right to confiscate them.

    But they can only do this if they have comprehensive records as to whom owns what. That’s really what they want, and “comprehensive checks” for all firearm transfers will give that to them.

    Don’t give it to them.

  15. How about the basic question: “How do any of these supposed ‘transfers’ (e.g. leaving my guns in the house and going on an 8 day business trip) constitute interstate commerce? Specifically, how to you plan to get around US v. Lopez? If not, please tell me by what constitutional authority you are writing this law?

  16. If I could add a few of my own questions:

    1) If perps invade my home, how many shots will I need to stop the perps? And many times will I miss? Because if I have to stop to change my 7 rounds mags in close quarters, my family is dead or worse. And since the Mayor appears to know exactly what gun I need and how much ammo I will need, would he please divulge the date and time of the home invasion? Would be much appreciated.

    2) Mayor, how many rounds does your security detail carry? I think the media should conduct spot checks (on LIVE TV) just to be sure you are abiding by the laws you would force on us.

  17. WRT “interstate commerce” guys, bad news but that train already left the station.

    – In United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co. (1942), the SCOTUS determined Congress had the authority to institute federal price regulation of intrastate milk commerce because “The commerce power … extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power (i.e. regulation of interstate commerce).”

    – In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the court found that Congress could apply national quotas to wheat grown on one’s own land, for one’s own consumption, because the total of such local production and consumption could potentially impact the overall national goal of stabilizing prices.

    – More recently, in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), it was settled that Congress had authority under the Commerce Clause, on grounds similar to those above, to criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use and where such use is entirely intrastate and non-commercial.

    The Commerce Clause has become the “Get Out of Jail Free” card used by Congress to assume any authority they want over anything, commercial or not.

  18. Michael Barger (@MichaelBarger1)

    I have questions about who the “mentally ill” are that I have not seen addressed anywhere.

    There are millions of people who have been diagnosed and are being treated for depression, and bipolar and other mood disorders.

    Are they part of the population of the mentally ill to be denied access to guns?

    If so, when they are healed and no longer in therapy or taking medication can they then possess guns?

    Is a poor black woman suffering from depression, PTSD, and catatonic grief because her 4-year-old daughter was killed by a gang member, forbidden from buying a gun to protect herself because she is mentally ill?

    Any information would be appreciated. Thanks!

  19. Matthew Carberry

    Michael,

    Currently the prohibition on the “mentally ill” is (basically) defined as has been involuntarily committed, there is due process involved. Most of the proposed bills (the serious threat stuff) maintains a level of due process, being denied because you once saw a doctor is not a realistic threat… at this point.

    Though we need to keep an eye on upcoming legislation, the “they can just say I’m crazy and take my guns” position is not currently true and is not the highest priority to worry about right now as it is also opposed by the mental health community.

    Stopping universal background checks and the inevitable follow-on mandatory registration is the key, if they can’t get that they will have nothing to hang any expanded, no due process, psych restrictions on, even if they could get them passed.

  20. @MichaelBarger1: Current law only prohibits people who were adjudicated “mentally defective.” That means people who were involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

    I suspect that they’d like to make it “anyone who can’t get a doctor to swear in triplicate that they are never, ever, ever going to kill anyone.”

  21. Why is it that pre-employment background checks are racial discrimination and pre-purchase background checks are not? Or are Bloomberg and Schumer like the old style Democrats who want to disarm minorities just as Democrats have done since reconstruction?

  22. Michael Barger (@MichaelBarger1)

    Thanks to Matthew and Sean for the responses to my questions!

  23. Just for the record, this is what the “interstate commerce clause” of the Constitution actually states:

    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3:

    “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

  24. Actually, they want to expand mentally ill to “anyone who has been prescribed any medication used to treat any mental illness”.

    Ever been prescribed Chantix to help quit smoking? or Prozac to help lose weight? Guess what: No guns for you.

  25. Just one logical question,to Bloomberg,Schumer,Hagan, are criminals going to obey these gun laws?my thought,that’s why they are criminals,they don,t obey laws.this legislation prohibits,law abiding citizens,not criminals.Some ideas are so stupid,only liberals,intellectuals embrace them.