Watch Live: Obama’s Counterterrorism Speech

Watch Today’s BlazeCast With Your Questions, Comments & Live Chat!

Government

Will These Gun Control Initiatives Pass Congress? Here Are the Pros, Cons and Odds of Each Proposed Crackdown

Mar. 7, 2013 6:50am Billy Hallowell

(AP) — Just hours after the carnage at Newtown, Conn., President Barack Obama spoke with raw emotion of the need for action to prevent more tragedies like the December massacre of 20 schoolchildren and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary. Three months later, members of Congress are poised to cast their first votes in answer to that summons.

The hard-fought politics of gun control guarantee that a long, tortuous legislative journey lies ahead. One proposal that’s not even on the table: the National Rifle Association’s call for every school to have armed guards. Plenty of school districts already do that on their own, though.

A look at what’s being considered Thursday by the Senate Judiciary Committee as Obama and the Republican-controlled House let the Senate take the lead on where to go after Newtown.

—

ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN

WHAT: Ban 157 specific military-style assault weapons. Ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. More than 2,200 specific hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns, listed by make and model, would be exempt from the ban, as would any weapons that people already legally own.

KEY PLAYER: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who also sponsored the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban.

Senate Judiciary Committee to Debate Gun Control Initiatives Today

Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. speaks with reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 5, 2013, after a closed-door committee vote on CIA director nominee John Brennan. The committee voted Tuesday to approve President Barack Obama’s pick to lead the CIA after winning a behind-the-scenes battle with the White House over access to a series of top-secret legal opinions that justify the use of lethal drone strikes against terror suspects, including American citizens. Credit: AP

PRO: Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines have been used at a number of recent mass shootings, including Newtown and the movie theater shooting last summer in Aurora, Colo. The weapons allow a shooter to fire a large number of rounds quickly and without having to reload. Supporters of the proposed ban say that while it wouldn’t guarantee an end to such attacks, it could make such attacks less deadly and less likely. They cite a study showing that gun crimes using assault weapons declined by 17 percent to 72 percent across an assortment of cities from 1995 to 2003, during the last assault weapons ban.

CON: Opponents say the last assault weapons ban didn’t work and this one wouldn’t either. They argue that people should be allowed to buy the firearms they want. They say assault weapons were used in just 2 percent to 8 percent of gun crimes before the last ban took effect, so a ban wouldn’t make much difference. And they point to the millions of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already legally in private hands that would not be affected by the ban.

ODDS: The bill may advance out of the committee, but it has virtually no chance of passing the full Senate.

—

UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS

WHAT: Require far more firearms purchasers to undergo background checks, in order to block sales to people with criminal records or significant mental health problems. Details of the legislation are still under negotiation, so the bill could change as it advances.

KEY PLAYER: Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

PRO: Current law only requires background checks on sales by the 55,000 federally licensed gun dealers, omitting private transactions at gun shows, in person and online. By some estimates, up to 40 percent of gun sales don’t require background checks. From the start of the federal background check system in 1998 through 2010, about 2 percent of the 188 million applications for firearms transactions have been rejected, according to the Justice Department. The system blocks nearly 80,000 sales a year, which supporters say shows that the system works and should be expanded.

This February 4, 2013 photo illustration in Manassas, Virginia, shows a Remington 20-gauge semi-automatic shotgun, a Colt AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, a Colt .45 semi-auto handgun, a Walther PK380 semi-auto handgun and various ammunition clips with a copy of the US Constitution on top of the American flag. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

CON: Opponents say background checks will never be universal – because criminals will never submit to them. They say studies show that most guns used in crimes were obtained from friends, family or illegal gun traffickers and that more background checks would only encourage criminals to buy more firearms illegally. They also believe that expanding background checks would pave the way for a federal registry of gun owners, something they vehemently oppose.

ODDS: The bill is likely to advance out of committee, but its odds on the Senate floor are hard to assess until the final version is set.

—

STOPPING FIREARMS TRAFFICKING, STRAW PURCHASES

WHAT: Create a criminal statute that specifically prohibits firearms trafficking and straw purchases, in which someone legally entitled to have a gun buys one for someone who is barred from such purchases. The maximum penalty would be 15 years in prison, or 25 years if the straw purchaser had cause to believe the gun would be used to commit a crime of violence.

KEY PLAYER: Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

PRO: Federal officials say they need stronger legal tools to combat illegal firearms trafficking. They now rely on laws that prohibit making false statements in connection with gun sales, which are often seen as “paperwork” violations with low penalties.

This February 4, 2013 photo illustration in Manassas, Virginia, shows a man holding a Colt AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

CON: There were some early concerns that the bill could trip up dealers or people who didn’t realize that a person they bought a gun for was legally barred from owning one. But the measure has broad support.

ODDS: Likely to pass the committee, and the full Senate.

—

SCHOOL AND CAMPUS SAFETY

WHAT: Reauthorize a program providing 50-50 matching grants for school safety improvements such as classroom locks and video cameras. Some 5,500 schools have received Secure Our Schools grants, but the program has expired. The bill would authorize $40 million a year for 10 years, although that amount could change. It would also authorize the Justice Department to create a National Center for Campus Public Safety to help educate and train campus officials.

KEY PLAYERS: Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Mark Warner, R-Va.

PRO: With school shootings on the rise, supporters say it makes sense to help schools improve security.

CON: Some say the bill is too expensive.

ODDS: Likely to advance out of committee but ultimate fate depends on the final version of the legislation.

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (74)

Inform
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:59am
The democrat solution: more laws. Why don’t they just pass a law to make it illegal to murder someone… oh wait, that law already exists.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RANGER1965
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 10:09am
  These proposed laws are illegal under the second ammendment as far as I’m concerned. The purpose of this is to react with laws after every tragedy to erode second ammendment rights. That’s all it is. It’s not to protect anybody, and those that believe this, are fools.
  
  Using the AP author’s logic with other illegal acts results in the same lunacy.
  
  (1) Bill 56734: Measure to make fighting against an aggressor illegal.
  
  Pro: By eliminating fighting back this will reduce the overall level of violence since you will have only one violent aggressor instead of 2, one attacking and one defending. This 50% reduction in violence will likely reduce deaths, as the victim will no longer make the aggressor mad and irrational. Instead the victim will just be beaten, raped, and robbed…but the likelyhood of death goes down by 4.6 percent according to the mathematical genius experts who are always right, except when they’re not.
  
  Con: Many on the Right argue that fighting back is a human right, and is protected by the constitutional right to preserve your own life. However statistics prove that such erroneous and likely politically motivated beliefs are not only wrong, they’re dangerous. However it is unlikely to pass the Senate because the Republicans are unified against it…The fact that Democrats have a majority in the Senate is not considered a factor…because…well because.
  
  Report this comment
- JohnofOregon
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 10:33am
  There are several referral drafts ready to pass that repeal the second amendment. The votes are there. The problem is in the states. That battle in Oregon is over.
  
  Our biggest gun banner ended her quest after a video tour of her home appeared on YouTube, complete with instructions on where she sleeps for all the criminals to see. The attorney general got the video removed.
  
  Interesting tactic. The drones are going to make it real interesting. The administration is now offering environmental protection grants to local government to get them.
  
  Big brother.
  
  The last thought that will go through your head as Eric holder drone strikes you, is how much big brother meant to you.
  
  Ah, the liberal dream.
  
  Report this comment
- kapnkd
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:26am
  AND….using Joe Biden logic: the left doesn’t have time to enforce all of the existing gun laws! …They need and want even more laws instead.
  
  Report this comment
- banjarmon
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:20pm
  ALL federal gun laws are unconstitutional
  
  http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/all-federal-gun-laws-are-unconstitutional/
  
  Report this comment
mikem1969
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:57am
You will only take my guns from my COLD DEAD HANDS.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
PA PATRIOT
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:51am
Please read.
There should be no discussion.
There is no choice. It is clearly defined in the Constitution
Please…. read this effective essay outlining our responsibilities as Americans

http://dcclothesline.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/if-they-come-for-your-guns-do-you-have-a-responsibility-to-fight/

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 2GodBeTheGlory
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 10:30am
  @PA PATRIOT
  
  The link that you provided included quotes that the founders said, however, those quotes are false. If people are going to have a discussion or base their decisions from reason, then each person should be provided with truth, not lies.
  
  I do believe that the founders knew that the citizens should be armed, and can be inferred by Thomas Jefferson’s tree of liberty statement, or Ben Franklin’s liberty for security statement. Or by the vary fact that our country was started by “law breakers”, people who took arms (stole) and killed (murdered) their government employees. No matter how you look at the revolutionary war, you cannot escape these facts.
  
  Report this comment
- Daddy Hawg
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 10:44am
  Te federalist papers #46 clearly explains what the founders thought with regard to personal arms, militias and standing armies. A good read for anyone having a vested interest in fending off the liberal attack on our rights.
  
  Report this comment
- GroundZero is Nuclear Demolition x3
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 1:12pm
  I thought it was pretty cool that a commenter, JM, looked into a harvard anti-gun diatribe to discover the author was using his own work as reference. What a joke, when you have to reference your own opinion to justify self generated statistics.
  
  Report this comment
- PA PATRIOT
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 2:16pm
  2 the glory
  You said, “The link that you provided included quotes that the founders said, however, those quotes are false.” First, if they said them, then please explain how they could be false. If they were used out of context for the article, then so it is, which is your opinion, unless you are a definitive voice of the Founders in the 21st Century.
  
  All pun aside, the reason I posted the link and as I stated in my post, was that as an American, I have a duty to uphold the Constitution, as do our elected officials, from the dog catcher to the Supreme Court Justices. Therefore, I truly believe Mr. Garrison lists indisputable facts why there can be no deviation to the Second Amendment. His statements are a clear interpretation of his beliefs regarding the Second Amendment. By him utilizing the quotes, (false or not) of the Founders to support his opinion is clearly subject to opinion, but to use the word “False” is a bit strong. Remember a blog is only an opinion. However, in MY opinion, his op ed essay “If They Come for Your Guns” is enlightening and validates my duty not only to me, but to many other gun clingers in Pennsylvania that the Second Amendment is carved in stone. His words, while not carved in stone, are but a fresh look into what our responsibilities are as Americans. He, my friend, reminds me of the new Thomas Paine.
  
  Report this comment
- PA PATRIOT
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 2:17pm
  2 the glory,
  We are old Blazers, you and I, 7 days apart, and if we did not think alike, one of us would no longer be here. I am honored you answered my post, but I am prepared to stand my ground, as so many others are inclined to do as well.
  
  Valley Forge was hell but from hell came the victors.
  
  Report this comment
- 2GodBeTheGlory
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:14pm
  @PA PATRIOT
  
  My last post did not get on (again).
  
  I do believe that the founders would agree with the sentiments of the writer, however, I was only pointing out that the supposed quotes where not of the founders. I believe that the founders wanted, encouraged, and endorsed citizens to be armed, in order to prevent a tyrannical government (such as the ones we have now) and that the citizens responsibilities is to be ever diligent against such a takeover.
  
  It is how I feel about the bible, people who takes verses out of context and “tie” them together to make a point is incorrect use of the bible, and very dangerous. I believe the founders (most of them) where God fearing men that understood how government should be setup and run.
  
  May God Bless You.
  
  Report this comment
- 2GodBeTheGlory
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:24pm
  @PA PATRIOT
  
  I also agree that the Bill of Rights MUST be defended at all cost.
  As you have looked at my profile, you might have seen how it is my belief that the 2nd amendment problem started with the judges. You see, the judges used “rules” to prohibit guns within their court rooms, however, they knew they where breaking the constitution as they could not justify their actions with it, but wanted to restrict based on there “need” to feel safe. This of course led the federal government to do the same thing. The courts know they have no legal standing so they made one (illegal of course).
  
  This is my belief and mine alone, I take FULL responsibility for it and am unmoving on it (unless God tells me otherwise). Only good from me is from God, everything bad from me, is all me.
  
  Report this comment
WilliamORights
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:29am
A 3rd grader, even with today’s educational system and incompetent teachers, can understand the very straightforward language of Amendment II. Either repeal it, live with it, or leave.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Trigus
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:45am
  Not only the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, but all but 6 Sates have a Right to Bear Arms provision in their State Constitution.
  
  Every Elected Official can be charged and tried for Perjury for falsely swearing to their Oath of Office.
  
  90 million plus Firearm legal Firearms owners. The Largest Standing Army in the World. United We Stand and Divided We Fail.
  
  It is time for us to stop spending our hard earn money in Anti-American States that willfully Infringe on the Rights of Americans. A full boycott. Pro AMerican States should enact a Tariff on all goods sold in their State from Anti-American States that willfully Infringe on the Rights of Americans.
  
  2013 American Patriot Spring, What will you do?
  
  The distinctions between Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents are no more. I Am Not A Republican, But An American! – Sons of Liberty
  
  Report this comment
critterbait
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:25am
The government has think tanks and know full well how the people of this country feel about the 2nd amendment and that this gun grab would cause a massive gun buy..
So my crazy therory is they are planning to rip the Chinese off for all that money that we are in debt with,and leave the american people whom are now armed to the teeth the mess to clean up …Yea crazy I know but something is very wrong with this whole mess …
New World Order / Adgenda 21 maybe but to many things JUST DONT ADD UP …
Either way pray for Gods help ,it’s going to be God that get’s us out of this mess…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
WilliamORights
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:23am
The constitution “guarantees” a trial by one’s peers with the presumption of innocence. Now this government wants to kill Americans despite these “guarantees”.The drone thing is a magician’s distractive ploy. Drone today, F 35 fly overs tomorrow. You know how it works with these people.This government, these people, that government, those people– it does not matter. At some point any governemnt will want everything from everybody.The US governemnent wants everything from everybody. The US government will use thermonuclear weapons on Americans within CONUS with surprisingly little hesitation. I guarantee it. If that’s what it takes, that’s what they will do. Do not ever doubt this simple truth. If Lincoln had nukes, Sherman would have nuked the South instead of pillaging and raping, the nuclear equivalent of the 1860′s. The US government does not even want you to have a bee-bee gun. It is time to draw the line right here, or turn and run while you still can.

Report this comment

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
jessieH
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:22am
Come & Take Them……..

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
JTX
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:21am
This article was pointless. The con’s are ” the constitution is in the way “.

…SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DaveyCrockett
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:20am
I’m with Oldsurfrat on this; however there should be the same penalties for the for the person ultimately receiving the firearm.
Question – The shooting in NY where the mentally unstable person killed 2 firemen; wasn’t that a straw purchase by some woman; and wasn’t she charged with a crime; local or state law maybe?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DougHuffman
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:18am
Further gun regulation will be as effective as further regulation of any and all mala prohibita, as effective as regulation of cocaine, heroin, sodomy and all the other senatorial vices (denied the hoi polloi).

ONLY THE LAW ABIDING ABIDE THE LAW.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
pg3712
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:14am
Shouldn’t the ‘cons’ just say “2nd Amendment”?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DougHuffman
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:06am
  If a felon may properly bedenied his rights under color of law, then we all can be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony as has been done for stressed veterans and alleged abusers. Thank GoODness my military service predated such stress. MOLON LABE Lord of Flies in all aspects
  
  Report this comment
Sargeking
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:13am
The real bottom line for a Representative Republic is to allow the States to adopt their own laws pursuant to firearms. For instance, if New York and Illinois want to totally disarm all of their Liberals, then so be it. I’m asking that the draconian, far Left, North Korean States of America; keep it in their own backyard. I live in Florida. I want the N.K.S.A. to keep their sticky fingers OFF my gun rights. Thanks!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Inform
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:02am
If you haven’t read the rebuttals to common gun control arguments visit
http://www.youargue.com/index.php/34b13zmh7

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- glegakis
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:23am
  Thanks
  
  Report this comment
maggiepie
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:00am
Where are the rights for law abiding citizens? Oh, it is early my brain is slow to function, you don’t have any. As a former Correction Officer, I can truly say the CRIMINALS have more rights than you do.
So do the mentally ill. You better fight for your rights or you will be the ones locked up.
TAKE A STAND

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- glegakis
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:25am
  Amen to that!
  
  Report this comment
Sargeking
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:59am
If these attacks against basic American human rights pass the Senate, do they have to clear the House before our Great Leader strips the nation of it’s right to protect itself? I believe if any of this debacle reaches the House it will fail. If all it takes is the Dem controlled, far Left Senate then American freedoms are in deep trouble. Would someone please answer my concern. Thanks.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
dublinthewagons
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:52am
If this passes. The democrats will be calling for background checks and a band on salt & ketchup for your french fries @ McDonald’s. This is the way they solve OTHER peoples problems.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:49am
And so the assault on our Constitutional rights continued at breakneck speed. If these measures are denied to the leftists-communists, expect them to have the same ends come about via regulations under the Obama-care mess.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- dublinthewagons
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:54am
  Snow: you’re right. Different skunk but same smell.
  
  Report this comment
MarvinMr
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:48am
Can someone PLEASE tell me if a so-called “assault weapon” was really used at Sandy Hook? I heard it stayed in the car, but the media and politicians keep using it as if it did all the shooting. I’ve seen two credible reports that only handguns went into the school. If this were true, SURELY someone would be pointing this out in the public debate. I’d just like to know one way or the other… Definitively. Thank you.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- dublinthewagons
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:56am
  Doewnt make progressives and differance if assault weapons were used. Its call an agenda.
  
  Report this comment
- Sargeking
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:31am
  Actually, we have never seen the so-called Bushmaster Rifle. For all we know, the guy may have used a big knife. Furthermore, they got the body count all wrong. I mean the numbers were exaggerated. What’s that all about? The tragic truth is that one responsible, trained person armed with a gun could have stopped the maniac; no matter what. Trust me on this. There are a whole lot of questions that have gone unanswered about Sandy Hook! We may never know, especially under the Obama Regime. God protect us from the Democrats!
  
  Report this comment
- MarvinMr
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:43pm
  But “somebody” knows, how come we don’t? I think if there is a legitimate argument to be made so called “assault weapons” need to be regulated, then we have a right to know if it was NOT used at Sandy Hook.
  
  Report this comment
GuruMeditation
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:48am
No Pros. Just one huge Con!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
cloudsofwar
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:38am
They will never give up. neither can we. Join the NRA.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
dublinthewagons
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:37am
Someone call the white house. I have a fox in the hen house killing chickens. Send in a drone, please.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
IAMTHEWRECKER
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:36am
We should ban baracko insane obomba and the damn house and senate.
Where is the backbone of conservatives, stand up and fight this communist bunch of ********!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
PoliticallyRightUs.Com
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:19am
Im from CA and this worthless you know what has to go! All of them, Fstien, Arrogant Boxer, and rest of these people who have no idea what the constitution says! None of these libs have any odea what our constitution says because they dont care… period!!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
FeliciaJewel
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:12am
Any thoughts on how much time we have until there is a declared emergency?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
WarMunger_Al
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 6:58am
There are no “pros” to gun control. Don’t give them an inch. Fire any republican and demoncrat that votes yes to gun control. Any measure that passes should not be complied with.

how do they suppose they can monitor and enforce private firearms sales/background checks?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Apophis77
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:18am
  +1 on that!!
  
  Report this comment
- OldSurfRat
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:19am
  Warmunger
  
  I try to be honest about all views and I agree with you but I have to admit that the following is acctually a good idea.
  
  STOPPING FIREARMS TRAFFICKING, STRAW PURCHASES
  
  WHAT: Create a criminal statute that specifically prohibits firearms trafficking and straw purchases, in which someone legally entitled to have a gun buys one for someone who is barred from such purchases. The maximum penalty would be 15 years in prison, or 25 years if the straw purchaser had cause to believe the gun would be used to commit a crime of violence
  
  Report this comment
- FeliciaJewel
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:30am
  Thought Police?
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 7:51am
  Exactly the debate should be on what actions to take against the congressional member attempting to sieze the rights of the people. THAT’S WHAT THE DEBATE SHOULD BE ABOUT.
  Our system is infected to the gills with officals WHO DON’T UPHOLD THEIR OATH OF OFFICE.
  Whose sole desire is absolute control over the citizenry. We need to start a movement within each state to solidify the states systems to abolish federal regulations being exercised on the states bcitizens that are not grant constitutional powers. In other words exercise our tenth amendment with extreme prejudice.
  
  Report this comment
- Wolf
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:07am
  OldSurfRat says, ‘…Create a criminal statute that specifically prohibits firearms trafficking and straw purchases, in which someone legally entitled to have a gun buys one for someone who is barred from such purchases…’
  
  Every signer of the Constitution fit that description. Every one.
  
  What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ don’t people understand?
  
  Report this comment
- Apophis77
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:53am
  The straw purchases law is the only seemingly reasonable one. But I would like to see more specifics on that. As this article is written, it seems a little to vague. Does anyone have any facts on this?
  
  Report this comment
- PA PATRIOT
  Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:58am
  We already have the laws ENFORCE THEM
  
  Straw purchases can be illegal in the United States when made at a federally licensed firearm dealership. If the straw purchaser of the firearm lies about the identity of the ultimate possessor of the gun, he can be charged with making false statements on a federal Firearms Transaction Record. If a firearm is purchased as a gift, the purchaser must indicate the intended recipient on the transaction record. Straw purchases of used guns are not illegal, unless the gun is used in a crime with the prior knowledge of the straw purchaser.[1] Wikipedia
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.