Urges public to read bill, offer feedback
Rep. Mike Thompson, who represents Benicia in the U.S. House, has started a new website that explains his bipartisan Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act and gives people a chance to comment on the bill.
“I want to make sure the public has easy access to the facts about my background check bill and (want) people to have the opportunity to provide thoughtful and constructive feedback,” Thompson, a Napa Democrat, said in a news release.
His bill would expand the existing background check system so that it would cover all commercial firearms sales, including those at gun shows, through Internet outlets and by classified advertising, he said.
“I am a gun owner and supporter of the Second Amendment,” Thompson said.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, states that “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Versions passed by Congress and ratified by the states differ in capitalization and punctuation, but the verbiage is the same.
The U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that the law is related to a provision in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 that prevented the Crown from disarming Protestant subjects, according to information from the UCLA School of Law.
Thompson has tried to assure his constituents that his bill wouldn’t abridge their Second Amendment rights.
“People deserve the opportunity to learn for themselves that this bill isn’t about restricting the rights of law-abiding Americans,” he said. “It’s about keeping guns from criminals, domestic abusers, drug addicts and the dangerously mentally ill.”
Last March, members of the House introduced HR 1217, background check legislation authored by both Thompson and New York Republican Pete King. Their legislation would expand the existing background check system to cover all commercial firearm sales, including those made at gun shows and through the Internet and classified ads.
Joining Thompson and King in authoring the bill were U.S. Reps. Mike Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., Pat Meehan, R-Pa., Bob Dold, R-Ill., Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., Elizabeth Esty, D-Conn., and Kathleen Rice, D-N.Y.
Thompson said the bill provides reasonable exceptions for transfers of firearms among family members or friends.
“The legislation also supports the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners,” Thompson said, explaning it bans the government from creating a federal registry and makes misuse of records a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison.
It also “allows active military personnel to buy guns in the state in which they are stationed. It permits interstate handgun sales from licensed dealers. And, under the bill, background checks would continue to be conducted in the same manner as they have for more than 40 years,” Thompson said.
Those interesting in viewing the website may do so at http://mikethompson.house.gov/backgroundchecks and those who want to comment on the bill may do so by emailing backgroundchecks.thompson@mail.house.gov.
Sharing is caring!
I just moved to Idaho to get away from California’s BS gun laws. Thompson needs to keep his so called brilliant ideas from Federal law.
I’m a gun owner and I support Thompson’s ideas on this. Background checks are needed nationwide.
Well you certainly have the right to ‘your’ opinion, right or wrong.
True, as do you (right or wrong). What was your point?
The U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that the law is related to a provision in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 that prevented the Crown from disarming Protestant subjects, according to information from the UCLA School of Law.
The above law has not worked out to well for British subjects, The excerpt below show’s how they have disarmed citizens.
Great Britain has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world. The main law is from the late 1960s, but it was amended to restrict gun ownership further in the latter part of the twentieth century in response to massacres that involved lawfully licensed weapons. Handguns are prohibited weapons and require special permission. Firearms and shotguns require a certificate from the police for ownership, and a number of criteria must be met, including that the applicant has a good reason to possess the requested weapon. Self-defense or a simple wish to possess a weapon is not considered a good reason. The secure storage of weapons is also a factor when licenses are granted.
Many American’s feel the govt. will just keep chipping away at our 2nd amendment rights as the Brits have. done with their gun rights
Unfortunately, there at too many John Russel Housers in this country that screw things up for everyone else.
This kind of stuff does not help either:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqHrTtvFFIs
“The legislation also supports the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners,” Thompson said, explaining it bans the government from creating a federal registry and makes misuse of records a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison.
The above quote sounds good, but who trust the govt., they are always looking for loopholes so they can twist the law to their own advantage, look what the bass tuds did with the patriot act and the NSA issues
An armed citizenry is needed to protect the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. So says our forefathers. Freedom is based at the individual level and not provided by government. Government regulating firearms is equivalent to government regulating freedom.
The recent tragedies are due to a failure of humanity and society, not failure of gun ownership. The fact that psychos have access to firearms cannot be regulated away by law. Only door to door confiscation will limit gun usage by psychos, and even then, they will find ways to kill.
Gun laws will not prevent violent crime. Only sound parenting and a responsible family based society will limit violent crime, along with a properly armed populace.
“properly armed populace.”
Define this. Would it include the nimrod that accidentally discharged his firearm during “show and tell” while “standing guard” at the military recruiting center in Ohio (see link below)? These are the gun-owners that screw it up for every one else by drawing the ire of anti-gun folks.
“Government regulating firearms is equivalent to government regulating freedom.”
http://nbc4i.com/2015/07/23/armed-citizens-gun-accidentally-discharges-in-front-of-military-recruiting-center/
So, I guess you are for completely deregulating gun ownership. Where everyone can own as much of anything that they want (including full auto). That is as extreme and foolish as those on the other side that support a full ban and confiscation of everything.