Allegedly, these bills do not create a national gun registry. All three are sponsored by socialist ideologues. That fact should give way to suspicions based in history. Infamous socialists and communists did so in the past not long before starting firearm confiscations. Not long after, all of them committed epic atrocities. For a short list of these tyrants: Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot.
In our own history, King George attempted to impose firearms restrictions upon the colonists not long before our War for Independence. Georgie also forced people to house his military against their will, telling them they did not own their land.
Rep. McCarthy (D-NY-4) proposed HR 137. The bill requires any gun owner to go through a licensed firearms dealer to sell his private property to another. The licensed dealer must perform background checks on both parties. Allegedly, the data is not to be shared with the US Attorney General for database purposes. Yet, data on the weapon and the transfer must be reported to the USAG. The forms will include names, serial numbers, and the results of background checks. Common sense dictates that the USAG cannot insure these transfers are done in accordance with this law without keeping some form of database. While they may not be directly tracking the gun owners, they will be tracking the licensed dealers, to include auditing. Doing so means that private, individual gun ownership will still be databased and checked. Otherwise this unconstitutional laws wouldn't be enforceable.
Socialist Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) won his last election by allegedly being in favor of Second Amendment protections. Yet his bill, SB 649, doesn't even pretend to outlaw such a registration database. It does exempt familial transfers and inheritance from requiring a licensed dealer.
The one bill that may raise the eyebrows of most proponents of the Second Amendment is SB 374, sponsored by Socialist Senator Schumer (D-NY). In many aspects, Reid's bill mirrors Schumer's.
The part that may frighten citizens is that part that was struck from the bill:
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.[<-Struck out]
Congress makes the following findings:[<-Struck out]
(1) Congress supports and respects the right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.[<-Struck out]
(2) Congress supports the existing prohibition on a national firearms registry.[<-Struck out]
(3) There are deficits in the background check system in effect before the date of enactment of this Act and the Department of Justice should make it a top priority to work with States to swiftly input missing records, including mental health records.[<-Struck out]
(4) If the citizens of the United States agree that in order to promote safe and responsible gun ownership criminals and the mentally ill should be prohibited from possessing firearms, it should be incumbent upon all citizens to ensure weapons are not being transferred to such people.[<-Struck out]
Are they in favor of a national gun registry? Why? Well the answer is simple. They want to know who owns what and how much so they will know form whom to start confiscating in the future.
Are there deficits in the background check system? Perhaps. However, those perceived loopholes are part of other constitutional protections such as due process under law, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and the equal protections guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. Seeing a shrink should not be reported to the federal government. It is none of their business. If a judge has to issue a court order regarding mental competency, any restriction of constitutional rights needs to be carefully considered by that justice before restriction or suspension. Failing to do so undermines constitutional protections against tyranny.
HIPPA laws prohibit the sharing of medical information with the government without patient consent. The federal government demanding those medical records is a severe violation of individual privacy. It violates the Privacy Act of 1974 as well as the Fourth Amendment, which requires a warrant specifying the collection of specified items on a specified subject regarding a specified entity (person).
Citizens need to look at the facts and determine their own conclusions. However, the proposed legislation should be raising many, many questions.
You don't have to go through a car dealer to sell your car. You do not have a constitutional right to own and drive a vehicle. You do have a constitutional right to own and carry a firearm. You also have constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure. You have constitutional rights against self-incrimination especially in regards to unconstitutional legislation. You have a right to due process within the courts.
First it will be your guns. Next it will be your bank accounts. Then your kids. Then your books. Then your pens. Then your vocal cords. Then your possessions. Then your thoughts. Then your entire identity. Then your life. If we keep negotiating where to redraw the line, we'll keep giving up those very foundational natural rights we all agree must be protected.
Our founding fathers drew that line in 1775. In 1787, they more clearly defined it. It is up to us to defend that line or lose everything we hold dear.