Dems Introduce Permit-to-Purchase Bill for All Handguns

(Photo: John Hopkins)

Last week, Democrats in both the House and Senate introduced the “Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act.” It is exactly what it sounds like in that it would push states and municipalities to require purchase permits for all handguns.  

Specifically, the bill would establish a federal grant program to incentivize state and local governments to create a permit-to-purchase (PTP) law.  

In order to qualify for those federal dollars, the state’s PTP law would need to satisfy all of the following mandates:

  • The applicant must be at least 21 years old
  • The applicant must apply for the permit via a law enforcement agency in their state of residency
  • The applicant must pass a background check
  • The applicant must provide fingerprints and a photograph.  

The purchase permits would be valid for a period not to exceed five years.  After which, they would need to be renewed.  The press release for the “Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act” did not mention a fee associated with the PTP process. (But let’s not kid ourselves, states are definitely going to use this PTP scheme as a money-making enterprise.  Which is tantamount to taxing a Constitutionally-protected right.)

“The evidence is clear: sensible handgun laws save lives. All states require licenses to drive a car or hunt or fish – so why not handguns, which can kill? Requiring a license to purchase a deadly weapon is at least as important as requiring one to drive a car,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal. 

“A bill as basic as encouraging states to adopt responsible handgun licensing should win broad, bipartisan support,” he added. 

Supporters of the legislation claim that PTP laws save lives, citing a recent white paper published by the John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. (With a name like that, I’m sure they don’t have a dog in this fight.  Cough.  Cough.)  Homicides per 100,000 people skyrocketed 17-27 percent through 2017 after Missouri repealed its licensing law in 2007, according to the paper.  

(Graph: John Hopkins)

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence applauded the bill, arguing that most Americans want PTP laws on the books. 

“Recent polling shows that 77 percent of Americans support requiring licenses to purchase firearms. This legislation is evidence-based, politically popular, and should be supported by elected officials on both sides of the aisle,” said CSGV executive director Josh Horwitz.  

“America’s gun violence epidemic is out of control; it is time to focus on life-saving, meaningful solutions like the Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act,” he continued.  

For a better statistical understanding of the effect of PTP laws, I reached out to professor John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center.  While we’re awaiting his response, in particular to the validity of the John Hopkins white paper, I figured I’d post this graph detailing the homicide rate in Chicago from 1985-2016.

(Graph: The Trace)

Illinois requires residents to obtain a FOID (Firearm Owners Identification) card, aka a PTP, before they are legally allowed to possess firearms and ammunition. The FOID system has been in effect for decades. But as one can plainly see, the FOID system is failing to drive down homicides in the Windy City. Perhaps, PTP laws are not the panacea anti-gunners make them out to be.

Along with Blumenthal, backers of the bill include Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and Jahana Hayes (D-CT) and Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) Chris Murphy (D-CT). Time will tell if the Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act picks up steam in Congress. Stay tuned for updates.

***Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE!***

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

{ 74 comments… add one }
  • Jim June 29, 2019, 3:41 pm

    That’s been a law in Michigan for as long as I can remember, I dont remember a fee but if there was one it was small. After the ccw law passed in 2001 you didnt need the purchase permit if you had a valid ccw permit.

  • Patrick June 24, 2019, 8:47 pm

    I’ve experienced car registration. That’s why I’m opposed to extending the same lines and waiting and expenses to guns. Too much hassle.

  • DaveGinOly June 23, 2019, 2:04 pm

    Here’s what’s wrong with the John Hopkins graph and the conclusions drawn from it:

    1. Coincidence does not equal causality. Without a demonstration that there’s a causal link between the relaxation of the firearms laws and the increase in gun violence, there is no proof that one was responsible for the other.
    2. Missouri has a higher gun violence rate than other states in general. Something else is happening there that is not happening in other states.
    3. Many (most?) of those other states don’t have license-to-purchase schemes for handguns. Why don’t they have similarly high rates of handgun violence? (This is the corollary to point 2.)
    4. Missouri’s gun violence rate was rising before the requirement was withdrawn. The trend on the graph is plainly upwards. The real questions here are “Why was there a dip in gun violence immediately after the requirement was withdrawn, and why did the increase resume after that dip?” (If the change in the law is the difference in pre- and post-change gun violence rates, why did the rates drop immediately following the change? If coincidence equaled causation, one could just as well claim the relaxation of the law caused the temporary drop in the rate of gun violence. How and why the violence started to climb again is an entirely different question.)

  • Matthew June 23, 2019, 11:39 am

    Based on your article here (6-18-19), I wrote a letter to my representative, asking him to oppose this bill. After I mailed it, I looked closer and discovered your article had misled me. HR 5490 was not introduced “last week”, it was introduced last year (4-12-2018). Further, the last action taken on it was over a year ago (sent to committee 5-21-18). When my Rep gets my letter, I’m going to be a little embarrassed, having spoken about old news as if it were new. I like the work you do, so keep it up. Just make sure you get the details right, because other people rely on what you write.

    • S.H. Blannelberry June 24, 2019, 5:58 am

      They reintroduced it. New info hasn’t been posted yet. The link is to last year’s legislation to give you a frame of reference. Don’t feel embarrassed.

  • John W. Raccasi June 22, 2019, 10:45 pm

    So many attempts on the up-standing, tax paying citizen and so many laws on the books to punish people who do not want to be productive members of society. Enforce the laws that are in place for crimes with a deadly weapon, i.e. pinking shears, and make the perpetrator pay the price for the crime. What is so difficult about what has already been established and yes, innocent until proven guilty. But when proven guilty, and after all appeals, the price is to be payed whether that price is to be taken out of main stream society for x amount of time or to be taken out of existence.

    You want to watch deadly weapons in action, watch some youtube on car crashes and watch where pedestrians try to cross the street in a designated crosswalk with a green light to cross said street a see for yourself what a true deadly weapon is…it’s not the automobile…just a hint.

    By the way, any state the has restrictions on my use, ownership, or carry of my protected right of firearms does not get to have any of my hard earned money. Whether that be from purchase of online sales, support of ideals or principles I hold, or tourist dollars. If we stand together we cannot fall…but if we do fall, we will fall on them so that they won’t get up again. Just saying…thank the Founders for that!

  • Jerry June 22, 2019, 2:58 pm

    The dumbocrats should read some of the existing laws: 1) an individual must be 21 to purchase a handgun (GCA ’68) 2) background checks are required on firearm purchases from an FFL dealer. Guess we have to cut these guys some slack–wasn’t it pelosi who said (about obamacare) “we have to pass it to see what’s in it.)?

  • Nick T June 22, 2019, 10:55 am

    I’m am so perplexed by the mindset of the supposed pro-2nd community that I can’t imagine that my grandchildren will even know what a gun looks like unless they see it in the hands of some government agent dragging them away to some facility.
    First, the U.S. is by LAW a REPUBLIC, so when your representative says the majority wants licensing, you should be asking them when did this become a democracy, and why aren’t you in jail for sedition or subversion.
    Two, the U.S. Constitution does not say anything about a RKBA. It says that the People MUST be organized, armed, and disciplined. It is right there, and yet the pro-2nd community doesn’t want anything to do with their branch of government that the Frames recognized as “necessary to the security of a free State”.
    Three, all across the globe a relatively small segment of the population is determining just how, what, when, and where, and the vast majority act as if they have no power to stop the ever encroaching tyranny.
    When is it that the men here will think about the children they are leaving behind?

    • Roquer este June 22, 2019, 12:40 pm

      If 77% of the populace is in favor of more restrictive gun laws then why are there over 300 million guns, owned by the populace in America? Its because Blumenthal lied about that just like he lied about his Vietnam military service. I call bullshit!

  • Kent June 22, 2019, 7:47 am

    DemonRats again reading out of Hitlers Handbook ?
    As I always stated; An Honest Politician has nothing to fear from armed citizens, but a corrupt Political Tyrant has everything to fear from armed citizens. Now who is trying to remove or modify the 2nd Amendment ?
    Now who is America’s real enemy?

  • Ken D June 22, 2019, 2:17 am

    A government unafraid of its citizenry is a tyranical goverment.

    The second amendment is all that stands between our Freedoms and tyranny.

    I for one, refuse to allow my great nation to become another victim of socialism and the ideals of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.

  • June 21, 2019, 9:57 pm

    Just turn the WHOLE COUNTRY into The Democratic Republic of New Jerseystan, Fees and permits for everything!

  • Michael J June 21, 2019, 7:54 pm

    Were these the 77% of Americans who said Hillary Clinton was going to win?

  • Scotty Gunn June 21, 2019, 7:37 pm

    80% ers. Now GFY government.

  • Rob Martinez June 21, 2019, 7:18 pm

    Will we be needing a permit for any of the other rights afforded to us under constitution? Perhaps a permit to read a newspaper or post something on social media, how about a permit to keep the government from searching our homes without a warrant, surely that should be required.

  • Joe Cucchiara June 21, 2019, 4:06 pm

    eradicate demoncraps.

  • Bryan Potratz June 21, 2019, 3:39 pm

    Dug this up out of my archives of published stuff – because people still don’t get it…

    Perhaps it’s time to call their bluff.

    In his state of disunion show President Clinton, that famous duck hunter, once again voiced the anti-gun mantra of “why don’t we treat guns like cars…” and this time I think we in the pro gun community should take heed. I mean this only half facetiously. Really.

    The President has said, “Should people ought to have to register guns like they register their cars? Do I think that? Of Course I do…”, and this time proposed a national “drivers license” (picture ID and all) for gun owners.

    Hello! We have been given an absolutely splendid opportunity to stand up to the anti-freedom crowd and CALL THEIR BLUFF. We should take them up on their leader’s offer (especially since it will only get shot down – by their side no less) and show the world once and for all how meaningless (and un-thought-out) their anti-gun talking points are.

    Let’s look at their “Guns = Cars” proposal not as another rights infringement, but (potentially) as a liberalization of the already oppressive gun control system and turn it back in their face. How so? Examine what Driver’s licensing & vehicle registration truly entails.

    Drivers Licenses.

    Drivers Licenses are Shall Issue permits with universal reciprocity, requiring only a basic knowledge of safe handling and use regulations.

    Licenses are NOT required for purchase of a vehicle.

    Licenses are NOT required for off (public) road use, i.e. agricultural use (farms/farm roads), racetracks, private land, USFS/BIA/BLM dirt trails etc.

    Drivers education / auto safety classes are MANDATORY in many public school districts.

    Vehicle Registration:

    Registration of a motor vehicle is NOT required unless said vehicle is to be USED on public roads. Custom/show cars, racecars, farm equipment, antiques are exempt unless they are to be commonly USED on public roadways. If I am towing a ’32 roadster (or ’99 dragster) through town, I cannot be cited for its’ lack of registration.

    Registration of vehicles exceeding “fleet” quantities is not required. I may maintain as many unregistered vehicles on my private property as I desire (provided they do not constitute an “eyesore” or some such other visibly property-devaluing neighborhood gripe.)

    Registration and extra taxation of High Performance vehicles is NOT required, unless they are to be used on public roads. A 13,000 hp Pratt & Whitney Jet Car (which has no “practical” or “sporting” use) may be owned and kept, unregistered, alongside a VW powered off-road-only dune buggy, and used in non-public spaces with impunity.

    Law enforcement of DMV rules:

    As we know, there are literally thousands of people out there driving without a license. The only time they get punished is if they are caught violating some other driving law (i.e. causing harm to or endangering another’s person or property). Vehicle registration is somewhat easier to spot, as registration is denoted by a sticker of some sort, visible while the vehicle is in use. (Someone sees you use it without a tag, you get a ticket.)

    This is all well understood and simple enough, so, let’s apply this exact legal paradigm to guns, on a national level, as the panderer in chief (and others) say they want.

    “Gun” Licenses: Gun owners would “get”:

    A genuinely nationally reciprocal, truly “shall-issue” concealed carry license. Now, while everyone hates DoL and the Licensing dept., you can’t say they just arbitrarily deny licenses (as some “authorizing agencies” for CCW permits have done.) Only a basic knowledge of safe handling and use regulations would be required.

    Licenses would NOT be required for purchase of a gun.

    Licenses would NOT be required for non-urban public land use, i.e. agricultural use (hunting/varmint control), ranges, private land, USFS/BIA/BLM hunting areas etc.

    True gun safety could be taught in schools, not just anti-gun rhetoric.

    “Registration” DMV style… Gun owners would “get”:

    A Licensing & registration system that is useful (to the government) only after the fact, i.e. after the shooting stops (ignoring for the moment the fact of door-to-door tracking and confiscation – see California and NYC).

    Registration of a firearm would NOT be required unless said firearm is to be USED in a public place. Custom/show guns, race-guns, long-arms or side arms, antiques, etc would be exempt unless they are to be commonly USED in public.

    A DMV style registration system would deny “arsenal” registration rhetoric just as it currently does not apply to off-road “fleets”.

    Removal of the National Firearms Act (1934) provisions against Class III (high performance/ specialized) weapons. If guns were to be treated as cars, the substantial similarity rules would apply. Just as “High Performance” or specialty vehicles are not restricted, except in their place of use (not on public roads), neither then could the law be justified in restricting the possession of “high performance” (Class III) firearms.

    Law Enforcement:

    Like Cars, so Guns. It can be truthfully stated that a gun in my possession, regardless of type, in a public place, is NOT being USED, only carried (much like towing a dragster), and therefore it need not be registered nor I licensed. However, should I use that firearm in said public place without License and Registration, I may be subject to penalty upon the assured following inquest … (to be judged by twelve) … perhaps.

    Herein we see another potential benefit to “DMV style” gun laws… the principle of reasonable justification and good-Samaritan laws. I may speed, drive an unregistered car, drive without a license, etc in the commission of a life saving act. Judges and juries routinely throw out charges (if charges are even filed) of “rule violation” in such cases. Similar dismissals have obtained (and will continue to obtain) for many “rule violations” of current gun laws. Criminals would obviously receive no such benefit.

    Admittedly, this “DMV-ing” argument plays into the Rights vs. Privileges debate, however, it has similarly been argued (with some precedent setting success) that motor vehicle ownership has grown from a privilege to a Right within today’s society. (If motor vehicle ownership is now a Right (guaranteed nowhere) then how much more so is gun ownership?)

    A dose of Reality:

    You and I know that my “best-case” writing of a “motor-vehicle” style of registration & licensing scheme would never be allowed, for precisely the benefits I’ve mentioned. That’s probably a good thing. A Right regulated is a Right denied. (There are NO (non-federal) firearm possession/carry restrictions for the law abiding in Vermont. Theirs is a true right to bear arms.) But it sure would be fun to throw it in the face of the anti-gun establishment and watch them be forced to dump one of their longest standing talking points.

    Oh well. Fight the good fight & keep your powder dry.

  • The Bearded Pretender June 21, 2019, 1:31 pm

    OK, just make everyone that wants to own a pistol get their CCW permit and that will take care of training, background checks and license.

    Then just make 50 state reciprocity legal….Everybody gets what they want and everybody is happy.

    Works for me, I carry 3 CCW States now and would love to travel to California, New York and Jersey while carrying.

    • John Rogers June 21, 2019, 8:06 pm

      Gee, that’s nice. Unless you’re like me, and live in a state that doesn’t issue CCW permits, because we have this thing called Constitutional carry here. No permit needed. The reciprocity sounds great though.

  • Rex Henderson June 21, 2019, 1:18 pm

    Ghost gunner. I’ll make my own and carry illegally and be locked and loaded if they ever want to discuss it.

  • Glenn June 21, 2019, 12:58 pm

    I have a CCW permit. I go through a refresher course every other year to keep up. I have no problem with this proposal. I have nothing to hide so why should I. I think all guns should be registered and all people who have one should have to go through a background check. I think anyone who is issued a hunting license should have to pass a Hunter Safety course.

    • Mikey June 21, 2019, 7:05 pm

      Glenn, are you an Obama/Hillary/leftist?? You may have no problem with infinite restrictions right down to confiscation, but I sure do. Apparently you agree that the government needs to know what all you own firearms-wise. That way when they make firearms illegal they will know exactly where to go to seize, and probably how much backup to take with them. You’re a special kind of fool.

    • John Rogers June 21, 2019, 8:13 pm

      I can’t decide if you’re a liar, a shill, or just extremely gullible. In your opinion, exactly what purpose is served by registering firearms? Inquiring minds want to know.

      By the way, everyone has something to hide. They just may not realize it, until it’s too late. Thus, the 4th amendment.

    • Mr. Sparkles June 21, 2019, 8:16 pm

      You are selectively forgetting that “the RIGHT to bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed”.

      • Hd May 7, 2021, 4:54 am

        I have a question: are you all ok with the rate of gun violence deaths in the US? Do you believe these high rates are a reasonable cost of unrestricted right to gun ownership and use? If not, what shpuld be done to address gun violence that has any likelihhod of actually reducing gun violence. Many of you obviously believe there should be no restrictions on gun ownership or use, but do not feel the same way about other rights e.g., the right to vote or freedom of speech because you support laws to limit protests and require hoops to jump through to vote. Should you have to show an id to purchase a gun? Why if the right shall not be infringed? Should felons be allowed to own guns? I hear a lot of complaints but I never hear any solutions offered to address the unreasonably high rates of gun violence. It isn’t something that should be accepted. We wouldn’t accept it if it had to do with anything other than guns.

  • Stephen J Merrette June 21, 2019, 12:34 pm

    Name one other enumerated right you have to buy a “license” for… just one…

    These “people” (and I use that term loosely) really need to take an English Comprehension course because they obviously have no idea what “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” means… And to think there are other “people” out there who actually voted for these idiots…

    • The Bearded Pretender June 21, 2019, 2:36 pm

      Well Stephen you don’t have to go far to find one..Look up at Glenn’s response to find a voter that voted for this…

    • Tom June 21, 2019, 2:38 pm

      My thoughts, exactly!
      What they are suggestimg is nothing more than a registry does not save lives. Chicago is proof.

    • steve June 21, 2019, 7:48 pm

      its our right to own and bear last i checked you dont need a permit to practice your religion or your right to a lawer? wake up America!

  • Nobody June 21, 2019, 12:12 pm

    Wow. I don’t know about the rest of you but I was not given a chance to participate in this pole and I sure as hell would not support it and pay for it. It’s bull when they say the driving a car is the same. I have a hazmat on my license and it costs me an extra $120 every 5 years ever since the Oklahoma City bombing and 9-11. Just another example of the law abiding having to cover the cost of the extra security measures they all talk about. This is all disappointing that they think we are so stupid to play along with paying them to take away the second amendment. I’m over all the STUPID

  • OKieman June 21, 2019, 12:00 pm

    Substitute “book” for handgun in the Bill.

    It’s easily demonstrable that more people have been killed because of books than all the handguns ever made (let’s start with “The Communist Manifesto” and “Mein Kampf” and go on from there), and then ask the sponsors of the Bill if they support that, and if it still squares with their oath to “bear true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution.

  • Clarence June 21, 2019, 11:35 am

    You were on point with your statement until you said, “ALL Africans need to be licensed like dogs under the 13th Amendment for their very right to exist!” Who the fuck do you think you are you racist piece of shit? It’s people like you who the cause for all of the racial tensions in the country and you call for another civil war as if your ass would be out there fight, which I’m sure you would not be. But I guess you forgot this county was built on the back of the Africans whom we stolen from their lands, and by their sacrifices America was able to gain wealth during the rage were cotton and tobacco were kings among other thing they forced to grow and collect. I wish I knew ex6were you were, I’d meet you face to face and I bet on my life tour ass would be saying the shit you posted to a African man or womans face, but as 99% of you racist fucks like you, the internet is your platform due to your down right fearfulness to speak your hated in public

  • 33Charlemagne June 21, 2019, 11:20 am

    The cite of Missouri is interesting for a coupe of reasons. First whenever the grabbers cite “gun violence” or “gun homicide” you know they are cherry icking their data because it’s TOTALS that count not murder or violence by just one means. Second Missouri’s murder rate did go up right after they repealed their licensing law in 2007 but went right back down in 2009 and stayed down until 2015. At that point any increase in murders is more likely to be due to less aggressive policing in the aftermath of the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson in 2014 than a change in gun laws eight years earlier.

  • Stephen Ostroski June 21, 2019, 10:58 am

    Of course the snake from Connecticut brought this bill up with the puppet from Connecticut backing it

  • Steve Taylor June 21, 2019, 10:36 am

    The “ugly woman party” strikes again. Well, they had to do something besides fight the president on every issue possible.

  • Jay June 21, 2019, 10:32 am

    My Freedoms are not given or granted by any government! My Freedoms are given and endowed by Our Creator and any government that wants to dictate what my freedoms and Liberty’s are is exactly what this Nation was founded over, TYRANNY!!

  • Buddy June 21, 2019, 10:32 am

    Rights are not something permitted or something you have to pay for! Period! They are rights!!

  • The SGM June 21, 2019, 10:12 am

    Another step in legislating an elimination of the 2nd Amendment without the Congressional requirement to amend or do away with the amendment.
    You will notice that the Congressmen noted are all from the NE Cuomo and Blumenthal Mob.

  • John June 21, 2019, 10:11 am

    This is a stupid bill.

  • Chick June 21, 2019, 9:29 am

    BS. What they are saying is that we do not have a 2nd Amendment right to own firearms.

  • Jon Lytle June 21, 2019, 9:09 am

    I hate the comparison of licensing cars, hunting and fishing to firearms. My firearms are stored on private property, I also use them on private property. Cars, hunting and fishing are all public, hence the requirements for licensing. You also don’t need a license, if you drive your vehicle, hunt or fish on private property, only public. Also, firearms carried in public are already licensed with CCW licenses.

    • Terry Lairsey June 21, 2019, 3:23 pm


    • Charles Moore June 21, 2019, 4:22 pm

      One other MINOR point that has been “overlooked;” hunters and fishermen/women VOLUNTEERED to adopt a system of licenses, stamps, etc., in order to finance the preservation of habitat, etc, and expand opportunities for greater numbers of the public to participate and share in our natural bounty. Non-hunters/fishers and non-gun owners don’t contribute a DIME.

  • RJ June 21, 2019, 9:00 am

    We already have this, it’s called CCW.

  • Richard W Sands June 21, 2019, 8:47 am

    Another thinly veiled total gun control program funded by by the arch-enemy of the 2nd Amendment, Michael Bloomberg.

  • pete Faz June 21, 2019, 8:38 am

    To be a Democrat in todays America is to be a traitor

    • Stephen Ostroski June 21, 2019, 11:01 am

      To vote for a Socialist Democrats is treason

  • Bad Penguin June 21, 2019, 8:33 am

    Lets see… Johns Hopkins….. ……….

    I believe they are located in a state, Maryland, that already has this requirement and is located in a city, Baltimore, that is ranked as the most dangerous place in america for per capita gun (pistol) related shootings and shooting deaths. Almost all of the gun crime happens in Baltimore and Prince Georges County while there is almost none in the majority of the state so why is everyone being punished.

    Maryland already has some of the strictest gun laws in america yet they lead the nation in firearm crime. So how is this proposed law going to change anything?

  • Ron June 21, 2019, 8:30 am

    I’ve been a Missouri resident since 2001. The state stopped the purchase permits in 2007 due to it being found unconstitutional. The raise in gun deaths are due to higher violence in St. Louis and K. C. Those criminals that are driving up the statistics are using street guns stolen and resold. Also St. Louis’s Attorney Kim Gardner isn’t doing a damn thing to prosecute these thugs. In fact she works against the police in trying to solve the violence in the city.

  • Mark A Gutsmiedl June 21, 2019, 8:29 am

    Driving is a privilege. Firearm ownership is a right. This is right up there with registration. Sure as hell will not stop criminals from getting guns. Just another burden on the firearm owners and the states and local law enforcement. Not to mention another easy to make us pay!

    • ed June 21, 2019, 12:54 pm

      wrong. travelling is a right. which makes this another bad comparison; you shouldnt be regulating my use of the roads. nor should you regulate if i want to purchase protection.

      false analogy, because they PRESUME they own my use of the road.

      Look up right to travel

  • Jumbotuna June 21, 2019, 8:23 am

    Brought to us by none other than Danang Dick Blumenthal, a proven liar guilty of stolen valor. How this scum keeps getting re-elected is mind boggling.

  • Jack Trainer June 21, 2019, 8:10 am

    Democrats are such hypocrites! Why don’t we require a license to vote? Because they say its racist. So in this case they are willing to overlook this.

    Can you imagine the outrage if a background check , fingerprints and photo were needed to vote?

    This is the only argument needed against the PTP.

  • Griffo June 21, 2019, 7:44 am

    Let’s do the if-then scenario.
    If: this law passes and we need licensing with a background check and fingerprints.
    Then: we should be free to purchase for five years WITHOUT a background check for every purchase and should be able to move freely between the states for the same time period.
    That’s logic which would make the anti-gunners heads explode.

    • iJack June 21, 2019, 10:28 am

      • Until I read this, I imagined it was established law pretty much everywhere. I had to comply with everything on the list except supplying the photograph. My local cop-shop completed the (national) background check while I was filling out the form, and the whole thing was only about $20.

      • OTOH, I see an opportunity here. Since this bill is a proposal for a 𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 law we could and should lobby for it to include two additional clauses:

      1. If we have to purchase a permit in our home states, then said permit shall be good 𝙞𝙣 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙨.

      2. If a person over 21 has been found worthy of purchasing a handgun, then that person should equally be considered worthy of 𝙘𝙖𝙧𝙧𝙮𝙞𝙣𝙜 that gun – openly or concealed – 𝙞𝙣 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙨.

  • srsquidizen June 21, 2019, 7:44 am

    As the good senator enjoys a porterhouse with fine wine tonight, courtesy of we who pay him to come up with dumb ideas that infringe on our rights, he should note that his steak knife and corkscrew can also kill when in the hands of a criminal so inclined. By his logic, shouldn’t he have a government permit to own them?

  • John Scarborough June 21, 2019, 7:26 am

    So the Dems do what they do best. If they can’t pass laws with logic and common sense, offer them bribes.

  • BradB June 21, 2019, 7:06 am

    We have had this in Iowa for a long time. You either get the one year permit to purchase for $25 or the five year CCW for $50. Guess what most people get.

    Once you have either you can purchase all you want without further background checks. The FBI does not get pinged each time even if you are buying several in a day. To my view it separates the trusted gun owners from everybody else and gives law enforcement something clearly actionable when a bad guy has a gun.

    This all depends on what your state decides to do with it. It’s a far cry from universal registration. I can see some states carrying it too far, but those are likely states that already carry gun control too far. I can see other states adopting a common sense approach like Iowa. I am 100% 2A supporting but do not have a problem with trying to make sure it’s geared toward responsible, law-abiding citizens.

    What I would like to see added to this bill would be national reciprocity. With my Iowa driver’s license I can drive in any state of the union. We need to remove the legal pitfalls of traveling with a CCW firearm.

    • Zupglick June 21, 2019, 11:35 am

      You can’t drive in New York City unless you get a New York City driver’s license.

  • Bruce Johnston June 21, 2019, 6:45 am

    Owning or driving a car isn’t a right, gun ownership is.

  • Mike June 21, 2019, 6:13 am

    Great idea, more federal bureaucracies and programs. The country is so deep in the red, how will this be funded and paid for?

    The light just went on…Legal gun owners of course!

    I can see the line now for FFL transfers, NCIS checks and waiting periods for the criminals, because they will obey and comply. Another “feel good” democrap program

  • Lyle June 21, 2019, 4:38 am

    It sickens me to hear about gun control . The punishment for murder is life in prison 3 square meals a day , cable tv , a roof over your head and school if you desire oh and internet . All things law abiding citizens work hard for. I like my guns they are fun to shoot and collect and nice to know if someone comes into my house I have that option . Let’s talk death penalty not gun control , quit housing these useless members of society and burdening the tax payers. That’s what they should talk about ! I’m sick of it , don’t wait 20 years own the road either, bottom line is the bad guy will always be able to get his hands on a gun and I should have the right to defend my home. How’s the war on drugs going ? They still seem to find what they want and will do whatever to get it ,the people running this country don’t have a clue it’s time to retool the government downsize like everyone else had to do ,just sickens me.

  • Dan Snyder June 20, 2019, 10:35 am

    Require voter ID with this bill.

  • Dr Motown June 20, 2019, 8:53 am

    I can\’t wait for the all the criminals to submit to a retroactive NICS check and fingerprinting

  • John June 19, 2019, 8:33 pm

    As with any other -additional- laws on guns, or their purchase, this impacts only LEGAL gun owners and not the thug or criminal types.

  • Will Drider June 19, 2019, 7:30 pm

    The anti gun asshats want the Feds to pay cash to States BUY THEIR SUPPORT so States will enactment Laws another infringement on the 2A and have States make more money via PTP processing burdening handgun buyers. Some how they would kill private sales because “loophole”.

    The anti gun asshats want this in place as a foot-in-the-door. Then it will be changed to include all firearms, and ammo and then it will be required for “Ownership” of all your currently owned firearms and require renewal. It will be registration by default and registration only works when they can track every transaction: no private sales or transfers without a FFL, NICS and the new PTP.

    Did they forget to list the DNA Sample requirement?

    If Bloomberg money can’t buy the gun control they want, they’ll try to get Fed money to do it.

  • Bryan Potratz June 19, 2019, 5:39 pm

    The disingenuousness is staggering.
    One does NOT need a permit or license to purchase a motor vehicle, only to use it on public roads.

    • Dan June 21, 2019, 8:16 am

      Yes, the CSGV lies are staggering.

      “The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence applauded the bill, arguing that most Americans want PTP laws on the books. ”

      “Recent polling shows that 77 percent of Americans support requiring licenses to purchase firearms. This legislation is evidence-based, politically popular, and should be supported by elected officials on both sides of the aisle,” said CSGV executive director Josh Horwitz. ”

      “America’s gun violence epidemic is out of control; it is time to focus on life-saving, meaningful solutions like the Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act,” he continued. ”

      The real evidence shows the opposite is actually true. Gun violence in the US has been decreasing for decades, and there is no proof that 77 percent of the people support that scam. Only a carefully selected group of people took that so called ‘recent poll’.

      That homicide rate in Chicago graph also shows that their PTP failed to reduce homicides.

  • SuperG June 19, 2019, 10:36 am

    So a NICS check before you buy, and then a NICS check after you buy. Another Orwellian law and a money grab at the same time. The civil war draws closer.

  • Sepp W June 18, 2019, 7:41 pm

    “The evidence is clear: sensible handgun laws save lives. All states require licenses to drive a car or hunt or fish – so why not handguns, which can kill? Requiring a license to purchase a deadly weapon is at least as important as requiring one to drive a car,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal.

    Blumenthal is a liar and he has been given a pass many times by the democrats and the media, and his voting base that put him in office. The difference in the above analogy is that driving a car is privilege, not a right, therefore it is regulated. Owning a firearm is a right and an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights and certain aspects of firearm ownership is also heavily regulated (e.g. silencers, machineguns, etc). And even though we evolved from hunters and gatherers, hunting and fishing seems to be a privilege since it too is heavily regulated. As long as it’s something to infringe or abrogate a right the democrats, aka radicalized liberals, will do it instead of addressing the real problem; people. People that have mental disorders or illnesses and take the measures to treat them and add to NICS database so they can cannot purchase a firearm until such time they have been medically cleared. FIREARMS DON”T KILL, BUT CAN BE USED TO KILL! And finally Dick, remember in the liberal dystopia, there are no criminals, only crime. Any licensing scheme only affects law-abiding citizens. It has 0 effect on criminals.

    • Andrew Ling June 21, 2019, 7:57 am

      Well said. Nothing is further from the truth. Politicians are like the spineless moreys, deep in the ocean.
      They sway with the current to catch a morsel, without having to work for it. How convenient it is to sway with the ignorant and garner their all important morsels they hand out. It will catch up to them, someday, because criminals are not going to abide by the whims of these elected libtards.

  • J June 18, 2019, 6:42 pm
  • J June 18, 2019, 6:38 pm

    A judge in Illinois recently issued a decree stating twice stating the Illinois FOID Act (Foid Card) as unconstitutional. The Illinois Attorney General has appealed this decision to Illinois Supreme Court. Since the Chicago democrats control Illinois, they do not like the idea of the FOID Act being unconstitutional and going away.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend