WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced legislation to prevent guns from getting into the hands of sex offenders who prey on children. Federal law prohibits persons convicted of a felony from buying, selling, or possessing guns or ammunition, yet it is perfectly legal for someone convicted a misdemeanor sex crime against a minor to acquire a firearm. The Keep Kids Safe Act of 2016 would close this safety gap, making it illegal under federal law for someone convicted of a misdemeanor sex crime against a child to transfer, acquire or possess firearms or ammunition. Full Article
Related posts
-
Senators call for audit of TSA’s facial recognition tech as use expands in airports | The Record from Recorded Future News
Source: therecord.media 11/22/24 A bipartisan group of 12 senators on Wednesday sent the Department of Homeland... -
-
SORNA Case Advances in Federal Court; PLF Files Motion for Summary Judgment
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed a motion for summary judgment on November 18 in its...
LOL , he is going the wrong way , i think it should be against the law to not own a gun of some kind , Everyone , people can chose to use it , or not ,,
So someone who committed a sex crime of looking at a pornographic image of a 16 year old is likely to go out and shoot someone? So let’s not allow them to own guns. However for the adults & parents who beat kids and get charged with misdemeanor battery…..well, they can keep their firearms
I got one- Why not create a new law that bans the Internet from any person convicted of a Sex Offense?
His email and other contact information if anyone wants to call.
https://jerroldnadler.house.gov/Forms/WriteYourRep/default.aspx
Washington, DC Office
2109 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-5635
Manhattan Office
201 Varick Street, Suite 669
New York, NY 10014
Phone: 212-367-7350
Brooklyn Office
6605 Fort Hamilton Parkway
Brooklyn, NY 11219
Phone: 718-373-3198
Wot about the NRA ?? I thought they always come a’ runnin whenever the second amendment is threatened ? Oops, I forgot we don’t count…
like I’ve said these laws are going to keep coming until someone challenges the justification for these laws the courts were lied to and manipulated by legislators using some junk statistic by some retard that had no qualifications to even opine on the subject until that false data that was used to justify these laws is introduced into the record and the justification for these laws are challenged the dominoes are going to continue to fall forever one after the other
i meant to say that until the false data that was used to justify these laws is challenged and the real data is introduced into the record we can then challenge the Courts justification for these laws
Every time i hear something like this, i cannot help but thing the true reason maybe simply be to remind people that most registrants don’t have guns. You can easily kill a registrant and they cannot defend themselves or their own family easily or legally.
Figures, someone that AQ unfortunately missed is sponsoring this bill.
Email the NRA and tell them next were going after the drunk drivers. Let them think were helping push this RSO bill, act like just a member of the public. Make sure you add the Congressman’s name some where in it.
ha ha fight dirty.
Sometimes I think the media is to blame for a lot of the myths and downright lies that are told about people who have been charged and convicted of sex offences, then the scum lawmakers jump on the wagon along with other ill inform people and the train just keeps rolling faster and faster until it is nearly impossible to stop.
I just cannot believe that after a person has served his or her time or whatever punishment was dished out that it is legal to keep adding more restriction and punishment after the facts. This gun bill will probably pass just like IML and the 100s if not thousands of other laws put in place across this country with little or no facts to back them up.
I am shocked that this has continued even after so many years being beat down, no matter how many times I stand backup this BS continues. All I can say is what’s next? I have built up from nothing, have a great family, A good job, pay my taxes, where are the other RCs? Where is our Army?
This is media, and the lawmakers and how they twist the facts.
A King enrolled his donkey in a race & won.
Local paper read :
‘ KING’s Az WON
The king was so upset with this kind of publicity that he gave the donkey to the queen.
The local paper then read:
“QUEEN HAS THE BEST Az IN TOWN”
The king fainted…
Queen sold the donkey to a farmer for 10$.
Next day paper read:
“QUEEN SELLS HER Az FOR $10”
The queen fainted…
The next day king ordered the queen to buy back the donkey and leave it in jungle.
The Next day Headlines :
“QUEEN ANNOUNCES HER Az IS FREE & WILD”
The king died… !!
That’s M e d i a….!!!
Maybe someone would like to comment on this. I heard some states including the federal government offer a “relief from firearms disability” I know it’s nearly impossible for felons to get the federal government to restore firearm ownership privileges unless it’s thru some pardon. However some states do offer relief as long as they didn’t commit a federal crime as well as violate certain state statues. From my understanding some states do allow convicted felons & misdemeanants to own long guns. I heard Pennsylvania even allows pistol ownership as long as the crime wasn’t federal or violent in nature, So I don’t think it’s totally hopeless for some RSO’s to protect their home & family from the nuts.
My reading of the text is that it would apply to RSOs whose crimes involves actual sex acts with children, not CP.
“(B) The term `sex offense’ means a criminal offense that has, as an element, a sexual act or sexual contact with another, or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such an offense.”
The DOJ reported low reoffense rate of registrants contradicts Alito’s namecalling registrants as ‘pedophiles’. Nadler also does this on one of his pages. He refers to the targets of his legislation as ‘pedophiles’. The inappropriate and untrue namecalling has to stop. Statistically, rrgistrants are not responsible current sex crimes. I knew there was bound to be a clash, with registrants not reoffending after years and decades and newly energized legislation targetting registrants ( thanks Zuck and Kelly of FaceBook ) against those who have not reofffended in decades and will continue to not reoffend. It’s almost as if Kelly and FaceBook put the message out to all legislators in the US and wherever in the world they can get the message out, that that they are paying good money for any legislation against registrants in any way. Kelly did travel the 50 states on the FaceBook dime. Kelly seems to have taken a role keeping himself visibly on the sidelines, while his bribe money speaks loud and clear. I have no other explanation for the myriad of new anti-sex offender legislation coming from politicians that had not made this their main agenda in the past. Kelly is not listed as a supporter of Hillary in the Hillary supporter webpage of wikipedia, when he obviously is pulling strings. Kelly’s company FaceBook played a big role in getting Obama elected and plays a big role in the 2016 election. Kelly hosted a fundraiser for Hillary at his house. Yet, he is not an official supporter of Hillary. Something smells here. The sheer amount of anti-registrant legislation coming out after Kelly has been fought on internet identifiers is baffling otherwise. Even the Judge on IML dismissed a part of a lawsuit against FaceBook although allowing it to proceed on weak grounds. She gutted the lawsuit, even though news articles in their headline say how she allowed it to proceed. When it comes to all these new and strange anti-registrant legislation as of late, I do not throw my hands up in the air, look to the sky and say ‘why god?’ or ‘how could you do this to me, America?’. I just say ‘Thanks Kelly and FaceBook’.
Here’s a good article from 3 years ago about this subject.
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2013/05/dont-registered-sex-offenders-need-gun-rights-for-personal-self-defense-more-than-others.html
Seems the laws and rights of registrants are changing by the day though at this point.
Another article where Nadler apparently did this 11 years ago. I don’t understand if it was done away with then, why should it be allowed to be brought back now? It really is a witch hunt towards registrants. A new proposed law comes out every week it seems. Each one, limiting our rights, more and more. How is this stuff not considered punishment and better yet, how is it NOT obvious that we are being targetted?
http://www.vpc.org/press/press-release-archive/sex-offender-registry-bill-scheduled-to-be-considered-by-house-today-will-allow-misdemeanor-sex-offenders-continued-access-to-guns-despite-ban-passed-by-house-on-voice-vote-on-similar-bill-last-year/
So it looks like I did not do my research this guy. I only looked at Nadller pre-FaceBook, in 2003 where he…
“Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.
Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would assign a national coordinator for AMBER alerts. AMBER alerts is an alert system for missing children, make available additional protections for children and set stricter punishments for sex offenders. Two-time child sex offenders would be subjected to mandatory life sentence. The measure would make it a crime to pander visual illustrations of children as child pornography. It would increase maximum sentences for a number of specified crimes against children. It would also make it a crime to take a trip to foreign countries and engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor. It also would enlarge law enforcement’s wiretap and electronic surveillance abilities in investigations of child pornography.
Reference: Child Abduction Prevention Act; Bill S 151 ; vote number 2003-127 on Apr 10, 2003”
He actually voted No on this. So that’s what threw me off. He seemed to be somewhat intelligent. What changed?
I didn’t look at what he started doing once FaceBook came into existence in 2004 and onward as far as just wantonly trying to strip not-necessarily violent people of their Second Amendment rights. Kelly may not have originally thought up the ban on guns, although he might have been part of some think tank that had input into its initial proposal, but I would have to think he supports this legislation. If he would sacrifice the First Amendment to get at registrants, I don’t see why he wouldn’t also decimate the Second Amendment.
I smell another HASTERT!
Nadler first rightly voted NO on the Amber Alert expansion bill that would mandate a life prison sentence for someone who committed 2 crimes like John Walsh admitted committing. Now, he’s done a 180 degree turn and says all sex offenders are violent predators. Even a 18 year old woman who flashs her breasts at 17 year old teenagers. I wouldn’t trust Nadler farther than I could throw him.