Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Gun Trafficking Bill

by Categorized: Newtown, Washington Date:

A measure to combat illegal gun trafficking cleared its first hurdle in the Senate Thursday. The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in an 11-7 vote, with all Democrats and Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley voting in favor of the measure. Sen. Blumenthal is a member on the committee and a co-sponsor of the legislation.

The Stop Illegal Trafficking Act of 2013 is the first gun control measure voted on in Congress since Newtown. It would crack down on illegal trafficking and outlaw the practice of \’straw purchasing\’, when one person purchases a gun for someone prohibited from owning one. The bill would provide resources for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute illegal practices and would create sanctions for anyone who buys a gun with the intent to sell it to someone else.

Gun control advocates say federal action to outlaw trafficking is necessary to reduce gun violence throughout the states.

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

6 thoughts on “Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Gun Trafficking Bill

    1. Fake Thomas Jefferson

      Enjoy it today because that is the only one that might be passed by the full Senate, passage in the House is doubtful. Then at the Federal level all of this is over.

  1. Mitch

    Great. A solid piece of work, good for everyone. This would kind of fall into the “fast and furious” area, wouldn’t it as far as guns moving illegally to the wrong people.

    1. Randy DaRos

      In fact, Vice President Biden himself stated that they were not interested in prosecuting the 82,000 people who are caught lying on their ATF forms each year.

  2. dc

    I love how the comments get shut down when its something controversial and the editors dont want to hear too much dissent.

    Paul Z nailed it, enforce what’s on the books for chrissakes. Why make a new law you wont be able to enforce and add it on top of the old law that you’re not enforcing?

Comments are closed.