User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/5/2015 2:41:17 PM EDT
[#1]
Tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2015 3:20:51 PM EDT
[#2]
Facebook is celebrating this like it's the second coming. Am I missing something or is this not pointless because even if it does get to dumbasses desk he will NEVER sign it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2015 3:48:58 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Facebook is celebrating this like it's the second coming. Am I missing something or is this not pointless because even if it does get to dumbasses desk he will NEVER sign it Unfortunately this....... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2015 6:23:29 PM EDT
[#4]
Hopefully like the green tip ammo crap having support from law makers will pressure them to back off.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2015 6:39:20 PM EDT
[#5]
There are probably 1000's of these little amendments or provisions in these type of budget bills. I highly doubt the entire budget would be veto'd at the executive level just because of this one provision amongst so many if it passes the house and senate.
Bigger challenge in my mind is this clearing the senate without the amendment being stripped back out. That is where the greatest risk likely is. But I'm optimistic given the whole 41P thing isn't really a headline news item that this could just sail by like a ship in the night. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2015 6:43:40 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are probably 1000's of these little amendments or provisions in these type of budget bills. I highly doubt the entire budget would be veto'd at the executive level just because of this one provision amongst so many if it passes the house and senate. Bigger challenge in my mind is this clearing the senate without the amendment being stripped back out. That is where the greatest risk likely is. But I'm optimistic given the whole 41P thing isn't really a headline news item that this could just sail by like a ship in the night. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2015 6:50:08 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Facebook is celebrating this like it's the second coming. Am I missing something or is this not pointless because even if it does get to dumbasses desk he will NEVER sign it It is part of on-going appropriations bill, he will sign just like he signed other pro-gun legislation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2015 7:15:45 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unfortunately this....... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Facebook is celebrating this like it's the second coming. Am I missing something or is this not pointless because even if it does get to dumbasses desk he will NEVER sign it Unfortunately this....... 
He signed the carry in parks bill, after it was attached to a funding bill |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2015 9:14:26 PM EDT
[#9]
Did I read correctly that the CLEO signature would be eliminated but you still have to send photo, finger prints and a copy of the form to the CLEO? That still is more shit I rather not deal with given i go the trust route. I still have to do a background check when I take my cans into possession which is enough. Either way seems to be a lot of happenings going on, its a start for the ASA on the compromising end. On the open minded compromising end since we did not get "shall sign" here in Texas with this go round it would be cool but I stick by my 41P ATF reply that it should be dropped.
eta: see above strike 
ETA2: never mind it was context of the old admin. supporting eliminating the CLEO sign at a point prior to 41P but would include the other individual requirements (photo, fingerprints & copy of form to CLEO ) Rock it out ASA, I am going to go sit down now
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2015 9:23:14 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryHe signed the carry in parks bill, after it was attached to a funding bill ^this. Thank goodness there are no line-item vetos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2015 9:29:37 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did I read correctly that the CLEO signature would be eliminated but you still have to send photo, finger prints and a copy of the form to the CLEO? That still is more shit I rather not deal with given i go the trust route. I still have to do a background check when I take my cans into possession which is enough. Either way seems to be a lot of happenings going on, its a start for the ASA on the compromising end. On the open minded compromising end since we did not get "shall sign" here in Texas with this go round it would be cool but I stick by my 41P ATF reply that it should be dropped. eta: see above strike I think it's just a bit of word play. They are saying that photos, prints and backgrounds are currently done by the ATF, eliminating the need for CLEO sign off. Obviously for individuals only but they don't get specific... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2015 8:03:20 AM EDT
[#12]
Oh how I wish it read like this:
On June 3rd, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the fiscal year 2016 Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations bill, H.R. 2578 by a 242 – 183 margin. Included in H.R. 2578 is an American Suppressor Association backed provision to repeal 922(o). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2015 3:27:04 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh how I wish it read like this: On June 3rd, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the fiscal year 2016 Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations bill, H.R. 2578 by a 242 – 183 margin. Included in H.R. 2578 is an American Suppressor Association backed provision to repeal 922(o). Make you wonder how hard it would be to slip it in to one of those bills that "must be passed" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2015 10:31:01 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh how I wish it read like this: On June 3rd, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the fiscal year 2016 Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations bill, H.R. 2578 by a 242 – 183 margin. Included in H.R. 2578 is an American Suppressor Association backed provision to repeal 922(o). I was just thinking this as I read the OP |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 11:25:22 PM EDT
[#15]
http://appropriations.house.gov/legislation/
I opened the bill but I couldn't find the language anymore......did someone get rid of that provision? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2015 4:40:32 PM EDT
[#16]
I found this thread in a search... I'm surprised there isn't more talk about this on ARFCOM.
This is HUGE if it passes through the senate, as is... we won't have to worry about 41P or any sort of ammo ban because Obama will sign. Those issues, while huge to us, are rather low-priority for the anti-gun dickheads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2015 5:57:04 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I found this thread in a search... I'm surprised there isn't more talk about this on ARFCOM. This is HUGE if it passes through the senate, as is... we won't have to worry about 41P or any sort of ammo ban because Obama will sign. Those issues, while huge to us, are rather low-priority for the anti-gun dickheads. Indeed. Not much to do but hope and wait. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:21:25 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh how I wish it read like this: On June 3rd, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the fiscal year 2016 Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations bill, H.R. 2578 by a 242 – 183 margin. Included in H.R. 2578 is an American Suppressor Association backed provision to repeal 922(o). 922(o) is about machine guns...not 41p. I fully support repealing (o), but me thinks someone made a typo... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:47:11 AM EDT
[#19]
Once again, the version on the .gov website doesn't contain the language anymore. Unless something changes, there's really nothing to be happy about anymore.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:09:29 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Facebook is celebrating this like it's the second coming. Am I missing something or is this not pointless because even if it does get to dumbasses desk he will NEVER sign it Like the OP said, Obungo will sign it if he wants FY 2016 funding for DoC, DoJ, and NSF among others. This is not the major purpose of the bill, and it's how stuff gets done in DC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:13:07 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Make you wonder how hard it would be to slip it in to one of those bills that "must be passed" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Oh how I wish it read like this: On June 3rd, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the fiscal year 2016 Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations bill, H.R. 2578 by a 242 – 183 margin. Included in H.R. 2578 is an American Suppressor Association backed provision to repeal 922(o). Make you wonder how hard it would be to slip it in to one of those bills that "must be passed" Could be done, and could have been done every year since 1987. Nobody was much interested in 922(o) until fairly recently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:22:44 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Once again, the version on the .gov website doesn't contain the language anymore. Unless something changes, there's really nothing to be happy about anymore. The amendments haven't been stripped out. Whatever's on the website is irrelevant. ETA: You must have missed it somehow. The Amendment is still listed. It's Amendment 320 sponsored by John Carter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:17:29 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The amendments haven't been stripped out. Whatever's on the website is irrelevant. ETA: You must have missed it somehow. The Amendment is still listed. It's Amendment 320 sponsored by John Carter. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2578/amendments?q=%7B%22house-sponsor%22%3A%22Carter%2C+John+R.+%5BR-TX%5D%22%7D Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Once again, the version on the .gov website doesn't contain the language anymore. Unless something changes, there's really nothing to be happy about anymore. The amendments haven't been stripped out. Whatever's on the website is irrelevant. ETA: You must have missed it somehow. The Amendment is still listed. It's Amendment 320 sponsored by John Carter. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2578/amendments?q=%7B%22house-sponsor%22%3A%22Carter%2C+John+R.+%5BR-TX%5D%22%7D You may be 100% correct, I'm not 100% sure which is valid and which is not. I was looking here: http://appropriations.house.gov/legislation/ On all 4 CJS bills, I could not find anything about the CLEO provision. I previously was able to find ammendment so I assumed that it had been pulled. It very well could still be there and I was looking at the incorrect version. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 5:07:01 PM EDT
[#24]
thoughts and prayers..... please include the language and please pass.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 5:29:00 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You may be 100% correct, I'm not 100% sure which is valid and which is not. I was looking here: http://appropriations.house.gov/legislation/ On all 4 CJS bills, I could not find anything about the CLEO provision. I previously was able to find ammendment so I assumed that it had been pulled. It very well could still be there and I was looking at the incorrect version. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Once again, the version on the .gov website doesn't contain the language anymore. Unless something changes, there's really nothing to be happy about anymore. The amendments haven't been stripped out. Whatever's on the website is irrelevant. ETA: You must have missed it somehow. The Amendment is still listed. It's Amendment 320 sponsored by John Carter. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2578/amendments?q=%7B%22house-sponsor%22%3A%22Carter%2C+John+R.+%5BR-TX%5D%22%7D You may be 100% correct, I'm not 100% sure which is valid and which is not. I was looking here: http://appropriations.house.gov/legislation/ On all 4 CJS bills, I could not find anything about the CLEO provision. I previously was able to find ammendment so I assumed that it had been pulled. It very well could still be there and I was looking at the incorrect version. Click on house amendment agreed to on the left and you'll see its still there. "H.Amdt.320 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) Description:Amendment prohibits the use of funds to propose or to issue a rule that would change the Chief Law Enforcement Officer certificate requirement with respect to purchase of suppressors and other firearms regulated by the National Firearms Act. Sponsor:Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX-31] (Offered 06/02/2015) Latest Action:06/03/15 On agreeing to the Carter (TX) amendment (A052) Agreed to by voice vote." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 8:46:40 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Click on house amendment agreed to on the left and you'll see its still there. "H.Amdt.320 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) Description:Amendment prohibits the use of funds to propose or to issue a rule that would change the Chief Law Enforcement Officer certificate requirement with respect to purchase of suppressors and other firearms regulated by the National Firearms Act. Sponsor:Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX-31] (Offered 06/02/2015) Latest Action:06/03/15 On agreeing to the Carter (TX) amendment (A052) Agreed to by voice vote." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Once again, the version on the .gov website doesn't contain the language anymore. Unless something changes, there's really nothing to be happy about anymore. The amendments haven't been stripped out. Whatever's on the website is irrelevant. ETA: You must have missed it somehow. The Amendment is still listed. It's Amendment 320 sponsored by John Carter. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2578/amendments?q=%7B%22house-sponsor%22%3A%22Carter%2C+John+R.+%5BR-TX%5D%22%7D You may be 100% correct, I'm not 100% sure which is valid and which is not. I was looking here: http://appropriations.house.gov/legislation/ On all 4 CJS bills, I could not find anything about the CLEO provision. I previously was able to find ammendment so I assumed that it had been pulled. It very well could still be there and I was looking at the incorrect version. Click on house amendment agreed to on the left and you'll see its still there. "H.Amdt.320 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) Description:Amendment prohibits the use of funds to propose or to issue a rule that would change the Chief Law Enforcement Officer certificate requirement with respect to purchase of suppressors and other firearms regulated by the National Firearms Act. Sponsor:Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX-31] (Offered 06/02/2015) Latest Action:06/03/15 On agreeing to the Carter (TX) amendment (A052) Agreed to by voice vote." Ahhh, gotcha. I originally viewed the pdf through a direct link. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 12:07:38 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like the OP said, Obungo will sign it if he wants FY 2016 funding for DoC, DoJ, and NSF among others. This is not the major purpose of the bill, and it's how stuff gets done in DC. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Facebook is celebrating this like it's the second coming. Am I missing something or is this not pointless because even if it does get to dumbasses desk he will NEVER sign it Like the OP said, Obungo will sign it if he wants FY 2016 funding for DoC, DoJ, and NSF among others. This is not the major purpose of the bill, and it's how stuff gets done in DC. this. how old are some here that they don't stand how this works? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
