Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 2/22/2007 11:38:10 AM EST
H.R. 1096: To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans

No text is available for the bill (as of the original posting) but I'm intrigued to see what it says.

I'm especially intrigued because this has been submitted to the same committee which is reviewing that horrid H.R. 1022 - Reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban.

Let's keep an eye on this one and see where it goes...

_MaH
Link Posted: 2/22/2007 2:44:21 PM EST
No co-sponsors yet.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 4:03:15 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/23/2007 5:04:31 AM EST by patrick123]
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 5:01:23 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/23/2007 5:02:49 AM EST by Longboat]
Sounds good, however I think the addition of the repeal of the Child Safety Lock Act will kill it.

Saying that you have to provide or sell a cheap lock with a handgun isn't an issue for me. In fact most PDs will give you one for free. Just pick up a lock, take it with you to the dealer, show the lock to dealer, walk out with handgun. I know it is sad, but it keeps the Mothers of America happy and out of our hobby.


Just seems a little too much to put on one plate. I do like the removal of the sporting use clause. Hope it gets somewhere.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 5:15:15 AM EST
I don't think eliminating background checks is going to help either. Maybe it will just get cut down to only include the removal of the sporting use clause.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 5:21:37 AM EST
Ron Paul does this every year, just as McCarthy does hers every year.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 7:41:20 AM EST
yeah, when i scrolled down to "Repeal of Child Safety Locks.."

People with no dog in this fight will vote against it for that very reason...


way too much ammunition for any opponent come re-election time....

how can you vote for him???

he voted to REPEAL the the CHILD SAFETY.....(it doesnt matter what follows here)....

yeah...
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 8:24:30 AM EST
Aw, dammit! When I saw the title of the bill my hopes got all high that the bill might actually have some balls to it!

Here's how you REALLY return the second amendment rights to the people:

- Repeal NFA
- Repeal the 1986 Machine Gun ban
- Disband the ATF

Will my (pipe) dream ever come true in my lifetime???

_MaH
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:39:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By Longboat:
Saying that you have to provide or sell a cheap lock with a handgun isn't an issue for me.



Originally Posted By patrick123:
I don't think eliminating background checks is going to help either.



I CANNOT BELIEVE you guys are defending gun laws.

This question has been overused, but what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?

This is how we lose our freedom. You become conditioned. You become accustomed to things that you previously fought tooth and nail against. You say "this far, but no further," yet when they go further, you take a step back and draw a new line in the sand. It's a joke, quite frankly. Grow some balls, and join GOA. The FIRST law that restricted the second amendment was too much, and went too far.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 2:05:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By v8unleashed:

Originally Posted By Longboat:
Saying that you have to provide or sell a cheap lock with a handgun isn't an issue for me.



Originally Posted By patrick123:
I don't think eliminating background checks is going to help either.



I CANNOT BELIEVE you guys are defending gun laws.

This question has been overused, but what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?

This is how we lose our freedom. You become conditioned. You become accustomed to things that you previously fought tooth and nail against. You say "this far, but no further," yet when they go further, you take a step back and draw a new line in the sand. It's a joke, quite frankly. Grow some balls, and join GOA. The FIRST law that restricted the second amendment was too much, and went too far.


Testicle check.. yep

You have to learn to pick your battles. I am not conditioned nor am I backing away. Be realistic about your goals. We are not the only voters out there. Some laws have to be written to make people feel good.

Give me a negative about a law that requires you to have a lock with a hand gun sale? Who does it hurt? Who does it help?

I will listen to the crickets while I wait for a good reason.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 2:35:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 2:35:51 PM EST by v8unleashed]

Originally Posted By Longboat:

Testicle check.. yep

You have to learn to pick your battles. I am not conditioned nor am I backing away. Be realistic about your goals. We are not the only voters out there. Some laws have to be written to make people feel good.

Give me a negative about a law that requires you to have a lock with a hand gun sale? Who does it hurt? Who does it help?

I will listen to the crickets while I wait for a good reason.



I would imagine it adds a tiny bit to the cost of the gun. It doesn't price you and me out of the market, but it could for some people.

You could probably come up with 100 laws that didn't "really" affect anyone. That's how they justify laws. "This won't REALLY affect you, and look at all the 'good' it will do." But if the justification for a law is that it won't REALLY affect anyone, you've just stepped into tyranny.

A lock is a step. You might say we'll never take a second step, but you know better. The next step is requiring the gun to be locked, and prosecuting people when they don't comply. And that next step will cost lives.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 3:00:45 PM EST
That is a pretty lame reason...

Ok, if a $2 gun lock puts you out of a firearm purchase.. maybe you should either rethink your budget, or maybe you spend your money on something else.

I know that most PD's will give away a lock. If you take that lock to the dealer, give it to him, he gives it back to you with the gun the law has been satisfied. While I am all for personal protection, having an unsecured firearm in a home can be dangerous. You may not have kids.. might not be something you think of.

I think it is pretty irresponsible to not have a way to secure a firearm in your home. You can't be with it 24/7. At some point you will go out to a place you can't take it and then what do you do? Leave it out on your night stand?

I know your home is your castle.. and people shouldn't go snooping around.. but it happens. Your defense of my kid shouldn't have been in that drawer won't hold up in court. Just as your defense of my friend shouldn't have touched it won't. The civil suit will eat you alive.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 3:08:24 PM EST
As sad as it is we all impulse buy. I am quite certain that non-shooters impulse buy too.

So take your non-shooter who is just getting into the sport. He buys his first handgun and it comes with a lock. If this was an impulse buy he might not have the proper method for storing it at home.

I don't think the gun lock law is a useless law.. quite on the contrary.. it has a good purpose. To help out the people who might not think about everything they need.

When I buy a car, I make sure the gas tank is full. It is a courtesy. When I buy a handgun, my dealer gives me a lock for free. Again same courtesy. In fact most of the major brands include a lock with the purchase anyways so it all works out in the end.

Still waiting for a good response...
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:18:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By Longboat:
I don't think the gun lock law is a useless law.. quite on the contrary.. it has a good purpose.



" 'USEFUL,' and 'necessity' was always 'the tyrant's plea'." -- C.S. Lewis
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:24:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 6:26:01 PM EST by patrick123]

Originally Posted By v8unleashed:

Originally Posted By Longboat:
Saying that you have to provide or sell a cheap lock with a handgun isn't an issue for me.



Originally Posted By patrick123:
I don't think eliminating background checks is going to help either.



I CANNOT BELIEVE you guys are defending gun laws.

This question has been overused, but what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?

This is how we lose our freedom. You become conditioned. You become accustomed to things that you previously fought tooth and nail against. You say "this far, but no further," yet when they go further, you take a step back and draw a new line in the sand. It's a joke, quite frankly. Grow some balls, and join GOA. The FIRST law that restricted the second amendment was too much, and went too far.


I CANNOT BELIEVE you think I'm defending a gun laws. I think removing background checks makes the bill unpassable. I would like to see the "sporting use" clause removed, but it won't happen if elimination of background checks has to come along with it. But thinking about it, you're right. I should grow some balls and hope more unpassable symbolic legislation comes about, because thats better than smaller bills that can be passed to regain infringed upon rights.

How about this for example? I'd like to see the NFA repealed as well. I'd love to be able to buy an affordable machine gun. I'd also like to see the elimination of the "sporting use" clauses. Would you support bundling those two issues into one bill as well? Too many politicians wouldn't touch "legalizing machine guns", but would repeal the "sporting use" clauses. I guess my point is, getting something done is better than getting nothing done.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 7:22:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By patrick123:

Originally Posted By v8unleashed:

Originally Posted By Longboat:
Saying that you have to provide or sell a cheap lock with a handgun isn't an issue for me.



Originally Posted By patrick123:
I don't think eliminating background checks is going to help either.



I CANNOT BELIEVE you guys are defending gun laws.

This question has been overused, but what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?

This is how we lose our freedom. You become conditioned. You become accustomed to things that you previously fought tooth and nail against. You say "this far, but no further," yet when they go further, you take a step back and draw a new line in the sand. It's a joke, quite frankly. Grow some balls, and join GOA. The FIRST law that restricted the second amendment was too much, and went too far.


I CANNOT BELIEVE you think I'm defending a gun laws. I think removing background checks makes the bill unpassable. I would like to see the "sporting use" clause removed, but it won't happen if elimination of background checks has to come along with it. But thinking about it, you're right. I should grow some balls and hope more unpassable symbolic legislation comes about, because thats better than smaller bills that can be passed to regain infringed upon rights.

How about this for example? I'd like to see the NFA repealed as well. I'd love to be able to buy an affordable machine gun. I'd also like to see the elimination of the "sporting use" clauses. Would you support bundling those two issues into one bill as well? Too many politicians wouldn't touch "legalizing machine guns", but would repeal the "sporting use" clauses. I guess my point is, getting something done is better than getting nothing done.


Sorry, I think I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were defending background checks. I guess I agree you've got to settle for what you can get passed at the time.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 7:41:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By v8unleashed:

Originally Posted By patrick123:

Originally Posted By v8unleashed:

Originally Posted By Longboat:
Saying that you have to provide or sell a cheap lock with a handgun isn't an issue for me.



Originally Posted By patrick123:
I don't think eliminating background checks is going to help either.



I CANNOT BELIEVE you guys are defending gun laws.

This question has been overused, but what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?

This is how we lose our freedom. You become conditioned. You become accustomed to things that you previously fought tooth and nail against. You say "this far, but no further," yet when they go further, you take a step back and draw a new line in the sand. It's a joke, quite frankly. Grow some balls, and join GOA. The FIRST law that restricted the second amendment was too much, and went too far.


I CANNOT BELIEVE you think I'm defending a gun laws. I think removing background checks makes the bill unpassable. I would like to see the "sporting use" clause removed, but it won't happen if elimination of background checks has to come along with it. But thinking about it, you're right. I should grow some balls and hope more unpassable symbolic legislation comes about, because thats better than smaller bills that can be passed to regain infringed upon rights.

How about this for example? I'd like to see the NFA repealed as well. I'd love to be able to buy an affordable machine gun. I'd also like to see the elimination of the "sporting use" clauses. Would you support bundling those two issues into one bill as well? Too many politicians wouldn't touch "legalizing machine guns", but would repeal the "sporting use" clauses. I guess my point is, getting something done is better than getting nothing done.


Sorry, I think I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were defending background checks. I guess I agree you've got to settle for what you can get passed at the time.


Thats ok, I probably wasn't clear enough in what I originally said.
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 2:46:51 PM EST
I'd settle for repealing the "sporting purposes" clauses and the machingun moratorium. Those are clear violations of the Second Amendment - the rest are debatable.
Top Top