PRO GUN BILL BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - PRO GUN BILL BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 3/29/2006 4:17:35 PM EDT

[#1]

tag

Posted: 3/29/2006 4:19:14 PM EDT

[#2]

Lets contact our representatives ! We need to support these things !!!

LB

Posted: 3/29/2006 4:21:23 PM EDT

[#3]

Already done!

Posted: 3/30/2006 8:19:41 AM EDT

[#4]

btt

Posted: 3/30/2006 8:23:57 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Expands who can possess post 1986 machineguns

unless it says EVERY LAW ABIDING CITIZEN, it does not do enough expanding of who can posess post 86 mg's.

I want a go fast gun for less than the price of a car!!!

Posted: 3/30/2006 8:33:50 AM EDT

[#6]

Well state law might have something to say about owning machineguns

Posted: 3/30/2006 9:08:01 AM EDT

[#7]

btt

Posted: 3/30/2006 9:20:10 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
SO this allows importation of parts kits for replacements again, and makes it legal for security contractors to posses machine guns in the performance of their duties...

Eliminates SOME language in the Brady Bill, Eliminates the Background check fee, possesion od handguns by minors under certain circumstances...

Time to start my own security contractor company

Posted: 3/30/2006 9:24:19 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If rifle receivers are allowed to be imported, would that make the '89 Import Ban invalid?

No because they would have to be used for replacement or repair NOT FOR NEW GUNS.
And this does not include shotguns.

Its a direct smack at the ATF for their self-imposed recent barrel and reciever ban (since they claimed "repair and replacement only" was being abused, so they said no more "assault weapon" barrels or recievers could be imported). There arent any laws limiting shotgun importation, since they're all for sporting purposes (except the ones designated as destructive devices).

Kharn

Posted: 3/30/2006 9:37:12 AM EDT

[#10]

Not only is that whole deal not that beneficial, the part about allowing kids to use guns will get it shot dead instantly. It doesn't matter what it really means, that part right there just runied any chance of it being taken seriously.

Posted: 3/30/2006 10:05:22 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If rifle receivers are allowed to be imported, would that make the '89 Import Ban invalid?

No because they would have to be used for replacement or repair NOT FOR NEW GUNS.
And this does not include shotguns.
Its a direct smack at the ATF for their self-imposed recent barrel and reciever ban (since they claimed "repair and replacement only" was being abused, so they said no more "assault weapon" barrels or recievers could be imported). There arent any laws limiting shotgun importation, since they're all for sporting purposes (except the ones designated as destructive devices).

Kharn

But should it not codify shotgun recievers anyway?

Or is this another can of worms (DDs, sbs,)

Posted: 3/30/2006 10:06:05 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Not only is that whole deal not that beneficial, the part about allowing kids to use guns will get it shot dead instantly. It doesn't matter what it really means, that part right there just runied any chance of it being taken seriously.

How?

It's already had a hearing and probably will be voted on.

Posted: 3/30/2006 10:13:23 AM EDT

[#13]

The vote will not be good. Most people cringe at hearing the words gun and child in the same sentence, and a bill that would be "Letting children own guns" by the time it got to CNN would definately leave a black eye on any politician that voted for it.

The general population will freak out, even though they have no clue what it really means. The politicians probably know this as well. I honestly think they'd stand a better chance trying to repeal the 86' and 89' bans than pushing anything that allows children gun rights.

Time will tell, but I'd almost bet money it gets shot down.

Posted: 3/30/2006 10:18:32 AM EDT

[#14]

Not if you demand your rep and senators vote for it.

The public really doesn't care about gun bills.

CRC

Posted: 3/30/2006 10:19:21 AM EDT

[#15]

Contact your representative today!

Posted: 3/30/2006 10:23:14 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If rifle receivers are allowed to be imported, would that make the '89 Import Ban invalid?

No because they would have to be used for replacement or repair NOT FOR NEW GUNS.
And this does not include shotguns.
Its a direct smack at the ATF for their self-imposed recent barrel and reciever ban (since they claimed "repair and replacement only" was being abused, so they said no more "assault weapon" barrels or recievers could be imported). There arent any laws limiting shotgun importation, since they're all for sporting purposes (except the ones designated as destructive devices).

Kharn
But should it not codify shotgun recievers anyway?
Or is this another can of worms (DDs, sbs,)

It would be nice, but this bill just seems to hit on recent ATF problem areas rather than stopping new ones before they occur.

Kharn

Posted: 3/30/2006 4:32:45 PM EDT

[#17]

Gotcha

Posted: 3/30/2006 5:58:35 PM EDT

[#18]

Don't see anything that really makes a real substantial difference for the vast majority of gunowners.

Posted: 3/30/2006 6:15:01 PM EDT

[#19]

So I am supposed to get behind a bill written to give mercenaries machine guns in our country, but not allow the American Citizen the same thing?

After reading the bill, I am going to call and voice my opposition to it. All it basically does is create a special class of citizen :the mercenary. This class would be able to break federal and state laws that the citizen would be prosecuted for.

Posted: 3/30/2006 7:36:33 PM EDT

[#20]

Let me fantasize for moment... at the last moment, on a voice vote, an amendment repealing the '86 ban gets tacked on

Posted: 3/30/2006 8:29:18 PM EDT

[#21]

I got a chub.

Posted: 3/30/2006 8:48:24 PM EDT

[#22]

tag
if all it did was get rid of the multiple handgun form i would be happy
makes my job easer

Posted: 3/31/2006 3:39:25 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Don't see anything that really makes a real substantial difference for the vast majority of gunowners.

True, the "vast majority" of gun owners arent interested in most of the stuff, but for those of us that buy multiple pistols at a time, or love the cheap imported parts kits, or are an MG manufacturer and would like to test a competitor's product without a demo letter from the cops, or are under 21 and want to take a handgun shooting, or want to make sure some future AG cant put a $50 fee on a NICS check or "electronically retrieve" information on gun buyers (ie: scanned 4473s or saved NICS check data), this is a good thing. Who cares if companies that can guard nuclear plants can buy new MGs as part of this bill?

Kharn

ETA:
My post, from CRC's other post on this exact same issue:

Here's a quick list of the changes in plain English:
SEC. 2. CORRECTION OF NONSUBSTANTIVE ERROR IN AGE LIMIT PROVISION.
Simple wording change (from "less than 18yo" to "has not attained 18yo")
SEC. 3. POSSESSION AND TRANSFER OF MACHINEGUNS FOR INDUSTRY TESTING AND SECURITY CONTRACTING.
Companies with federal security contracts (nuclear plant guards, military facility guards, etc) can buy post-86 MGs. Also, SOTs (licensed MG manufacturers) can buy post-86 MGs for "testing, research, design, or development of ammunition or a firearm", ie: no more demo letter required from the local police chief requesting the SOT buy the firearm to demonstration for possible purchase. Also, states that ATF will only use an FBI fingerprint check and a NICS check to determine if an employee of a federal contractor should be allowed to carry/use a machine gun in the performance of their job duties. MGs may be imported for the above purposes.

SEC. 4. ELIMINATION OF OBSOLETE LANGUAGE ADDED BY THE BRADY HANDGUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT.
Eliminates the law regarding handgun waiting periods that was in-use before NICS came online.

SEC. 5. BAN ON TAX OR FEE FOR BACKGROUND CHECK BY THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.
Just like it sounds, the AG cant charge a fee for NICS. I bet Janet Reno wishes she'd thought of that.

SEC. 6. ELIMINATION OF WRITTEN PERMISSION REQUIREMENT FOR SUPERVISED HANDGUN USE.
Allows juveniles to use handguns without written permission during "ranching or farming activities, target practice, hunting, or a course of instruction in the safe and lawful use of a handgun." Currently, only ranching and farming activities are exempted by that clause and written permission by the parent or guardian is required before the juvenile can shoot the handgun.

SEC. 7. ELIMINATION OF DUPLICATIVE MULTIPLE SALES REPORT REQUIREMENT.
Just like it sounds, the State Police wont be notified when you buy more than one handgun in a 5 day period.

SEC. 8. BAN ON ELECTRONIC RETRIEVAL OF FIREARMS PURCHASER INFORMATION.
The AG cant search out-of-business FFL's 4473s using electronic methods (ie: a database of scanned 4473s), they would have to go through the records by hand to find the one they want.

SEC. 9. TRACE DISCLOSURE.
4473 (etc) data cant be given to anyone but law enforcement personnel with jurisdiction over the region the 4473 data came from (IIRC, Chicago Mayor Daley wanted all the multiple sales reports for IL so he could track down straw purchasers, obviously outside his jurisdiction). 4473 data cant be used in civil court unless the case is specifically about purchases (ie: appealing a wrongful denial).

SEC. 10. BARREL AND RECEIVER IMPORTATION.
The ATF's little "no more assault rifle barrels or recievers can be imported" fiat is voided. They claimed individuals were abusing the "repair and replacement" clause allowing "assault rifle" parts importation (abused by building those "repair and replacement" parts kits into functional rifles using American parts), so they tried to say no more "assault rifle" barrels or recievers could be imported.

Now, does this bill sound like a bad thing?