User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:27:31 AM EDT
[#1]
Tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:27:39 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Quoted:
They introduced these bills last Congress too. As well as every year going back into the early 1990s. This is standard procedure. At the beginning on a Congress thousands of resolutions are submitted and then assigned to a committee. Most of them never see the light of day after that. Here is the first thing to be concerned with, the number of co-sponsors. The co-sponsors are an indicator of support for the specific language in the bill. Right now all those bills have zero except one bill that has 1 co-sponsor. There are 435 members of the House. The bills have no support and they are not moving. A Democrat bill with 30 Democrats as co-sponsors is a bill that will go no-where in the house. If a bill gets close to 100 co-sponsors of both Democrats and Republicans, then that bill gaining bi-partisan support and the committee might start trying to move it. The second thing to be concerned with the committee a bill is assigned to, the chairman of the committee, and the members on committee. If the majority party of the committee is pro-gun then a anti-gun bill will go nowhere. That is rare though as RINOs will side with the Dems and vote to bring it out of committee. Once a bill actually gets out of committee that is the time to be truly concerned. Then all the cosponsors and specific language becomes really important. That is also the point that Amendments can be added to it making the bill better or worse. I would suspect they would gather co sponsors rapidly. The text of these bills are not available yet. Thomas usually is about a day behind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:27:56 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
...to increase resources to identify and eliminate illicit sources of firearms into Mexico for use by violent drug trafficking organizations...
So HR72 is a bill to investigate the ATF? ETA - Nolo, take out the "mailto:" portion before your top two links. No, its a bill to put more ATF agents on the border to stop ATF agents from sending firearms over the border 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:28:02 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
What's the problem with HR133? Sounds like that would be a good bill for us. Get rid of the gun free school zone or am I miss reading that? It's sponsored by a Republican from Kentucky. No problem with it. Also no cosponsors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:30:13 AM EDT
[#5]
damn
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:31:04 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
HR 142--no more internet ammo and reporting for bulk ammo purchase? I can't remember the last time I bought ammo in a shop. I can't remember the last time I bought bulk ammo online, probably 2002 or 2003. Since then, I just reload and buy bulk components online. You think reloading components will not be included in an online ammo ban? 
.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:33:42 AM EDT
[#7]
Fuck them! I'm sick of getting pen fucked by democrats.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:35:03 AM EDT
[#8]
Dear lord,
they are like a bunch of little kids. How many times do you have to say no before they get a backhand. I wish they would pass a reverse term limit on bills and\or similes of those bills for ten years. Like a bunch of small yapping dogs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:38:17 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
They introduced these bills last Congress too. As well as every year going back into the early 1990s. This is standard procedure. At the beginning on a Congress thousands of resolutions are submitted and then assigned to a committee. Most of them never see the light of day after that. Here is the first thing to be concerned with, the number of co-sponsors. The co-sponsors are an indicator of support for the specific language in the bill. Right now all those bills have zero except one bill that has 1 co-sponsor. There are 435 members of the House. The bills have no support and they are not moving. A Democrat bill with 30 Democrats as co-sponsors is a bill that will go no-where in the house. If a bill gets close to 100 co-sponsors of both Democrats and Republicans, then that bill gaining bi-partisan support and the committee might start trying to move it. The second thing to be concerned with the committee a bill is assigned to, the chairman of the committee, and the members on committee. If the majority party of the committee is pro-gun then a anti-gun bill will go nowhere. That is rare though as RINOs will side with the Dems and vote to bring it out of committee. Once a bill actually gets out of committee that is the time to be truly concerned. Then all the cosponsors and specific language becomes really important. That is also the point that Amendments can be added to it making the bill better or worse. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:39:49 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: We're Farked.. http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/004/029/disgusted-mother-of-god.png Just STFU and go away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:41:13 AM EDT
[#11]
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:2:./temp/~bdDTwh::|/home/LegislativeData.php|
H.R.34 Latest Title: To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. There is the first step to registration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:41:16 AM EDT
[#12]
Those people need to go far, far away.
Enough.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:41:37 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:2:./temp/~bdDTwh::|/home/LegislativeData.php| H.R.34 Latest Title: To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. There is the first step to registration. Started by a felon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:43:27 AM EDT
[#14]
You missed some...
H.R.65 Latest Title: To prevent children's access to firearms. Sponsor: Rep Jackson Lee, Sheila [TX-18] (introduced 1/3/2013) H.R.117 Latest Title: To provide for the mandatory licensing and registration of handguns. Sponsor: Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] (introduced 1/3/2013) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:43:40 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Thomas Massie!!!! Rand Paul apparently was right about this one !!!I heard him this morning, sounds like a good guy! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:44:28 AM EDT
[#16]
http://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.html
Judiciary Committee Members. Some of these have changed. I think this is still 2011-2012. I know Tim Griffin has moved to the Way and Means Committee. These people are our first line of defense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:44:39 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
HR 142--no more internet ammo and reporting for bulk ammo purchase? I can't remember the last time I bought ammo in a shop. Actually, no new law is needed to accomplish a ban on mail-order ammo. The ONLY reason we are allowed to buy ammo through the mail is a law known as the Firearm Owners Protection Act (or FOPA '86). All the administration has to do is STOP enforcing FOPA. If FOPA is ignored, it means the Gun Control Act of 1968 applies, and that law PROHIBITS ammo purchase through the mail. How can they simply ingonore a law or refuse to enforce it? Google these: "defense of marriage act" (a standing law - ignored) and "the Dream Act" (a proposed law which never passed but was implemented anyway). Then try explaining how you can rent a storefront & open a "marijuana dispensary" in clear violation of the Controlled Substances Act and be confident that no legal action will be taken against you? Strange days indeed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:45:49 AM EDT
[#18]
What no Fineswine?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:51:04 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Do not take anything for granted.
Actually, for all the doom and gloom that has been spouted on here since the Newtown shooting, that list of proposed bills looks pretty damn mild. Not even a single representative has brought forth an AWB. And only Carolyn McCarthy has even introduced legislation limiting mag capacity. And we all know that her gun proposals are pretty much ignored by everyone, including most dems. So I actually think things are looking up as far as new gun laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:51:35 AM EDT
[#20]
deleted
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:52:13 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
They introduced these bills last Congress too. So nothing to worry about, eh, CRC? 0bama 2016? __________________________________________________________________ Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.3.2) (and the original thread). «nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus» |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:52:30 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: I didn't see anything about assault weapons. Did I miss it? My understanding is that that would be introduced in the Senate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:53:14 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: tag for later |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:54:50 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:2:./temp/~bdDTwh::|/home/LegislativeData.php| H.R.34 Latest Title: To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. There is the first step to registration. Started by a felon. Rush's own apartment was raided in December 1969, where police discovered an unregistered pistol, rifle, shotgun, pistol ammunition, training manuals on explosives, booby traps, an assortment of communist literature, and a small amount of marijuana.[7] Rush was imprisoned for six months in 1972 on a weapons charge, after carrying a pistol into a police station.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:56:28 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Slinging them all at the wall to see which one sticks? 
My guess as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:56:30 AM EDT
[#26]
I noticed there are no bills that require MENTAL HEALTH background checks and a requirement that Doctors must submit this information. Also a bill that requires all guns be locked up if there is a person with mental health problems living in the house or has access to it. I know I'll get flamed for these but crazy people with guns kinda scare me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:56:59 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
In. What....no magazine ban? 1st post fail http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:1:./temp/~bdZWJ0::|/home/LegislativeData.php| H.R.138 Latest Title: To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:57:16 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They introduced these bills last Congress too. As well as every year going back into the early 1990s. This is standard procedure. At the beginning on a Congress thousands of resolutions are submitted and then assigned to a committee. Most of them never see the light of day after that. Here is the first thing to be concerned with, the number of co-sponsors. The co-sponsors are an indicator of support for the specific language in the bill. Right now all those bills have zero except one bill that has 1 co-sponsor. There are 435 members of the House. The bills have no support and they are not moving. A Democrat bill with 30 Democrats as co-sponsors is a bill that will go no-where in the house. If a bill gets close to 100 co-sponsors of both Democrats and Republicans, then that bill gaining bi-partisan support and the committee might start trying to move it. The second thing to be concerned with the committee a bill is assigned to, the chairman of the committee, and the members on committee. If the majority party of the committee is pro-gun then a anti-gun bill will go nowhere. That is rare though as RINOs will side with the Dems and vote to bring it out of committee. Once a bill actually gets out of committee that is the time to be truly concerned. Then all the cosponsors and specific language becomes really important. That is also the point that Amendments can be added to it making the bill better or worse. I would suspect they would gather co sponsors rapidly. The text of these bills are not available yet. Thomas usually is about a day behind. Watching the co-sponsors as they sign on to the bill is a good way to see where the support goes. The anti's will always submit the bills and get other anti's to sign on. If there is a big Dem push for more control the favorite bills will get co-sponsors quick. The lack of co-sponsors signing up would show that their is no big Democrat gun control push happening in the House. I don't think the Dems as a whole want a gun control fight. Obama and the hard core anti-gun Dems do but the majority of the Dems do not fall into that category. They remember 1994, they know most elections are close, they know that passing more gun control will not get them any more voters (all the anti's vote for Dems already) and will light a fire under the supporters of their opposition. The biggest indicator will be when and how many co-sponsors in the House sign on to the gun control bills. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 6:59:42 AM EDT
[#29]
Read the number of co sponsors in the bills, all 0 with the exception of 1 having 1 co sponsor, a lot of help and support went into making these bills...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 7:00:00 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
We're Farked.. http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/004/029/disgusted-mother-of-god.png We are NOT farked. Call / write your rep now! Tell them "NO NEW GUN CONTROL!" I already did.....my opinion doesn't really matter though now does it 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 7:02:24 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: In. What....no magazine ban? http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:1:./temp/~bdZWJ0::|/home/LegislativeData.php| H.R.138 Latest Title: To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 7:02:35 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Read the number of co sponsors in the bills, all 0 with the exception of 1 having 1 co sponsor, a lot of help and support went into making these bills... give them time. the text of the bill isn't even up yet |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 7:02:42 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
We're Farked.. http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/004/029/disgusted-mother-of-god.png Actually, H.R. 133 sounds pretty good... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 7:04:10 AM EDT
[#34]
They gonna put all y'all gun owners back in chains with all these new gun laws...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 7:04:19 AM EDT
[#35]
This is definitely a tag. Thanks, Nolo.
Fuck these motherfuckers. Especially the cunt mkarthy. I don't even care to spell it right, Bitch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 7:04:23 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:2:./temp/~bdDTwh::|/home/LegislativeData.php| H.R.34 Latest Title: To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. There is the first step to registration. No shit. THAT ONE deserves just as much attention as an AWB or mag ban. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 7:04:49 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
http://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.html Judiciary Committee Members. Some of these have changed. I think this is still 2011-2012. I know Tim Griffin has moved to the Way and Means Committee. These people are our first line of defense. Will that list of assignments to the committee change with the formation of the new Congress? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 7:05:49 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
looks like 141 and 137 would have the best chance of making it through. Yup... While I don't like any restrictions, if it gets to the point that something has to give, those are two of the "least objectionable" so long as closing the gun show loophole only truly applies to gun shows and not private sales between residents of the same state. We need to fight them all though. Every victory is another brick in the wall, every defeat is another crack.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 7:06:37 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
In. What....no magazine ban? 1st post fail http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:1:./temp/~bdZWJ0::|/home/LegislativeData.php| H.R.138 Latest Title: To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Who's the cosponsor? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 7:07:15 AM EDT
[#40]
Sent more emails this morning
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 7:08:07 AM EDT
[#41]
Are these on POPVOX this morning?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 7:08:15 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
looks like 141 and 137 would have the best chance of making it through. Yup... While I don't like any restrictions, if it gets to the point that something has to give, those are two of the "least objectionable" so long as closing the gun show loophole only truly applies to gun shows and not private sales between residents of the same state. We need to fight them all though. Every victory is another brick in the wall, every defeat is another crack. Seriously? WTF do you think the "gun show loophole" is? IT REFERS TO PRIVATE PARTY SALES. Good lord. DON'T GIVE THEM AN INCH. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 7:08:16 AM EDT
[#43]
All the links in the OP are dead... is there a way to get permalinks?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 7:10:07 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
We're Farked.. http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/004/029/disgusted-mother-of-god.png Actually, H.R. 133 sounds pretty good... By Mr. MASSIE: H.R. 133. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: This Act is justified by the lack of a mandate or assertion of authority in the United States Constitution for the federal government to establish the laws affected by this Act; by Article One of the United States Constitution that grants legislative powers; by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution that recognizes the right to bear arms; and by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which recognize that rights and powers are retained and reserved by the people and to the States. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 7:13:19 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.html Judiciary Committee Members. Some of these have changed. I think this is still 2011-2012. I know Tim Griffin has moved to the Way and Means Committee. These people are our first line of defense. Will that list of assignments to the committee change with the formation of the new Congress? It should when they get around to updating it... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 7:13:31 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We're Farked.. http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/004/029/disgusted-mother-of-god.png Actually, H.R. 133 sounds pretty good... By Mr. MASSIE: H.R. 133. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: This Act is justified by the lack of a mandate or assertion of authority in the United States Constitution for the federal government to establish the laws affected by this Act; by Article One of the United States Constitution that grants legislative powers; by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution that recognizes the right to bear arms; and by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which recognize that rights and powers are retained and reserved by the people and to the States. I voted for this guy based on his 2A stance. Glad to see he isn't just talk! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 7:14:01 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
HR 142--no more internet ammo and reporting for bulk ammo purchase? I can't remember the last time I bought ammo in a shop. Actually, no new law is needed to accomplish a ban on mail-order ammo. The ONLY reason we are allowed to buy ammo through the mail is a law known as the Firearm Owners Protection Act (or FOPA '86). All the administration has to do is STOP enforcing FOPA. If FOPA is ignored, it means the Gun Control Act of 1968 applies, and that law PROHIBITS ammo purchase through the mail. How can they simply ingonore a law or refuse to enforce it? Google these: "defense of marriage act" (a standing law - ignored) and "the Dream Act" (a proposed law which never passed but was implemented anyway). Then try explaining how you can rent a storefront & open a "marijuana dispensary" in clear violation of the Controlled Substances Act and be confident that no legal action will be taken against you? Strange days indeed.
The administration doesn't enforce FOPA like it does immigration law or gay marriage or marijuana. All three deal with violations of federal law, but the administration refusing to enforce the prohibitions. Can you please explain to me how the president can stop mail order ammunition sales by refusing to enforce FOPA? I don't believe it works the way you think it does my friend. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 7:15:04 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:2:./temp/~bdDTwh::|/home/LegislativeData.php| H.R.34 Latest Title: To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. There is the first step to registration. Started by a felon. Rush's own apartment was raided in December 1969, where police discovered an unregistered pistol, rifle, shotgun, pistol ammunition, training manuals on explosives, booby traps, an assortment of communist literature, and a small amount of marijuana.[7] Rush was imprisoned for six months in 1972 on a weapons charge, after carrying a pistol into a police station. Sounds like the makings for a great do as I say, not as I do meme! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 7:15:34 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We're Farked.. http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/004/029/disgusted-mother-of-god.png Actually, H.R. 133 sounds pretty good... By Mr. MASSIE: H.R. 133. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: This Act is justified by the lack of a mandate or assertion of authority in the United States Constitution for the federal government to establish the laws affected by this Act; by Article One of the United States Constitution that grants legislative powers; by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution that recognizes the right to bear arms; and by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which recognize that rights and powers are retained and reserved by the people and to the States. Everyone should contact Massie, sounds like he carried a bushel full of balls with him to dc |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 7:16:08 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
In. What....no magazine ban? See HR 138. They're throwing as much against the wall as they can and seeing what sticks. Yep. Which gives me some hope that a lot of it is posturing and pandering from the usual suspects who always introduce anti gun shit. I'd be a lot more worried about one bill co sponsored by some "moderate" Republican like McCain than I am a bunch of stupid shit authored by McCarthy. |
|
|
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.
