Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Page / 9
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 6:16:15 AM EST
[#1]
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...


And the new Congress began... Yesterday
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 6:18:27 AM EST
[#2]
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?



Most likely. I think Boehner had to make some assurances to the conservatives to retain his speakership and secure Cantor's backing, and the conservatives made the vote uncomfortably close to remind him that they will not be dismissed. I'm hoping that they secured some plum committee assignments.
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 6:23:08 AM EST
[#3]
Quoted:
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.


NY closed its "gunshow loophole" and we still have private sales. Depends on what the language says. And don't give them an inch is a fine and dandy talking point if everybody agrees with us... But they don't. I would love to see no restrictions, I'll fight to prevent them, but I've also spent close to 20 years in politics and public policy and understand that it sometimes gets to the point where it's clear you're going to lose and you mitigate damage. Our starting point is no new laws, theirs is take away all the guns. I don't see either side getting their ultimate position.
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 6:27:09 AM EST
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
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.


NY closed its "gunshow loophole" and we still have private sales. Depends on what the language says. And don't give them an inch is a fine and dandy talking point if everybody agrees with us... But they don't. I would love to see no restrictions, I'll fight to prevent them, but I've also spent close to 20 years in politics and public policy and understand that it sometimes gets to the point where it's clear you're going to lose and you mitigate damage. Our starting point is no new laws, theirs is take away all the guns. I don't see either side getting their ultimate position.


This.  To think that we can keep things as they are right now is crazy.  I want to, but they will make somethin stick this time.
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 6:30:22 AM EST
[#5]
Quoted:
Some of those aren't that bad. Like the "making sure prohibited persons are included in NICS" thing.

Edit: Missed the background checks for all purchases part. Too early. Sorry.


Shall not be infringed
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 6:32:50 AM EST
[#6]
OST
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 6:35:13 AM EST
[#7]
Quoted:

Most likely. I think Boehner had to make some assurances to the conservatives to retain his speakership and secure Cantor's backing, and the conservatives made the vote uncomfortably close to remind him that they will not be dismissed. I'm hoping that they secured some plum committee assignments.


Man, I hope Issa stays on.

Link Posted: 1/4/2013 6:39:49 AM EST
[#8]
Quoted:
All the links in the OP are dead... is there a way to get permalinks?


shit.  let me see if i can fix....


ETA: fixed
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 6:39:59 AM EST
[#9]
Quoted:
In.  What....no magazine ban?


Why ban mags?  There won't be anything to load them into; that's the Fed's way of "cutting costs".
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 6:43:11 AM EST
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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.


NY closed its "gunshow loophole" and we still have private sales. Depends on what the language says. And don't give them an inch is a fine and dandy talking point if everybody agrees with us... But they don't. I would love to see no restrictions, I'll fight to prevent them, but I've also spent close to 20 years in politics and public policy and understand that it sometimes gets to the point where it's clear you're going to lose and you mitigate damage. Our starting point is no new laws, theirs is take away all the guns. I don't see either side getting their ultimate position.


This.  To think that we can keep things as they are right now is crazy.  I want to, but they will make somethin stick this time.


 I think we can keep things exactly like they are, well unless we have a bunch of crawfish republicans. Not one inch period!!
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 6:43:55 AM EST
[#11]



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.







 
ummm.....




Think about that, for just a minute.






Link Posted: 1/4/2013 6:47:49 AM EST
[#12]
I will not comply.
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 6:47:52 AM EST
[#13]
Actually...


If they struck down FOPA, it would strike down the 1986 Hughes Amendment.

I'd gladly purchase my ammo locally if it meant I could legally build full auto guns.
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 6:51:30 AM EST
[#14]
Quoted:
I wonder if SJL used a crayon to write her bill?  


I bet spell check had a few

Damn thumbs!

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 6:53:02 AM EST
[#15]
Quoted:
I wonder if SJL used a crayon to write her bill?  


I bet spell check had a few WTF? moments.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 7:04:24 AM EST
[#16]
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.


Well, you got me there. I do load all my .223, but pistol and other rifle calibers that I don't shoot enough to stock loading supplies I'll buy a case online when I need it.

Link Posted: 1/4/2013 7:04:31 AM EST
[#17]
Called and emailed all my house reps again this morning, regarding the magazine and awb issues. Thanks for the heads up, Nolo
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 7:09:05 AM EST
[#18]
tag
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 7:10:22 AM EST
[#19]
Thomas Massie is my new rep

(the one who sponsored the "repeal the gun-free school zones act")
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 7:22:56 AM EST
[#20]
Quoted:
Hope all  the sponsors of those bill get explosive diarrhea for 3 days


Amoebic dysentery
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 7:28:00 AM EST
[#21]
tag
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 7:36:43 AM EST
[#22]
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.



good to know thanks
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 7:38:38 AM EST
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why are all these in the House?  I thought these would originate in the Senate...  


I'm not sure why you would think that.  Any legislator in the House or Senate can submit a resolution.  The Senate will have their own set of resolutions that they submitted.  That won't start until January 22nd though because Reid made that the first day resolutions could be submitted.


Quoted:
What no Fineswine?


She's a Senator and see above for the reason her bill hasn't shown up.
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 7:40:07 AM EST
[#24]



Quoted:


What no Fineswine?


My gut says that it may be amended to a bill that makes it out of committee. Does the "Hughes Amendment" sound familiar?
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 7:42:24 AM EST
[#25]
tag
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 7:44:00 AM EST
[#26]
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 7:49:21 AM EST
[#27]
Looking at that wish list I suspect the are going to be a lot of mad newly minted AR and P-Mag owners.
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 7:56:40 AM EST
[#28]
Whats new from the Cowards of Congress.
 
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 8:01:20 AM EST
[#29]
Quoted:
looks like 141 and 137 would have the best chance of making it through.


I could live with that.  If, of course, that's all that passes
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 8:18:27 AM EST
[#30]



Quoted:


Good 'ole Shela Jackson Lee.



She needs a well funded pro-gun opponent during the next election cycle. Badly.


This.

 



Her website does not even work correctly..
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 8:30:04 AM EST
[#31]
tag
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 10:47:43 AM EST
[#32]
Quoted:
Good 'ole Shela Jackson Lee.

She needs a well funded pro-gun opponent during the next election cycle. Badly.


Not a chance...

She is in a "VOTING RIGHTS ACT" district ordered into existance by DOJ years ago to ensure Black participation in the Congress.
Most of the Congressional Black Caucus is such, districts are drawn to be over 80 percent Black.
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 11:21:01 AM EST
[#33]
Quoted:
I'd hate for the no online ammo thing. It's already hard enough to find stuff especially when you have guys who don't work and can wait at the walmart sporting goods counter to buy up everything. LGS here isn't too bad with prices. Maybe a $1 difference but who knows what it'll be if you can no longer buy online.

I think what will happen is you'll be able to buy online but there be some additional tax put on it


The online ammo one and magazine bans are killers. Not that the others are good in any way. Well except the gun free zone one, depending on what it ends up saying.
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 11:29:56 AM EST
[#34]
Do your part.  

I did mine:

Link Posted: 1/4/2013 11:31:04 AM EST
[#35]
@ H.R. 72
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 11:34:15 AM EST
[#36]
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.


see now I have to go read the bill and see if it talks about "ammunition components"
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 11:37:45 AM EST
[#37]
I think ive found the roster of the 113th congress Judiciary Committee.

Chairman: Robert W. Goodlatte, Va.
Constitution and Civil Justice: Trent Franks, Ariz.
Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet: Howard Coble, N.C.
Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations: Jim Sensenbrener, Wis.
Immigration and Border Security: Trey Gowdy, S.C.
Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law: Spencer Bachus, Ala.
Full Committee:
Doug Collins, Ga.
Ron DeSantis, Fla.
Blake Farenthold, Texas
George E.B. Holding, N.C.
Raúl R. Labrador, Idaho
Keith Rothfus, Pa.

Ranking member: John Conyers Jr., Mich.
Full Committee:
Jerrold Nadler, N.Y.
Robert C. Scott, Va.
Melvin Watt, N.C.
Zoe Lofgren, Calif.
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Steve Cohen, Tenn.
Hank Johnson, Ga.
Pedro R. Pierluisi, P.R.
Mike Quigley, Ill.
Judy CHu, Calif.
Ted Deutch, Fla.
Karen Bass, Calif.
Cedric L. Richmond, La.
Suzan DelBene, Wash.
Joe Garcia, Fla.
Hakeem Jeffries, N.Y.
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 11:40:35 AM EST
[#39]
Quoted:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:141:./list/bss/d113HR.lst::
H.R.141
Latest Title: To require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at gun shows.
Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:21:./list/bss/d113HR.lst::
H.R.21
Latest Title: To provide for greater safety in the use of firearms.
Sponsor: Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] (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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:93:./list/bss/d113HR.lst::
H.R.93
Latest Title: To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to restrict the ability of a person whose Federal license to import, manufacture, or deal in firearms has been revoked, whose application to renew such a license has been denied, or who has received a license revocation or renewal denial notice, to transfer business inventory firearms, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Cicilline, David N. [RI-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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:137:./list/bss/d113HR.lst::
H.R.137
Latest Title: To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale.
Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:72:./list/bss/d113HR.lst::
H.R.72
Latest Title: To provide for emergency deployments of United States Border Patrol agents and to increase the number of DEA and ATF agents along the international border of the United States to increase resources to identify and eliminate illicit sources of firearms into Mexico for use by violent drug trafficking organizations and for other lawful activities, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Jackson Lee, Sheila [TX-18] (introduced 1/3/2013)      Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:34:./list/bss/d113HR.lst::
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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:138:./list/bss/d113HR.lst::
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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:142:./list/bss/d113HR.lst::
H.R.142
Latest Title: To require face to face purchases of ammunition, to require licensing of ammunition dealers, and to require reporting regarding bulk purchases of ammunition.
Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:133:./list/bss/d113HR.lst::
H.R.133
Latest Title: To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act.
Sponsor: Rep Massie, Thomas [KY-4] (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.


FIFY.  Highlighted the asshats that sponsored this unconstitutional shit.
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 11:42:20 AM EST
[#40]
Quoted:
Sent another set of e-mails. I've called and e-mailed at this point. I think I've done about 10 sets of e-mails in the last two weeks.

If everyone who is spending $1300 on a base model AR-15 would also spend $35 to join the NRA, we would be doing better. If everyone who is buying $60 PMAGS would spend $35 to join the NRA we would be doing better. If everyone who is participating in the panic buying at any level would e-mail/call their reps, we would be in a good position.

You're already on "the list." When the bans come the ATF is going to go to all of the FFLs and demand their 4473s and bound books. There may not be a database today, but they can create one in a couple weeks. I know you don't think e-mails will help, well they sure as hell aren't going to hurt. Take 3 minutes out of your day and send some e-mails. EVERYONE.

-Jay


This.  I am a Life Member of the NRA, but I also just signed up for a membership at GOA for $20.  Great tool to email your reps and right now, the Senate changing their rules to allow a vote with only 50 Yea's is a major threat.

Link Posted: 1/4/2013 11:45:07 AM EST
[#41]
Quoted:
Some of those aren't that bad. Like the "making sure prohibited persons are included in NICS" thing.

Edit: Missed the background checks for all purchases part. Too early. Sorry.


I believe she included a magazine ban in that one as well... just in case it gets popular.
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 11:54:35 AM EST
[#42]
Big list, but of all of them only a few are bad, one I'm not sure what it's intent is:

Bad:
HR 138
HR 142

?:
HR  93 not sure what this means for dealers, sounds strange.

Good:
HR 133 actualy sounds good.
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 11:59:21 AM EST
[#43]
When does Boehner play his role in deciding what makes it to the floor for a vote?  Is his role over already when the bill is at the committee?
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 12:08:11 PM EST
[#44]
I've heard that Goodlatte plays a huge role in determining if it gets out of committee. I assume this is still true? I am sending written letters this weekend.
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 12:25:34 PM EST
[#45]
Quoted:
Hope all  the sponsors of those bill get explosive diarrhea ebola for 3 days


FIFY
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 12:27:45 PM EST
[#46]
This thread needs to be tacked.
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 12:31:31 PM EST
[#47]
I emailed Bob Goodlatte, judiciary committee chairman on each bill separately.  I would encourage all of you to do the same as he can stop this while it is in committee.  

Bob Goodlatte
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 12:39:09 PM EST
[#48]
H.R.21
Latest Title: To provide for greater safety in the use of firearms.

Sponsor: Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8]  (DEM)(introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors (None)

This guy is a joke.... wrote to him twice already, not that it will do any good with this clown.
Link Posted: 1/4/2013 12:56:34 PM EST
[#49]
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.


That will go nowhere, in fact none of them will.  All bullshit players.  McCarthy puts the same shit all the time.  

Link Posted: 1/4/2013 1:21:59 PM EST
[#50]
I'm guessing this has been in the planning stages for a while.
Page / 9
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! 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.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top