User Panel
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 |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
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". |
|
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!! |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
Called and emailed all my house reps again this morning, regarding the magazine and awb issues. Thanks for the heads up, Nolo
|
|
Thomas Massie is my new rep
(the one who sponsored the "repeal the gun-free school zones act") |
|
Quoted:
Hope all the sponsors of those bill get explosive diarrhea for 3 days Amoebic dysentery |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
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? |
|
Looking at that wish list I suspect the are going to be a lot of mad newly minted AR and P-Mag owners.
|
|
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 |
|
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..
|
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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" |
|
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. |
|
Quoted: Do your part. I did mine: https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-l6ZWCKwUf38/UOdD-J1mNbI/AAAAAAAAE2w/-D41lRA4RUU/s344/IMG_20130104_160341.jpg |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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?
|
|
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.
|
|
Quoted:
Hope all the sponsors of those bill get explosive diarrhea ebola for 3 days FIFY |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
I'm guessing this has been in the planning stages for a while.
|
|
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.