|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 11, 2013, 11:38 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 720
|
H.R.2277 - To eliminate the sporting purposes distinction in the gun laws.
Just found this....It looks interesting though it is to soon to tell how much of a hope it has.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr2277 It shows at least there is some level of interest with some elected reps in removing more restrictions. I will be contacting my rep and asking for their support. Discussion point being, I am curious if this will actually have a chance of passing, or if its just more of a talking point? |
June 11, 2013, 01:05 PM | #2 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
No cosponsors as of yet. Text is here, and you can voice your support for it at PopVox.
The "sporting purposes" language has been used to ban the sale and import of several guns, most notably the Striker-12 and its variants, based on somewhat overbroad criteria: Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
June 11, 2013, 01:18 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
It might pass the House, but I rather doubt it could make it through the Senate. Even if it did make it through congress, it wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of being signed by the current President (nor probably any of the Presidents for the last 50 years).
|
June 11, 2013, 03:41 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 465
|
I believe Ron Paul has proposed this bill every year since he's been in Congress.
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money... Armorer-at-Law.com 07FFL/02SOT |
June 11, 2013, 03:56 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 779
|
Quote:
I can only wish to see this pass. I've never understood how the Striker or SPAS has been functionally aversive to safety in comparison to a Mossberg 590 (maybe than using more expensive parts haha).
__________________
I told the new me, "Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'" But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back." Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor |
|
June 13, 2013, 03:10 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
It could only pass by being attached to another piece of legislation.
|
June 13, 2013, 06:19 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Whether it passes or not, it is not a bad idea to remind everyone (both pro and anti-gun) how fallacious the "sporting" use/purpose test is in any gun legislation. Our 2nd amendment rights are not predicated on sporting activities and neither should any legislation or executive statutes restrict the use or importation thereof.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|