How soon could an Assault Weapons Ban start? - Page 2

alloy · March 2, 2009, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Don't panic till you see the dolphins leaving.

http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/whales-...selves-2509076
NOT reassuring

bbqbob51 · March 2, 2009, 07:37 PM

I just wrote Mr. Obama and congratulated him on his election and wished him well. I also told him to stay away from ANY new gun laws as it will hurt the other things he is fighting for. I told him that MANY law abiding citizens including myself are passionate about this issue and banning Assault riflles and certain types of ammunition is just devisive and ridiculous policy.
You all should barrage him as well as your representatives an senators with letters...be nice! Don't call anyone a commie or socialist, just be passionate about your opinions and express how important hunting and shooting is to you as well having to option to protecting yourself and your family.

P99AS9 · March 2, 2009, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Don't call anyone a commie or socialist

I'm sorry, but that would be hard for me to resist

bbqbob51 · March 2, 2009, 07:47 PM

P99AS9, well at least not until they actually ban something!

P99AS9 · March 2, 2009, 07:48 PM

LOL I guess we'll have to wait and see

bbqbob51 · March 2, 2009, 07:53 PM

Write them, call them, smoke signal them and let thm know how you feel! There is power in numbers.

thallub · March 2, 2009, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Don't panic till you see the dolphins leaving.

Or the rats.

**Tom Servo** · March 2, 2009, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Don't panic till you see the dolphins leaving.

When that day comes, I'll be too wasted on Pan-Galactic Gargle Blasters to notice

lon371 · March 5, 2009, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Chad, legislation if passed as an emergency, could take effect as soon as it was signed. Some legislation includes a start time. The short answer is that it depends upon how any particular bill is written.

lon371, I'm not aware of any pending legislation that calls for a ban. Care to enlighten the rest of us?

No problem;

HR 45
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...45&tab=summary

I did not bother to read all the post so if someone already brought this up I apologize.

I am not one to get to excited over what Gov tries to do. But this one does have me nervous. Especially since Dems hold all the power for now.

Lonny

lon371 · March 5, 2009, 03:15 AM

Here is a little better discription.

H.R. 45 (Rush): This bill would require a license for handguns and semiautomatics, including those currently possessed. The applicant must be thumbprinted and sign a certification that, effectively, the firearm will not be kept in a place where it would be available for the defense of the gun owner’s family. The applicant must also make available ALL of his psychiatric records, pass an exam, and pay a fee of up to $25. The license may be renewed after five years and may be revoked. Private sales would be outlawed, and reports to the attorney general of all transactions would be required, even when, as the bill allows, the AG determines that a state licensing system is sufficiently draconian to substitute for the federal license. With virtually no exceptions, ALL firearms transactions (involving semiautos, handguns, long guns, etc.) would be subject to a Brady check. In addition, the bill would make it unlawful in nearly all cases to keep any loaded firearm for self-defense. A variety of “crimes by omission” (such as failure to report certain things) would be created. Criminal penalties of up to ten years and almost unlimited regulatory and inspection authority would be established

this is from
http://gunowners.org/111anatb.htm

Lonny

Al Norris · March 5, 2009, 12:02 PM

Let's not get our knickers in a twist. HR 45 is not a ban. It is also legislation that has garnered no support in the 2 months it has been in committee (no sponsors).

HR 45, since it is not a ban, is off topic for this thread.

lon371 · March 5, 2009, 05:32 PM

I stand corrected

. Thanks for the information.

Lonny

March 5, 2009, 05:32 PM	#37
lon371 Senior Member Join Date: September 1, 2007 Location: S.Indiana Posts: 252	I stand corrected. Thanks for the information. Lonny

March 2, 2009, 07:37 PM	#27
bbqbob51 Senior Member Join Date: November 6, 2005 Posts: 775	I just wrote Mr. Obama and congratulated him on his election and wished him well. I also told him to stay away from ANY new gun laws as it will hurt the other things he is fighting for. I told him that MANY law abiding citizens including myself are passionate about this issue and banning Assault riflles and certain types of ammunition is just devisive and ridiculous policy. You all should barrage him as well as your representatives an senators with letters...be nice! Don't call anyone a commie or socialist, just be passionate about your opinions and express how important hunting and shooting is to you as well having to option to protecting yourself and your family.

March 2, 2009, 07:47 PM	#29
bbqbob51 Senior Member Join Date: November 6, 2005 Posts: 775	P99AS9, well at least not until they actually ban something!

March 2, 2009, 07:48 PM	#30
P99AS9 Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2008 Location: New Hampshire Posts: 612	LOL I guess we'll have to wait and see

March 2, 2009, 07:53 PM	#31
bbqbob51 Senior Member Join Date: November 6, 2005 Posts: 775	Write them, call them, smoke signal them and let thm know how you feel! There is power in numbers.

March 5, 2009, 03:15 AM	#35
lon371 Senior Member Join Date: September 1, 2007 Location: S.Indiana Posts: 252	Here is a little better discription. H.R. 45 (Rush): This bill would require a license for handguns and semiautomatics, including those currently possessed. The applicant must be thumbprinted and sign a certification that, effectively, the firearm will not be kept in a place where it would be available for the defense of the gun owner’s family. The applicant must also make available ALL of his psychiatric records, pass an exam, and pay a fee of up to $25. The license may be renewed after five years and may be revoked. Private sales would be outlawed, and reports to the attorney general of all transactions would be required, even when, as the bill allows, the AG determines that a state licensing system is sufficiently draconian to substitute for the federal license. With virtually no exceptions, ALL firearms transactions (involving semiautos, handguns, long guns, etc.) would be subject to a Brady check. In addition, the bill would make it unlawful in nearly all cases to keep any loaded firearm for self-defense. A variety of “crimes by omission” (such as failure to report certain things) would be created. Criminal penalties of up to ten years and almost unlimited regulatory and inspection authority would be established this is from http://gunowners.org/111anatb.htm Lonny

March 5, 2009, 12:02 PM	#36
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Let's not get our knickers in a twist. HR 45 is not a ban. It is also legislation that has garnered no support in the 2 months it has been in committee (no sponsors). HR 45, since it is not a ban, is off topic for this thread.