|January 10, 2013, 06:12 PM||#1|
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Bills in the 113th Congress, 01/10/2013
I have not read these in depth, but they sort of jumped out at me as deserving of our attention:
1) H.R.34 -- Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2013
2) H. R. 35 -- To restore safety to America's schools.
3) H.R.65 -- Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2013
4) H.R.93 -- Fire Sale Loophole Closing Act
5) H.R.117 -- Handgun Licensing and Registration Act of 2013
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
|January 10, 2013, 07:50 PM||#4|
Join Date: June 28, 2011
Way to go H.R. 35!
The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. -James Burgh
|January 10, 2013, 08:16 PM||#5|
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
HR 34 - License required to purchase and hold firearms.
HR 35 - CCWs allowed for school employees to have firearms on school grounds
HR 65 - Raises age to buy firearms to 21, everyone needs a gun lock/storage, more government funding for gun safety/fear programs
HR 93 - Harsher penalties for licensed FFLs who have had their license revoked
HR 117 - Handgun Registration, mandatory
34 and 117 are easily unconstitutional, and I thoroughly oppose it.
35 makes me hip hip hooray
65 doesn't do anything to me, and it wont really change anything at all. I can see it passing, and I havent decided how much i dislike it yet.
93 i cant comment on. Can someone who works for an FFL comment?
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
|January 11, 2013, 12:02 AM||#6|
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Actually, HR 93 is pretty troubling.
FFL's can be revoked for many reasons, not all being acts of malfeasance. Likewise, a denial could be a result of paperwork simply being submitted improperly.
This one's vindictive, and it doesn't really serve any utility to the general public.
HR 34 is the Blair Holt act, that Rep. Rush introduces every year. Notice the lack of cosponsors. HR 117 also lacks any support.
(Rush went AWOL from the Army in 1968, and he went on to found the Illinois chapter of the Black Panthers, who kicked him out within a year. In 1969, he was jailed on weapons charges.)
As far as HR 65, I'm a bit confused. Lee wants to append something about "semiautomatic assault weapons" to 922, but that term doesn't appear anywhere, and she fails to define what an "assault weapon" is. So, um...yeah. Also, no cosponsors.
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|