H.R.127 - Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act

[pat701]

It starts patriots. I don't know how to make a hot link.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-.../text?r=18&s=1

[raimius]

So, this is pretty much a drive-by.

...I'll try to salvage it.
Highlights:
Mandatory license to own firearms or ammo
Psych eval including your family.
$800 fee
Registration include make, model, serial, when you bought it, and where it is stored--IN A PUBLIC DATABASE
AWB
Magazine ban


...yeah, talk about jumping the shark!
Should have zero chance of passing, but I expect parts of this will find there way into more "moderate" bills.

[DaleA]

Registration include make, model, serial, when you bought it, and where it is stored--IN A PUBLIC DATABASE

I actually had to go and read the bill in the link to get my head around this one. Yeah, your firearm information is to be held in a database accessible to everyone...'cause you know if you got guns EVERYBODY should know you got guns...(what could possibly go wrong)

1. I'm kind of glad this is so over the top. It makes me think it won't go anywhere. But goodness, not some nut job but an actual member of Congress is putting this forward?
2. I know *LOTS* of bills get names, and it's not fair to single this bill out, but I'm TIRED of giving bills names. Let the bill stand or fall on its own merits.

If anyone wants to do additional checking:
H.R.127 - Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act

and Sabika Sheikn was a foreign exchange student that was here in the U.S. and killed in a school shooting and Readers Digest had a story about it.

[Spats McGee]

It would appear that Rep. Lee thinks the candy store is open.

[Geezerbiker]

I actually read it all and it's the usual drivel. In a normal year I'd say don't worry about it but this is anything but a normal year... I'd like to complain to my representatives but they're all liberals so that won't do me any good.

Tony

[ghbucky]

The good news is that McConnell has stared down the threat to end the filibuster, so I doubt this thing would even see the light of day in the Senate, even if it manages to pass the House.

Even if it gets a vote, Manchin will NEVER vote for gun control and there goes the tie.

I really don't think we are going to see any radical gun control, at least for the next 4 years.

[ballardw]

Originally Posted by ghbucky

I really don't think we are going to see any radical gun control, at least for the next 4 years.

I might agree with 2 years.
No idea what might happen in the mid-term elections.

[44 AMP]

But goodness, not some nut job but an actual member of Congress is putting this forward?

What makes you think an actual member of Congress can't be a nutjob?? Mark Twain knew that back in the mid 1800s.

Remember that the only real "qualification" for being in Congress is getting elected.

[Geezerbiker]

I think the part about 24 hours of federally approved training to get a firearms license is one of the main things that will sink this one. I'm worried about the next one. They will keep throwing crap at the wall until something sticks.

Tony

[Tom Servo]

It has no cosponsors. The same bill picked up no cosponsors last session.

When we get the Big Biden Gun Control Bill, it won't be written by a mouthy nobody. It'll be written and endorsed by Schumer, Feinstein, Durbin, and the other old guard. That's what we need to be watching.

[44 AMP]

We could get that big Biden bill with all the mouthy nobody's text in it and the "old guard's" names on it.

Though right now, I think there's only a low chance of them getting their wish list through on a national level, that could change.

State laws are another matter, particularly if your state has both the voter initiative and is dominated by a high population concentration in a few areas.

WA state got bushwacked in '18 when a voter initiative passed in the 5 counties of the metro Seattle area, thanks to big money being spent to misinform the voting public. Those counties had the population numbers to make it law for the entire state.

The final portions of it went into effect in '19, though action on some of it is still up in the air. Among many other things, every semiautomatic rifle in the state has been renamed a "semiautomatic assault rifle". TO buy (and own) on now requires a special, extra waiting period, an "enhanced background check" (which no one knows what that is...) a training class (that does not yet exist), and delivery of your medical records to the police (or other designated agency) for review and "approval" prior to purchase and periodically afterwards to review your suitability to continue to own a semiautomatic assault rifle. There's a lot more as well, but you get the idea.

Currently no one in the state is enforcing or even applying all parts of the law (outside of King County at least) and few people know all the ticking timebombs lying in wait. There are challenges working through the courts, but for now, it is the law.

With all the crap of the past couple years, the Seattle "occupation", and then the Virus, there's been no push for enforcement, which is both good and bad. Good that no one has yet been arrested for violating the law, but bad because with no one being arrested, there are no pending cases to force decisions on the validity of the law.

The world has a lot of bigger, and more important issues than this particular bad law, so I don't expect it being corrected anytime soon.

And. I'm hoping even Biden's administration recognizes we have bigger, more important things to do than gun control. I fully expect them to make all the right noises to placate their radical anti-gun supports, but I don't expect them to try really hard to get more restrictions passed, at this point.

On the other hand, we are only one horrific crime away from a knee jerk overreaction. No matter who is in office, it seems...

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by ballardw

I might agree with 2 years.
No idea what might happen in the mid-term elections.

You forget one key thing: the next mass shooting. This is why I want distance learning for K-12 schools to continue for at least another 12 to 18 months as nothing drives a gun control argument like dead kids or a super high fatality count within a month of each other.

Seriously, if Vegas and Sutherland Springs happened today, every AR and semi auto rifle you own you would be paying a $200 tax for by April 15th.

Even then, that's no guarantee some QAnon nut won't go shoot a member of Congress, but if there's another Gabby Giffords moment, regardless of party, both sides will agree to re-introducing the AWB, but permanently and possibly including NFA registration for all semi auto guns.

[vranasaurus]

A bill that uses the phrase “psychologically unsuited to posses a firearm”. And does not define it has been drafted haphazardly providing one of many legal grounds to challenge it in the unlikely event of passage.

Most gun control proponents would likely say “how about we not tell criminals where to go still gun through a public database.”

The $800 fee is a fee for insurance. You pay the DOJ the money and they insure you. Not sure what those policy limits would be or what exactly it would cover. However the AG can suspend a license for failure to have insurance. This is a thinly veiled attempt to to impose a yearly fee to exercise a constitutional right.

These are only a few of the many issues with this bill. This is a sad bill that is certain to die on Capitol Hill. If anyone is confused about how a bill becomes a law watch “I’m Just a Bill.” The sky will not fall when every time a crazy gun control bill is introduced. This kind of nonsense gets introduced every Congress. There may be things to worry about but this bill is not one of them.

[TXAZ]

Another ineffective rehash from an ethics-impaired legislator who seldom finds cosponsors or collegial relationships in Congress.
Do we need to be worried about this bill, no. Do we need to continue to monitor her, absolutely.

According to the chief lobbyist from a large corporation you've heard of, ...ms. lee is Texas' version of maxine waters, ineffective, attack-dog-to-those-who-publically-disagree, sells-into racist-driven-victim-mentality monologues, is seldom on point and unable to work outside her one-to-two issues. she's incredibly vocal on 'those people in Washington'.
But she's 1 vote that in a very tight matter before congress could make a difference. But this bill, it has no chance. (unless you live / work in her district and buy into her schtick)

[44 AMP]

A bill that uses the phrase “psychologically unsuited to posses a firearm”.

We have had this spelled out in law, and the process required to adjudicate that since 1968. And that process is not a panel of doctors or "mental health professionals" or the police, or some other bureaucratic state group. It is a court, where BOTH sides have to follow the rules and are able to present evidence.

And, none of your rights is suspended until AFTER a judgement is rendered against you, if one is.

I wonder if some Congressmembers even know this exists. Seems that even if they do, they simply don't care...

[TXAZ]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

...
I wonder if some Congressmembers even know this exists. Seems that even if they do, they simply don't care...

There you go, that's one of sheleajacksonlee "qualities", also possessed by numerous administration officials and other elected.

[Metal god]

It is a court, where BOTH sides have to follow the rules and are able to present evidence.

Not sure what to say about that but you clearly have not been paying close attention to the courts the last couple years . I mean wow , didn't think there where people still thinking that's how it works with political laws suites now . We are in the scariest times I've ever seen or read about . We have the very apparatus that would help check these things at the door now participating in there expansion . The lame stream media to include social media will block any dissenting views to include elected officials fighting against laws like this . We will only hear how great laws like this are with expert after expert saying how constitutional it is . Brain washing the public that these types of laws are a good idea . I want to be clear here , I'm not making a political statement . I believe this to be a simple fact regardless who writes bills like this . There are some real dark times ahead for America because dissenting views are no longer going to be found in the most common places people believe they are getting there "facts" .

Top it off with what happen on Jan 6th and we now have law makers for the first time in a very long time truly afraid of the citizenry . Fear makes people do stupid stuff and the problem is . Fear is as bipartisan as it gets .

Maybe this one doesn't pass but there will be more and the debate on them will not be on equal grounds . These are going to be some of the toughest legal fights we've ever had to fight . The courts seem to be afraid of the mobs and when you can't count on the law to back you , the media to pressure those in power and social media deplatforming all decenters . I don't know how to fight what's coming ( what's already here ) .

[44 AMP]

It is a court, where BOTH sides have to follow the rules and are able to present evidence.

Not sure what to say about that but you clearly have not been paying close attention to the courts the last couple years .

I think you missed my point. In this case, I'm not talking about lawsuits, or rulings on the law, in our court system, or anything having to do with media or public opinion in general, I'm talking about adjudication hearings for mental competence. These are individual things, applying only to the individual involved.

These things rarely make the news, unless there is something "newsworthy" about the person in question, like being a multi-millionaire or a famous person. The GCA 68 puts "mental defectives" in the prohibited person classification, but ONLY AFTER they have been adjudicated mentally defective in a court hearing that meets the requirements of the GCA 68.

We have a law that specifies when, and how a person can be prohibited from firearms ownership due to mental defect. And the process under which it must be done to be legal.

Any and every new proposed law that includes some kind of requirement for judging a person's mental competence is BS, unless it meets the existing standard. It should not go beyond what ALREADY EXISTS IN LAW.

Our problem is that laws are being proposed that do not meet the existing standard (and this includes all those knee jerk "red flag" laws).

[Metal god]

They ( who ever "they" are ) will come along and change the law/rules and criteria and there will be no ability for dissent because the news programs will not have dissenters on and social media will block anyone dissenting as well . I'm trying not to be political but I'm sure some will truly believe if you voted for either candidate for president you must have a mental defect . I'm very concerned where all this censorship goes and how it influences policy .

You brought up red flag laws which is a perfect point with out even bringing up the censorship aspect . CA past a red flag law that allows family members to go to the authorities if they think a family member may be a danger to them selves or others . Two years later they expanded it to include your boss and co-workers and I think girl/boy friends . They are now trying to make it so anyone can make that claim against anyone . The whole time saying they would NEVER expand it to what they now propose .

"They" are just going to rewrite the laws/rules to get what they want . Need we go any further then the definition of assault weapon as the perfect example of changing the definition to fit your goal . Again with no ability to get "our" facts out to the masses do to censorship and deplatforming how do we even compete in the up coming debates let alone win any of them .

[Kirrich]

I think Congress should apply some of these proposed laws to themselves...like the psych evaluation!!!

[DaleA]

I think Congress should apply some of these proposed laws to themselves...like the psych evaluation!!!

Ha ha. I myself have often thought our legislators (city, state and federal) should be required to wear body cameras like the police officers do and put it in a public database. Can you imagine being able to bring up video/audio on all the backroom deals, the power lunches, the hallway meetings with lobbyists?

[44 AMP]

Even if they had the cameras, don't think for a moment that footage of the backroom deals etc, would ever be public. Just look at how the cop's bodycam footage is so often "unavailable" or "lost"...

To paraphrase a famous old quote (Webster??)...

Laws, like sausages, are something you should not watch being made.....

[shurshot]

"Even if it gets a vote, Manchin will NEVER vote for gun control and there goes the tie."

I hope you are correct. Nothing is a sure thing, except that the left has an Agenda and are pushing full steam ahead.

[Tom Servo]

Even if it gets a vote, Manchin will NEVER vote for gun control and there goes the tie.

I beg to differ. In 2013, he was the sponsor of a "compromise" bill designed to grease the wheels for so-called universal background checks. If he gets enough pressure from the party, he'll cave.

[Webleymkv]

I can't help but wonder if Looney-Toon bills like this serve the purpose (other than fundraising fodder for the NRA) of making a big splash, getting everyone riled up, and making the later "compromise" bill with "just" Universal Background Checks or an AWB seem "reasonable" by comparison.