House Bill H.R. 4269

[HughScot]

This House bill already has 149 sponsors and if the Dems take control of congress it's sure to pass. Here's a good article regarding the bill and consequences.

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...an_resist.html

[FITASC]

Good article. The ban is coming; it isn't a matter of "if", just "when".

[TXAZ]

There are a lot more issues with the logistics of such a ban than most think.
Not saying it couldn't happen but look at the last one. Lots of loopholes.
Do we need to be vigilant, yes. But I wouldn't lose sleep. There are a fair number of steps, signals and other issues before the sky falls.

[BarryLee]

Sadly many gun owners will vote for the very politicians who will implement this ban. I completely understand the idea of not being a “one issue voter” however not all issues are equal. Remember almost every administration takes their own shot at the tax code or education policy and some things stick, but many do not. If passed a gun ban like this would most likely never go away. Yes, it will be litigated, but guess who’ll be sitting one the Supreme Court.

[Aguila Blanca]

I weep for my daughter's generation and those that follow ...

[barnbwt]

There are a lot more issues with the logistics of such a ban than most think.

Hey, I remember this argument!

"There's no way they'd ever be able to read ALL our emails, let alone make sense of them"

If you read the article, there is no need for 'logistics' when the attack is generational, along the lines of the NFA and Hughes Act, which effectively banned all civilian machineguns as they proliferated at unheard of rates among law enforcement (which itself proliferated in the same timeframe)

TCB

[ATN082268]

From the article, "If banning “assault weapons” has nothing to do with crime or terrorism, why are the Democrats so eagerly in favor of it? The answer is that they have a Hobbesian worldview, in which an all-powerful “Leviathan” government has a complete monopoly on the exercise of power."


Why would you need or want to have such a stranglehold of power over the people of a country unless your views were generally not upheld by them...

[rickyrick]

They're making gun ownership taboo and socially unacceptable. Doesn't seem to be having much of an effect really.

I still feel that Secretary Clinton will win and has made ominous statements dealing with certain civil rights, not just the second amendment. Those aren't the conspiracy theories, those were actual statements from the candidate.

It will probably mirror President Obama with a bunch of talk but no actual ban.
But Secretary Clinton has made bigger promises on guns.

This will end as another locked political thread.

[FITASC]

Those views are only held by the ones who feel they are "entitled" to be the rulers......."Let them eat cake" comes to mind................

[44 AMP]

The article is not "new" news, it is things that many of us have been seeing and saying for decades now.

The proposed bill does not have enough sponsors, and at this time, is going nowhere. This has happened many, many times. Every legislative cycle, there is a bill to repeal the 2nd amendment. It never goes anywhere, so far, has never been sponsored enough to come to the floor, but some anti fun/anti gun fanatic introduces it every session.

I don't see this thread going anywhere useful, all we can do right now is rehash and re-state the things done in the past and speculate on what MIGHT happen in the future, something we have already done, countless times.

When something changes, THEN its time to discuss what to do about it. Like if said bill gets enough sponsors to reach the floor for a vote. Now is not the time, and simply wastes our collective breath.

I'm not closing this one, yet, but will move it to L&CR as it is not specifically about semi auto rifles, though they are the most affected by the proposed bill.

If discussion goes off the (admittedly narrow) L&CR rails, it will be shut down.

[rebs]

If all the gun owners get out and vote it would be a great thing but that isn't going to happen. In NYS the election for governor could have been completely different and Cuomo would have been out, but the gun owners didn't vote. I guess they were too busy hunting or doing other things. Rob Asterino took every county except one, he could have won. Total votes cast were less than the number of licensed hunters, not counting the number of licensed hand gun owners. It was a low count vote.

[ammo.crafter]

Agree that Ms Clinton will become our next President.

Far greater threat will be her appointments (3) to the US Supreme Court during her term.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by TXAZ

There are a lot more issues with the logistics of such a ban than most think.

On that note, IMHO the section prohibiting the transfer of Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices or LCAFDs is fundamentally unenforceable in lieu of direct evidence that a transfer has taken place, unless of course the recipient was not yet born when the law took effect. There are a proverbial bazillion LCAFDs in circulation today, and since they're sold over-the-counter in most states, there usually aren't even any records to tell the authorities to whom they were originally sold. Realistically, the primary effect would be to put the kibosh on open transfers of used LCAFDs in public forums such as gun shows.

Also, for those tl;dr folks who don't want to read the whole bill (), it would enact UBCs, albeit for regulated assault weapons only. However, since the bill doesn't establish any form of registry for such weapons, this provision is similarly unenforceable as discussed in myriad past threads on this topic.

That being said, I'm in full agreement with 44 AMP in emphasizing that this bill is dead in the water unless and until receives adequate congressional backing for a floor vote. This is a good time to remind folks to vote for Congress critters who support gun rights, even if you can't bring yourself to support a certain presidential candidate.

[HughScot]

Au contraire, 44AMP, I think it is guaranteed that when HC gets in and IF the Republicans lose the house and senate the ban will go into effect as respects "assault weapons". She will appoint left-leaning Supremes and they will uphold the ban IMHO. There has been more talk in the last couple of years but without a demo congress this bill could not get legs, but in a month or so who knows.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by HughScot

Au contraire, 44AMP, I think it is guaranteed that when HC gets in and IF the Republicans lose the house and senate the ban will go into effect as respects "assault weapons".

I don't see where 44 AMP wrote that this couldn't or wouldn't happen. Those conditions haven't been met yet, so there's little point in ranting over what-ifs.

As things stand TODAY, the bill amounts to little more than political posturing. The most constructive thing that we can do about it is VOTE and tell our elected representatives what we think.

[TXAZ]

As others have said, some who have been around for a while don't get excited about Federal gun control attempt #55, particular in an election year.
Besides if hi-mags are outlawed, many outlaws will likely have hi cap mags.

Me, I'll be switching to energy weapons

[2ndsojourn]

"Me, I'll be switching to energy weapons"

I'll switch to belt fed.

[44 AMP]

I'll switch to belt fed

Wont be as much fun, as belts, feed strips, clips, etc., are covered under the proposed laws as "ammunition feeding device(s)" Go ahead and enjoy your legal belt fed, pay the thousands and THOUSANDS of dollar for one, wait 6months, a year, maybe two or more for Federal paperwork approval, along with the $200 tax, so you can enjoy shooting as many 10 rounds belts as you want!!!

I would opt for the phased plasma rifle in 40 watt range, since phasers seem to be unobtainable, and it has more range than a lightsaber, however, I understand that they are backordered, and even with RUSH delivery, we won't seen any before 2112....

[barnbwt]

Well "Good News," the 14.5mm KPV uses 10-round belts exclusively

[doofus47]

TZAZ

Me, I'll be switching to energy weapons

Would that be a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range?

My order is in....

[Tinbucket]

Once we get rid of this bunch of criminals and Globalists the fight will be easier.
A Law to require all bills submitted meet the Constitutional test might stop a lot of it.
We just have to keep vigilant and elect local and state and national People, that are really champions of the Constitution and not wanting to eliminate, or change America and our Rights.
Every once in a while a new up and comer shows on the scene. Unfortunately he took the political science classes where they teach that a lie is a useful too, even essential tool to get elected. If you don't get elected then you can't get your agenda passed.
Right now there are probably some Youngsters, who can play the game, but with a dedication and devotion to our Republic.
When we find one we must push them protect them and get them elected.
The Big Money comes along and if you agree, with their agenda, they will give you money and make way for you in the halls of Government.
Money is the real power. Until we get public financing and end Corporate Personhood, it will be a tough fight though.
If you have money and desire to keep the Republic humming and protect
America and Americans, to be a champion and not a "I'm not going to do anythign unless I get something out of it" politician, we want you.

[thallub]

This House bill already has 149 sponsors and if the Dems take control of congress it's sure to pass.

The bill dies on 31 December, 2016. There will be another bill to replace it.

Passage of an assault weapons ban in a Democrat controlled US House is not a done deal. The reason: Pro-gun Democrats. Yep, i said pro-gun Democrats.

An examination of the US House vote on the 1994 "assault weapons" ban is in order.

1. The "assault weapons" ban passed the US House by a vote of 216-214. 38 Republicans and one Independent voted in favor. 77 Democrats voted no.

2. Former president Ronald Reagan wrote every member of the US congress asking them to vote for the "assault weapons" ban.

My memory is not what it used to be. Changed: Two congressmen, a Republican and a Democrat , changed their votes based on the appeal from Reagan: That put it over the top.

3. The House minority leader voted for the ban.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/06/us...ault-guns.html

BTW: The Democrat, US Rep. Swett of NH, received numerous death threats for changing his vote.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by Tinbucket

Once we get rid of this bunch of... Globalists the fight will be easier.

There are "Globalists" on both sides of the aisle. "Globalist" views do not necessarily track together with gun control.

Which brings me to the term itself and the reason I've put it in quotes. IMHO the term "Globalist" has become so overused in today's political landscape that it's been beaten into near-meaningless, similar to the "Fascist", which likewise—despite its actual concise definition—tends to be used popularly to mean little more than "a politician whose views I think are evil."

Originally Posted by Tinbucket

A Law to require all bills submitted meet the Constitutional test might stop a lot of it.

And this law would be administered by...?

Originally Posted by Tinbucket

Money is the real power. Until we get public financing and end Corporate Personhood, it will be a tough fight though.

How do you figure that will help promote gun rights? I don't see a lot of corporations actively campaigning for gun control, other than a handful that exist mainly to serve as mouthpieces for wealthy public figures.

Also, remember that most of the recent campaign finance reform measures—notably McCain Feingold—aren't aimed solely at frequently-cited corporate boogeymen like Exxon Mobil or Monsanto. They're also aimed at reducing the influence of powerful non-governmental organizations like the AFL-CIO, the Sierra Club, and the NRA. Something to consider the next time you hear a candidate promise to "take on the gun lobby."

Originally Posted by thallub

Passage of an assault weapons ban in a Democrat controlled US House is not a done deal. The reason: Pro-gun Democrats. Yep, i said pro-gun Democrats.

A very astute observation.

We are in a very strange political situation with the upcoming presidential election. Both candidates are deeply despised by broad swaths of the electorate, and both have espoused views that run counter to many longtime members of their own parties. Both are likely to garner initial approval ratings that are far lower than normal for a new first-term president.

There is a very real possibility that either candidate will see significant factions in their own party's Congressional caucus rebel against them, resulting in legislative gridlock.