|
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 |
November 6, 2017, 03:51 PM | #51 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,647
|
Quote:
Now I understand.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81 |
||
November 6, 2017, 05:00 PM | #52 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
For the purposes of this thread, let's keep the focus on the legislative proposals and not the events being exploited to promote them.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
November 8, 2017, 09:31 PM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 3, 2009
Location: FL USA
Posts: 332
|
__________________
"Was always kinda partial to Roy Rogers actually. I really like those sequined shirts..." |
November 9, 2017, 05:03 AM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,295
|
Yep. I doubt they have any kind of the push to get it through, more posturing for the base, at a safe time - between elections. Hoever, there is no underestimating the stupidity of a scared politician, and many of the establishment RINOs are scared to death of the "Trump backlash"...normally something I would call a made up leftist thing, but Virginia showed that I might be mistaken. Contact your elected Congresscritters just in case, and explain your opposition to this bill.
|
November 10, 2017, 06:33 AM | #55 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Tom Servo - I've edited the OP to add Sheila Jackson's H.R.4268, so that the bills are all in one place.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
November 11, 2017, 08:28 PM | #56 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Just read Feinstein’s latest AWB offering. Talk about badly drafted. That will be difficult for ATF to enforce and there will be outright loopholes that can be exploited by pro-2A. It is basically a slightly more onerous 1994 ban with some ridiculous language and exceptions.
All variants of AR15s are banned; but Mini-14s are specifically exempt. |
November 12, 2017, 07:23 AM | #57 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
November 12, 2017, 10:54 PM | #58 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Quote:
However, do we want to teach the gun banners how to write a "good" law?? I don't think it wise. Its more costly, certainly, fight once their crap becomes law (if it actually does), but once "set" in the law, they cannot fix a glaring logic flaw with a simple editorial change in committee. If we can prevail, and get a seriously flawed law thrown out by the courts, through due process, its "dead", and over with, null and void, toast. (legal eagles, correct me if I'm wrong, please) In order to replace what the voided law did, the entire process has to start over with a new bill being introduced. And the momentum to pass a new version of what they screwed up on the first time might not be there.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
November 13, 2017, 03:58 AM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 14, 2017
Posts: 123
|
I say let them write the laws that are stuck on stupid because when it gets to a court the Judge might say that its bad law and unenforceable and chunk it out. Take the AWB that was passed during Clinton's Administration it basically banned certain features on some rifles but not any thing that would effect the original function. I think it actually increased gun sales once manufacturers did the cosmetic changes. Once it was done I think it passed by one vote and politicians lost elections that supported it. No politician in Congress wanted to revisit it after that and it eventually expired.
|
November 13, 2017, 06:26 AM | #60 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
November 13, 2017, 11:29 AM | #61 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Quote:
In this, human nature works against us. There are people who simply cannot grasp the importance of keeping their mouths shut in their own best interest. We say "we oppose this bill, because it infringes on our rights." They respond with questions about how, and where it does this, so that "in the spirit of compromise and working together" they can write/rewrite it into a "better" bill. (better, being defined by them, as something that get them what they want, banning guns, but better meaning less vulnerable to legal challenges) And we have people on our side who will happily tell them, in detail, point by point. They think they are helping, but they aren't. They think that if the other side just understands our points, they will recognize the rightness of our positions, and stop trying to pass laws which infringe on our rights. THEY WON'T. I think it is a better tactic for our side to state our opposition, and not explain to the other side every point. Make them do their own homework!!! it may not, of course, work in the long run, but I see no point in making their task of banning our guns any easier for them.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
November 13, 2017, 11:58 AM | #62 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
There isn't anything wrong with pointing out how a gun bill infringes on our gun rights because all such bills will restrict our gun rights in some way. It is another matter entirely to point out the loopholes or areas the law does not cover. |
|
November 22, 2017, 11:36 PM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 12, 2010
Posts: 227
|
It's really notable that there hasn't been ANY legislation proposed to fix the ridiculously inadequate reporting to the NICS system, which is precisely how Devin Kelley was able to purchase his weapons. I read shortly after the incident that about 30% of disqualifying incidents are not reported by the Air Force, 50% by the Army, and an astounding 92% by the Navy. But I never hear a peep about this; it's all about banning this, banning that, etc.
|
November 23, 2017, 01:12 AM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,295
|
I had heard that very idea was floated some years back and the Democrats sank it, can't remember where I read that one...
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|