AWB Removed From Base Gun Control Bill in Senate

You forgot Connecticut's Gov and Senators will chime in.....to further the push

Don't trust them....

it isn't over until the PLUMP lady sings, AND I'm NOT Talking Hillary
 
“Right now her amendment, by the most optimistic measures, has less than 40 votes,” Mr. Reid said. “I am not going to put something on the floor that can’t succeed.”
 
im so happy about this small step forward! either way you look at it, its still a victory for us. im gonna go celebrate with a nice cold victory beer
 
Ok, looks like we still have a little issue here.

Apparently Mr. Reid plans to hold two votes on Ms. Feinstein’s bill. One will be the AWB bill including the magazine restrictions. I think we all know this is not going to pass, but provides some cover so Senators can vote against it while supporting the other initiatives.

Mr. Reid apparently plans to also hold a separate vote on just the magazine limit portion of the Bill. Apparently the Senate Leadership believes the magazine restrictions might have a chance of passing.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/19/reid-cuts-assault-weapons-ban-from-senate-gun-control-bill-amid-waning-support/
 
Maybe this means that the price of battle rifles will start coming down to some semblance of normality in the near future. Also, If these bills are having such a difficult time just making it through the senate, I can't imagine that they will actually make it through congress.
 
DOA in the house. This could be a good thing for midterm elections. So I hope they go on record and vote the whole thing.
 
I don't feel real warm and fuzzy about universal background checks, but even that is preferable to registration. Registration is the first step on the road to confiscation.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the current bill, as written, is so badly written that any gun owner of any gun will be a felon unless they never let another living soul touch their rifle without a background check and keep it stored in a locked container only they have access to.

One example: If my buddy comes to my house and I show him my new gun - legal. If I drive to my buddy's house to show him the same new gun - felon, no more guns.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
The problem is that the current bill, as written, is so badly written that any gun owner of any gun will be a felon unless they never let another living soul touch their rifle without a background check and keep it stored in a locked container only they have access to.
Click to expand...
I believe the drafters would say "that's a feature, not a bug."
 
"The irony is that, in the days of the Founders, we had registration. Every able-bodied adult male was a member of the militia, and the commanding officer of each militia unit obviously needed to know what arms his troop would have at its disposal."

Now if the federal government wishes to give me an M-16 with lots of practice ammo as a member of a state militia they can feel free to register that weapon, and that weapon only.
 
This time the antis have decided to bypass Congress (although they will make an effort there) and ramrod their agenda through state legislatures, which, as we have seen, are much more likely to succumb to an organized and well-funded campaign, especially if the governor is eager to use his clout, which is often more powerful than that of the president over Congress.

It also has the benefit to the antis of spreading out the pro-gun defense and creating a welter of state laws that will confuse gun companies and distributors as they try to comply with 50 conflicting gun and magazine laws. If you are one of the folks who happen to live on a state line, that eight-shot revolver could be legal in your kitchen, but get you jailed for life when the police break in and find it in your living room.

Jim
 
BBC says Assault Weapons Ban Dropped

Looks like Dianne Feinstein lost for now. This is definitely a significant victory. But let's be clear, this is certainly far from over.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21849814

The good thing to note is that those representatives and politicians who are against guns are now known to us and come election time, they'll get what's coming to them. The next time the antis make a push, they'll have less supporters in office hopefully.

Now it's time for me to go back to hoarding standard-capacity magazines... :(
 
So yeah, it doesn't use the word, but registration is implicit.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt the proponents would wish it so, but I don't see why it's inevitable. Right now, for example, there is no permanent record of background checks (officially, that we know of).

In my state, if one has a CCW that IS the background check. You do your 4473 form at the dealer, and it goes in their file cabinet. Of course, those forms could be collected later and entered into a database (if the law allowed it, which it does not at this time.)

If the NICS check was a go, no go phone call, without a permanent record, then I would have a hard time not supporting that. The problem is that our opponents have completely validated our worst fears about their intentions with regard to banning guns. It's not paranoid if they are really attempting the thing you're paranoid about.
 
Last edited:
maestro pistolero said:
In my state, if one has a CCW that IS the background check. You do your 4473 form at the dealer, and it goes in their file cabinet. Of course, those forms could be collected later and entered into a database (if the law allowed it, which it does not at this time.)
Click to expand...

You have identified the major issues with Schumer's UBC bill. The bill eliminates background check substitutes for private sales because they would not create records. Simply put, the underlying purpose of the bill is to create a record of every firearm transaction. While those records are housed at dealers at this time, it would only take a majority vote in Congress to centralize the records.

Outright registration is a high hurdle today, but mandatory recordkeeping may be attainable. Collecting today's records would not constitute a full registry but, over time, the accumulation of records of all transactions would create more and more of the data needed for a registry. Possibly years from now, a move to centralize existing records would be much more viable than simply demanding registration today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top