You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
bill hr59
- Thread starter Bobbi
- Start date
Seems to have stalled out in committee.
H.R.59
Sponsor: Rep Barr, Bob (introduced 1/6/1999)
Latest Major Action: 2/25/1999 Referred to House subcommittee
Title: To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that the firearms prohibitions applicable by
reason of a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction do not apply if the conviction occurred
before the prohibitions became law.
Summary
OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED:
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that the firearms prohibitions applicable
by reason of a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction do not apply if the conviction
occurred before the prohibitions became law.
STATUS: (italics indicate Senate actions)
1/6/1999:
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
2/25/1999:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
H.R.59
Sponsor: Rep Barr, Bob (introduced 1/6/1999)
Latest Major Action: 2/25/1999 Referred to House subcommittee
Title: To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that the firearms prohibitions applicable by
reason of a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction do not apply if the conviction occurred
before the prohibitions became law.
Summary
OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED:
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that the firearms prohibitions applicable
by reason of a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction do not apply if the conviction
occurred before the prohibitions became law.
STATUS: (italics indicate Senate actions)
1/6/1999:
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
2/25/1999:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bobbi:
can anyone tell me what ever happened to this bill. they wanted to make it a felony if you own a firearm now if you were ever convicted of a domestic crime in your past.
thank-you[/quote]
Most bills languish in committees.
I still don't understand how a right can be denied by a misdemeanor...doesn't it have to be a felony to do this?
can anyone tell me what ever happened to this bill. they wanted to make it a felony if you own a firearm now if you were ever convicted of a domestic crime in your past.
thank-you[/quote]
Most bills languish in committees.
I still don't understand how a right can be denied by a misdemeanor...doesn't it have to be a felony to do this?
That's the problem. People think that a right can be denied through simple legislative action. We have bought into this and it is coming home to roost. The Second Amendment does not say anything about a person who has been convicted is no longer covered under this right.
Up until the late nineteenth century it was customary, when people were let out of prison, to give them their property they had when they were incarcerated. This would include their rig, revolver, ammo, etc. At some point, this stopped.
If this was the case up to that point; how can it be stated that it was intended for those who were convicted of a crime to be denied this right if those so convicted were availed of that right all along?
Legislative fiat does not a Constitutional Amendment make.
As long as we are willing to believe that rights enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights can be negated with a simple majority vote, we are all lost.
------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited January 30, 2000).]
Up until the late nineteenth century it was customary, when people were let out of prison, to give them their property they had when they were incarcerated. This would include their rig, revolver, ammo, etc. At some point, this stopped.
If this was the case up to that point; how can it be stated that it was intended for those who were convicted of a crime to be denied this right if those so convicted were availed of that right all along?
Legislative fiat does not a Constitutional Amendment make.
As long as we are willing to believe that rights enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights can be negated with a simple majority vote, we are all lost.
------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited January 30, 2000).]