Post Las Vegas legislative proposals

ATN082268: Your post reads like the California ammo laws about to take affect.

Background checks required to purchase ammo; no mail order ammo (all sales must be face to face); ammo cannot be out on display in the gun store but must be behind the counter and not accessible to customers. All ammo sellers for more than 50 rounds require an ammunition seller's license.

They also wanted to require a video of every transaction but I don't think that made it in to the law.
 
I just received an email from Firearms policy coalition stating there is a new bill being introduced related to bump fire stocks HR-4168
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4168/text

HR-4168 said:
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat in the same manner as a machine gun any bump fire stock, or any other devices designed to accelerate substantially the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon.
Click to expand...

So does that wording change anyone's mind ? It does to me a little bit but The Firearms policy coalition are treating it as if it's the same as Feinstein's bill which was more vague IMO
 
It works fine, until some unelected "agent" decides that a 10 round per minute (or even ONE round per minute) is "substantial".

Same problem as the other bill(s), it leaves the definition in the hands of the people who do the enforcement.

That is neither good policy, nor good law, though it is done all too often.

What is a fully automatic firearm is clearly defined. More than one shot from a single trigger pull. Very clear, a gun either does that, or it does not.

Now, putting in such vague language as "a substantial increase" is asking for a judgment call. Legislators can make such a judgment, and put it into law, but they are answerable to the public at the next election.

This is part of their function and their responsibility. When they pass that to an enforcement agency, they are avoiding their responsibility, and avoiding having to face the consequences of their actions. Public ire will be directed at the agency, (who gets to duck it, because they are "only doing their job as defined in law"), not the politician(s) who are actually responsible, and who should be held accountable.

It's an old dodge, and its not just limited to firearms law.

Consider this, Congress didn't define what could and couldn't be imported under the "sporting use" clause they wrote into law, they gave that task to the Sec of the Treasury (or their designee).

Too much for their busy selves to bother with, I suppose...on the other hand, we can't vote the SecTreas out of office, if he bans something we like, just because he can.
 
No, doesn't change my mind. It still leaves the problem of the gov't deciding what rate of fire is acceptable. None of the business about "accelerates the rate of fire"or "substantially accelerates the rate of fire" makes a whit of difference until someone decides how many rounds per minute/second/day is acceptable.
 
I see your guys points but how often do we see "reasonable" in the wording of legislation or rulings . I don't know about you guys but reasonable sure seems a lot more vague and up to interpretation then substantially is in the text of this bill ????
 
Metal god said:
I just received an email from Firearms policy coalition stating there is a new bill being introduced related to bump fire stocks HR-4168
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...bill/4168/text

Originally Posted by HR-4168
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat in the same manner as a machine gun any bump fire stock, or any other devices designed to accelerate substantially the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon.
Click to expand...
So does that wording change anyone's mind ? It does to me a little bit but The Firearms policy coalition are treating it as if it's the same as Feinstein's bill which was more vague IMO
Click to expand...
This is still unacceptably vague, unless "substantially" is defined in the law itself, as it applies to this law. Otherwise, to you and me "substantially" might mean a 300 percent increase, but to Officer Friendly it may mean a 10 percent increase.
 
^^^ +1.

As I've said in other threads about recent bump-stock bills, if legislators are solely and truly concerned with outlawing add-ons like bump-fire devices and GatCranks, it would be fairly easy to write narrow language that talks only about the device and not the gun itself.

However, as long as they're talking about rate of fire in the broad and general sense, I'm going to be seriously concerned about the future interpretation of the bill, regardless of how many weasel words they qualify it with.
 
After the Texas press conference this morning . My guess is background checks are going to be a high priority . As well as what constitutes a prohibited person and how that info is shared to the NICS system . It's sounding like he should have been a prohibited person but still "legally" bought 4 firearms in 4 years .

If there is anything that may help us in the new/continuing debate is that a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with one . With an "assault" weapon to boot . Although I already heard one reporter bring that up and add that was just this one incident . What about all the others ? Which the logical response is to say most of those others were conducted in "gun free zones" making it unlawful to have a firearm in that area making it impossible to legally be that good guy with a gun .

Because of Vegas not being very long ago . This gun control debate may have just got some refreshed legs that may make it to the finish line .
 
Last edited:
I would be interested in where the Texas shooter got his gun. I read where he got kicked out of the Air Force with a Bad Conduct Discharge. I haven't filled out a 4473 for some time. It seems to me that getting something other than an honorable discharge was a dis qualifier. A BCD is definitely not honorable.
 
rwilson452, as discussed at length in this TFL thread, there are several classes of military discharge that are below a honorable discharge but do not make someone a prohibited person. A Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) is one of these; it is proverbially one step on the ladder above a dishonorable discharge, analogous to a serious non-domestic misdemeanor conviction, not to a felony.

As this topic doesn't directly concern legislative proposals, I suggest that we start another thread if you wish to discuss it further.
 
rwilson452, as discussed at length in this TFL thread, there are several classes of military discharge that are below a honorable discharge but do not make someone a prohibited person. A Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) is one of these; it is proverbially one step on the ladder above a dishonorable discharge, analogous to a serious non-domestic misdemeanor conviction, not to a felony.

As this topic doesn't directly concern legislative proposals, I suggest that we start another thread if you wish to discuss it further.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Thanks,

Now I understand.
 
For the purposes of this thread, let's keep the focus on the legislative proposals and not the events being exploited to promote them.
 
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.
 
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. :rolleyes:
 
That just almost violates the rational basis test.
Click to expand...

ALMOST???

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.
 
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.
 
44 AMP said:
ALMOST???
Click to expand...
"Almost." I'm not a court and reluctant to make any hard predictions as to what a court might rule on that. Too many variables.

44 AMP said:
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)
Click to expand...
True, but with the not-insignificant downside that the bad law remains the law until a court tosses it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top