Questions about HR-1150 and Children's Gun Violence Prevention Act

G

Gunz-n-Rosie

New member
I went to the MAVIA site, interested in what was being gone to help stop violence in America and saw these two bills listed. I read the summaries of them. The second of the two seemed to be anti-gun rather than and anti-violence... or is it just me. This is obviously one version of the story so to speak, so I was wondering what is your interpretation of these two items (besides the obvious... I would assume you would definitely not be for the "Children's Gun Violence Prevention Act" since it has been created with the help of Handgun Control Inc.).

I am beginning to believe that I should start my own grassroots effort, M.O.M. (moms on a mission), since I don't seem to fit in anywhere (as far as organizations are concerned).

[This message has been edited by Gunz-n-Rosie (edited May 06, 1999).]
 
G&R...

Actually, you fit in well....as has been stated by many of us: Its not required that you have a gun or even be pro-gun, just keep an open mind and don't prevent those of us who are law-abiding gunowners from exercising our rights.

You are exactly right: anti-violence is not the same as anti-gun. Everyone here is anti-violence.

I just came in for lunch and will read HR1150 after my little one and I are fed.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
RE: Children's Gun Violence Prevention Act

Read it carefully and ask yourself what it really accomplishes as stated in its intent. Does it indeed prevent gun violence that is already against the law?
1)This bill federalizes existing State laws,
2)bans certain guns (imports and/or "cheap") that denies the poorer segments of society an affordable gun (read racist);
3) increases the age of "adulthood" to 24 yr of age (this is primarily in order to skew statistics and increase the # of "children" firearm incidents);
4)endows grants to have medical personnel keep track of firearm related injuries (redundant and useless expenditure of money since ALL firearm incidents are required by law to be reported and they are and have been for at least 40 yrs)
5)endows grants to educate children about gun violence through the public school system(needless expenditure of money and is effectively gov't anti-gun propaganda)
6) sets FEDERAL security and safety standards (that are not specified) for gun shops....very likely resulting in a gun shop owner being held responsible and prosecuted UNDER FEDERAL LAW because someone robbed his shop.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
I saw a short version of the Children's Gun Violence Prevention Act not too long ago. It seemed to me at the time that most of it was nonsense.
For example:
1. Forces manufacturers to implement new "childproof" safety standards.
Nobody has defined what these standards are supposed to be.
Do they mean trigger locks? Those are already available to those that want them.
So-called "Smart Gun" technology? This does not exist at the present time in a reliable, proven system.
And what about the 200 million+ guns already in existence?

2. Prohibits the sale of an "assault weapon" to anyone under the age of 18.
The sale of ANY firearm to anyone under 18 is already a felony.

3. Automatically revokes the license of any dealer who is found to have willfully sold a gun to a juvenile.
See item #2. Selling a gun to a kid is a felony. Sell gun - go to jail - lose license.

4. Fines a gun owner up to $10,000 if a child gains access to a loaded firearm and can go to jail for 1 year if the firearm is used in an act of violence.
If a teenager steals your car, then kills someone in a hit and run, do the same rules apply? I'm not a lawyer, but someone once pointed out that they doubted if these type of laws were constitutional.

5. Authorizes $25 million for the creation and implementation of a children's firearm injury surveillance system.
I'm not entirely sure what they mean by this. Is this another government bureaucracy? Or some kind of high tech baby monitor?

6. Creates an educational program to teach kids what to do if they hear a classmate has brought a gun to school, or if they are faced with a violent situation.
Why don't we just call this the Eddie Eagle program?

7. Creates a grant program for local law enforcement agencies for the tracing of guns used in juvenile crime.
Why don't we use these funds to prosecute these offenders?

Legislation like this is only useful for political posturing. It's loaded with emotional hot buttons and enables its proponents to seem as if they are "doing something". There isn't much there that doesn't already exist, and whatever is left over is of questionable value.
 
Thanks both of you! I have just printed what you guys typed so that I can read it in further detail. I really appreciate you both taking the time to respond to this. When will this be voted on, or has it already?

P.S. Personally, I am tired of adding so many laws that should be common sense (or in some cases, our own responsibility, not the government's) or are just "stupid" for a lack of a better word. Someone tried to pass a city ordinance here making it illegal for your dog or cat to kill a bird in your backyard (or in the case of a cat, your neighbor's yard as well). I guess I better find out if that was passed. If it has, I'm afraid my dalmation will be serving 12 to life. Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase state "pen."

[This message has been edited by Gunz-n-Rosie (edited May 06, 1999).]
 
I just noticed....G&R is now a Senior member!! Congrats!

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
The goal of all gun control is the total and complete ban of possession of all guns by citizens and state and local police, and to concentrate all armed force under the control of the President. Period. Anything else is simply an incremental approach to that goal. This is not my view, it is based on many statements and policy position papers by the gun control organizations and their supporters.

Jim
 
Thanks, DC! I just noticed that too!

It doesn't sound to me as if any of those things will help stop violence. From the information you've provided me with, it almost appears as though (oversimplified) we've created "law A" and then added "law B" which simply states that it would be against the law to not obey "law A." Am I getting this right?

[This message has been edited by Gunz-n-Rosie (edited May 06, 1999).]
 
G&R...

Yep, you are seeing it...tho we are down to like Law P, etc, ad nauseum.
In simplistic form...murder and thievery has been against the law before recorded history, and they are still committed. Is it any worse to murder a person with a gun, knife, poison or a car?
We have a recent example of the man who intentionally crashed his Cadillac into a daycare center in Costa Mesa, CA (a few days ago)...by his own admission with the express purpose of murdering innocent children. Have you noticed there is no outrage? He didn't use a gun, so its not an emotional and politically expedient crime. No brownie points for self-serving legislators.



------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Somebody ought to sue the makers of that car... that thing is dangerous. Daycare centers and schools should be cadillac free zone.

(I hope you know me by now to realize that I was being sarcastic)

That was not reported on the news here at all. But I did see it as a thread title on this site. That is very sad and very disturbing.

When do you think we will quit adding so many new laws and just start enforcing the laws we have? Would it make a difference to send a note like that to my senators?
 
By all means, get politically active!

You have to look at motivation where legislators are concerned. There is no money and votes for a Sen, Congress, etc in enforcing existing laws as they have no direct gain, nothing to campaign on next election.
Consider this analogy: our legislators are now like firemen who start fires in order to keep their jobs. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever paying taxes to maintain a state of the art fire department and paying their salaries....they are there when we need them. But I sure don't want them starting fires in order to show me they do their job.

During the House impeachment hearings, Gephardt made a telling statement....he accused the House of dereliction of duty by saying: "This is the worst Congress, they have made fewer laws than any Congress in the last 60 yrs"

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
FYI

Current law (18 U.S.C. 922) makes it unlawful to sell, deliver or otherwise transfer to a juvenile (under 18) a handgun or handgun ammunition, and prohibits a juvenile from possessing a handgun or handgun ammunition. There are exemptions for members of the armed forces, training under adult supervision, and a few others.

The fact that the press and the President are now loudly demanding a law to keep juveniles from possessing handguns simply shows their ignorance of current law and the fact that politicians are willing to use any tragedy to get headlines (and make people forget other headlines), not to offer real solutions.

Jim
 
Thanks again for yet even more information. I looked up how to contact my senators and got their email addresses, snail mail addresses, and fax numbers. I also looked up what subcommittees they are on. One of my senators is the chairman for the subcommittee on youth violence. Evidently there was a meeting on the 5th called "Reducing Jevenile Violence Through Recognition of Early Warning Signs" but the only information about it listed was what time the meeting took place. I found this under www.senate.gov but I don't see where any additional information concerning that is listed... or is that information unavailable to the general public? Before I write my notes to them, I wanted to find out a little more about what they have been doing. Is there a different web site I should be looking at for that kind of information?

[This message has been edited by Gunz-n-Rosie (edited May 07, 1999).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top