ten gun bills introduced today - action item

W

W.E.G.

New member
Feel free to forward to like-minded persons.

Mostly bad bills to oppose.
Two good ones at the bottom of the list.


Go to http://www.congress.org/congressorg/mail/?alertid=61046526&type=ML and enter these short messages for your elected officials.
The system will remember your name, etc., so you only need to enter all that once.
After that, its cut-and-paste to hammer each of the respective the messages forward.

Please send a separate message for each bill

Please oppose H.R. 137(sponsor: Representative McCarthy)
This bill would prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition clips.

Please oppose H.R. 138 (sponsor: Representative McCarthy)
This bill would prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition clips.

Please oppose H.R. 141 (sponsor: Representative McCarthy)
This bill would require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions at gun shows.

Please oppose H.R. 142 (sponsor: Representative McCarthy)
This bill would require face-to-face purchases of ammunition, the licensing of ammunition dealers, and the reporting of bulk ammo purchases.

Please oppose H.R. 34 (sponsor: Representative Rush)
This bill would "tighten" firearms “licensing” requirements.

Please oppose H.R. 117 (sponsor: Representative Holt)
This bill would "tighten" firearms “licensing” requirements.

Please oppose H.R. 65 (sponsor: Representative Lee)
This bill would raise the eligibility age to carry a handgun from 18 to 21.

Please oppose H.R. 21 (sponsor: Representative Moran)
This bill would require background checks for all gun sales, and to require gun owners to report when their guns have been stolen.




Please support H.R. 35 (sponsor: Representative Stockman)
This bill would end federal law requiring that areas around schools be designated as "gun free zones."

Please support H.R. 133 (sponsor: Representative Massie)
This bill would end federal law requiring that areas around schools be designated as "gun free zones."
 
LOVE the last two bills. Glad there is something in the works in DC that's positive.

H.R. 34, 117, 137, 138 are not surprising. Do you have any more specifics on 34/117? What does "tightening" mean.

H.R. 21 seems the most likely to go through, in my opinion.

I FAIL to see how 65 and 141 has ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING, other than just jumping on the bandwagon.

H.R. 142 is the scariest in my opinion. That one has to go, out of all the others.
 
Please oppose H.R. 21 (sponsor: Representative Moran)
This bill would require background checks for all gun sales, and to require gun owners to report when their guns have been stolen.
Click to expand...

What ?? That's our "Republican" Senator, who's supposed to be such a strong 2A supporter. Putting the word on this one, and the letter /calling campaign will begin. He may need a new job after the next election...... when he gets voted out.

They (Dem's or someone) has really convinced them there is a "gunshow loophole" and unlicensed dealers selling guns without background checks.

We've been having a real time getting our reps to understand, there are NO unlicensed dealers at gunshows...... nor that aren't doing background checks. It doesn't exist. It is "personal sales" ....... at least one Rep assigned an aide to try to talk to me until the points I was making was understood. Finally..... they read the laws I was pointing out to them, and the lightbulb went off .. and they understood it. They kept saying, "there must be a section" ...... they finally realized, the info they had gotten ... was all bogus.... there is no "gunshow loophole".

Obviously, he doesn't get it either.
 
All the bills can now be found at http://thomas.loc.gov. Be warned that it takes up to 10 working days for the GPO to print and post the bills.

So we won't know much more about them until they are printed.

Additionally, all these bills were referred to the Judiciary Committee.
 
Not to worry, danco.

As the wording of the bills become available, I'm sure that others (than myself) are familiar enough with the Library of Congress to post the info. This will hardly get "lost."
 
113th Congress, House Bills 101-140

A few more worth your time and attention

H.R.133 -- Citizens Protection Act of 2013 (Mr. MASSIE)

H.R.137 -- Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013 (Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York)

H.R.138 -- Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act (Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York)

H.R.141 -- Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2013 (Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York)

H.R.142 -- Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2013(Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York)

I'm don't know who Mr.Massie is, but Mrs. McCarthy has been busy.
 
133 (the first one) seems to seek to remove the 30.06 signs from schools. My mom works in a school has for 20 years that looks great to me. On the second one how do they think theyll know when you bought that mag? none of my mags have any way that i can see to indicate as to its date of manufacture or purchase. All this will do is make it waaaay more expensive.
 
crankgrinder:

After the first High cap magazine ban they started stamping on the magazines

RESTRICTED LAW ENFORCEMENT
GOV'T USE AND/OR EXPORT ONLY 9-14-94

After the new ban they will add a serial number. So if there is no marking it is pre-ban. If it is marked restricted with the date it is post ban and if it has a S/N it is the new ban.
 
Lets compromise and tighten background checks. Most of us have a CCW, or some other thing like FOID, etc already. Lets have a license for ownership. It can only be revoked if you do the same crimes as would make you lose your gun rights now. Then anyone carrying a firearm who was a felon, etc would get a stiff fine and mandatory 2-5 years of moderately hard labor, to help discourage the practice.

The law would be written where the definitions of prohibited persons would be narrowly defined. The process to revoke would be tough and difficult, but so would the initial background check.

I know, I know, I know, I know firearms ownership is a right. I believe that as much, or more than anyone. However, tougher checks on who is buying firearms and ammunition, might actually prevent something. It would have for instance prevented Cho who did VA Tech.
 
Nate: If you are willing to give up our 2a rights over a few rare tragedies why retain any rights at all? Surely we could save far more lives by allowing the authorities to search your home without a warrant or put you in jail as soon as they "know" you've done something wrong rather than messing around with evidence and trials. We know these mass shootings tend to spur copycats so maybe we should ban reporting on them?

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
 
Proving one isn't a felon or a loon, isn't tantamount to surrendering our second amendment rights in my mind.

Haz-mat drivers, pilots, CCW holders, etc, etc under go governmental background checks everyday. Its done in the interest of safety.

I've tried, but I can't find an excuse for not making it as difficult as possible for felons and those adjudicated to be mentally ill from acquiring firearms. Background checks and coordinating mental health records with the database, is actually one of the few things that would really help.

Screaming my rights, in the face of something that would actually keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, isn't doing us any favors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top