10 gun bills introduced in House's first day

[tuck0411]

Targets of opportunity for emailing your Viet-congressmen:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...y-of-the-house

[W.E.G.]

There we go.

Actual bill numbers.

H.R. 137 and 138
McCarthy
prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition clips.

H.R. 141
McCarthy
require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions at gun shows

H.R. 142
McCarthy
require face-to-face purchases of ammunition, the licensing of ammunition dealers, and the reporting of bulk ammo purchases.

H.R. 34
Bobby Rush (D-Ill.)
Tighten firearms “licensing” requirements

H.R. 117
Rush Holt (D-N.J.)
Tighten firearms “licensing” requirements

H.R. 65
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas)
raise the eligibility age to carry a handgun from 18 to 21.

H.R. 21
Jim Moran (D-Va.)
background checks for all gun sales, and to require gun owners to report when their guns have been stolen.




H.R. 35
Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas)
end federal law requiring that areas around schools be designated as "gun free zones."

H.R. 133 from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)
end federal law requiring that areas around schools be designated as "gun free zones."

[W.E.G.]

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/...046526&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."

[gunnut1]

And so it begins.

[JohnnyMac]

I HITTED IT!

Message sent to the following recipients:
Representative Connolly
Senator Warner
President
Message text follows:

John Mc*********
******************
******************

January 4, 2013

[recipient address was inserted here]


[recipient name was inserted here],

Please oppose H.R. 65 (sponsor: Representative Lee) This bill would raise the eligibility age to carry a handgun from 18 to 21, placing an impediment to the exercise of the rights enumerated in the Second Amendment, with no increase in safety to the public.

P.S. Why is an obvious nut-case like Sheila Jackson-Lee even allowed to open her pie-hole on the floor of the House?!

Sincerely,


John Mc**********
703-***-****

[cowbilly]

Wait a minute, I thouht D's and R's were exaclty the same. I see some minor discrepancies here.

I have been hammering my Rep and Senators since the shooting over this crap. My senators (R's) will vote against gun control of any type, my rep is anti gun and so far is an unbeatable Democrat.

[G3isMe]

Originally Posted by JohnnyMac

I HITTED IT!

Please tell us you didn't send that letter. We need a concerted effort of respectable letters, etc., to our elected officials even if we disagree with them and their principles. It will do more harm than good to send letters worded the way we talk to our buddies in the tavern. Just sayin........


.

[tuck0411]

Originally Posted by JohnnyMac

I HITTED IT!

Me too. 10 emails sent to my rep, one for each bill as per WEG's suggestion. Thanks, WEG.

[G1user]

Originally Posted by cowbilly

Wait a minute, I thouht D's and R's were exaclty the same. I see some minor discrepancies here.....

I suspect the two pro gun reps are TEA party, as in "Taxed Enough Already"...

[Sijones]

I could be totally wrong. Would not be the first time. So far as I know it is not lawful for anyone under 21 to buy a handgun much less carry one in Texas. Maybe different elsewhere. SJ Lee is amongst the top 10 politicians who really annoy me. Her and her ilk are pure poison to all that's still good and right in this country.

[JasonB]

Originally Posted by cowbilly

Wait a minute, I thouht D's and R's were exaclty the same. I see some minor discrepancies here.

Why yes, they do talk pro-gun when there is a (D) in the white house.

How many federal anti-gun laws/rules were repealed during the years the republicans had control of the presidency, house, senate, & supreme court?

I can't think of any, but can recall imported barrels/receivers getting banned in 2005 when they ran the show.

[cowbilly]

Originally Posted by JasonB

Why yes, they do talk pro-gun when there is a (D) in the white house.

How many federal anti-gun laws/rules were repealed during the years the republicans had control of the presidency, house, senate, & supreme court?

I can't think of any, but can recall imported barrels/receivers getting banned in 2005 when they ran the show.

Predictable, post your mantra in your sig line so you don't have to type it over and over.

You should also look at how many gun ban bills the R's introduce as opposed to the D's. There is a big difference. R's are not perfect but they can be used.

Be sure not to burn all your bridges, you'll need an escape route eventually. Unfortunately, if only one bridge remains, it will be covered, so leave two.

[dirtyrice]

Originally Posted by Sijones

I could be totally wrong. Would not be the first time. So far as I know it is not lawful for anyone under 21 to buy a handgun much less carry one in Texas. Maybe different elsewhere. SJ Lee is amongst the top 10 politicians who really annoy me. Her and her ilk are pure poison to all that's still good and right in this country.

You'd be wrong. Federal law restricts an ffl from transferring a handgun to someone under 21yrs of age. You could buy it private sale at 18. The car carry part of the castle doctrine does not require you to be 21. If you are active military you can get a chl at 18 in Texas.

[gunnut1]

Originally Posted by dirtyrice

You'd be wrong. Federal law restricts an ffl from transferring a handgun to someone under 21yrs of age. You could buy it private sale at 18. The car carry part of the castle doctrine does not require you to be 21. If you are active military you can get a chl at 18 in Texas.

I disagree. You have to be 21 in the state of Texas to get a CHL and you have to be 21 to buy a hand gun. I am not aware of any military exemption for age for a CHL.

I would like to see you source on the 18 rule.

[Highground]

Right now I'm challenged to even find these bills on the HoR site. Other than reading The Hill and NRA-ILA makes mention of them I would still like to see them listed on their docket.

H.R. 141 comes up as a bill to repeal Obamacare for the 112th Congress.

Thomas Register shows no text received as yet on 141.

So does anyone have a active House link for these?

Tnx.

[dirtyrice]

Originally Posted by gunnut1

I disagree. You have to be 21 in the state of Texas to get a CHL and you have to be 21 to buy a hand gun. I am not aware of any military exemption for age for a CHL.

I would like to see you source on the 18 rule.

I'm sorry gary you can disagee but you're still wrong. It only took me a few seconds to find it on the dps website. Google before you post brother Not good to be spreading bad info about gun laws.

https://txapps.texas.gov/txapp/txdps/chl/

"Before you begin, please read the Texas Concealed Handgun Laws and Selected Statutes (download Adobe Reader). You must be at least 21 years of age or at least 18 years of age if currently serving in or honorably discharged from the military. "

It has been that way for a long time. And I am %100 correct about the law only restricting an ffl from selling a handgun to someone under 21. Also the car carry law makes no mention of an age only that you must be able to legally own the firearm which you can own a handgun at 18. Otherwise what good would a chl be to an 18yr old serving..... You would technically have to get your handgun ammo from private sale also since federal law restricts a LICENSED dealer from selling handgun ammo to someone under 21. This is clearly spelled out on the atfs website. Of course you can only buy this stuff private sale if your state law does not prohibit it, which Texas does not.

[mutter]

The bill also limits the transfer of a semiautomatic assault rifle to any one under 21.

WEG did a good job listing the bills but the descriptions are not quite detailed enough.

H.R. 21 also directs the states to set up CHL systems. How ever, it also places the burden that YOU must demonstrate good cause as to why you need one.

I've been following these bills and reading them at Thomas since last Thursday. Most of the bills aren't yet available.

[gunnut1]

Originally Posted by dirtyrice

I'm sorry gary you can disagee but you're still wrong. It only took me a few seconds to find it on the dps website. Google before you post brother Not good to be spreading bad info about gun laws.

https://txapps.texas.gov/txapp/txdps/chl/

"Before you begin, please read the Texas Concealed Handgun Laws and Selected Statutes (download Adobe Reader). You must be at least 21 years of age or at least 18 years of age if currently serving in or honorably discharged from the military. "

It has been that way for a long time. And I am %100 correct about the law only restricting an ffl from selling a handgun to someone under 21. Also the car carry law makes no mention of an age only that you must be able to legally own the firearm which you can own a handgun at 18. Otherwise what good would a chl be to an 18yr old serving..... You would technically have to get your handgun ammo from private sale also since federal law restricts a LICENSED dealer from selling handgun ammo to someone under 21. This is clearly spelled out on the atfs website. Of course you can only buy this stuff private sale if your state law does not prohibit it, which Texas does not.

You are right. I stand corrected. Crow taste pretty good!

[G1user]

Originally Posted by mutter

...H.R. 21 also directs the states to set up CHL systems. How ever, it also places the burden that YOU must demonstrate good cause as to why you need one....

First they enact their CHL ("License" = permission slip to do that which is otherwise illegal), thereby outlawing carry without a CHL;

After they have CHL in place, they enact outlawing ownership unless you have their CHL/FOID, then they simply deny/rovoke said CHL/FOID, and create another "offender" to "take" into custody.

Dont be deceived, a CHL is a contract, an agreement between the applicant (the slave) and the the issuing state (the master), part of that agreement is the slave preregistering as a felon (i.e. "admitting 'guilt'").
That is not an equitable agreement, they hold all the interest/power, and you hold nothing, and relinquish your rights in trade for nothing.
OTOH, Vermont style carry laws are equitable.

[wkendwarrior2003]

Originally Posted by G1user

First they enact their CHL ("License" = permission slip to do that which is otherwise illegal), thereby outlawing carry without a CHL;

After they have CHL in place, they enact outlawing ownership unless you have their CHL/FOID, then they simply deny/rovoke said CHL/FOID, and create another "offender" to "take" into custody.

Dont be deceived, a CHL is a contract, an agreement between the applicant (the slave) and the the issuing state (the master), part of that agreement is the slave preregistering as a felon (i.e. "admitting 'guilt'").
That is not an equitable agreement, they hold all the interest/power, and you hold nothing, and relinquish your rights in trade for nothing.
OTOH, Vermont style carry laws are equitable.

Careful G1, most people it seems have already written places like Vermont off (it's a "blue state" right?) --if they had to fathom the notion that in some ways a place like VT is more "free" than some places in "red state" America, their brains would probably melt down or something...

[G1user]

Originally Posted by wkendwarrior2003

Careful G1, most people it seems have already written places like Vermont off (it's a "blue state" right?) --if they had to fathom the notion that in some ways a place like VT is more "free" than some places in "red state" America, their brains would probably melt down or something...

Aside from online pissin' contests, I don't see how relative degrees of "free" is a relevant issue at all anymore. As long we continue to accept the government bureaucracy's monopoly on use of force, fraud, coercion to dominate the rest of society, then there is no free, merely "current status".
Rejecting that monopoly is a prerequisite to evolve past where we are at now, there is no other way out.

The gun hate terrorism we see today is not about "freedom", it is about domination of political enemies under color of law, by extralegal means.
No doubt, blue states are the source of most of the gun hate we see, but then again, on the other hand, the declaration of independence, and bill of rights, came from the participation of those same blue states, but on the other, other hand, so did the war of northern aggression against the south, so there are no "angels" (besides all us "killer angels").

Since we cant solve a problem on the same level of thinking that created it, then perhaps a melt down would actually be beneficial, at this point.

[wkendwarrior2003]

Originally Posted by G1user

Aside from online pissin' contests, I don't see how relative degrees of "free" is a relevant issue at all anymore. As long we continue to accept the government bureaucracy's monopoly on use of force, fraud, coercion to dominate the rest of society, then there is no free, merely "current status".
Rejecting that monopoly is a prerequisite to evolve past where we are at now, there is no other way out.

The gun hate terrorism we see today is not about "freedom", it is about domination of political enemies under color of law, by extralegal means.
No doubt, blue states are the source of most of the gun hate we see, but then again, on the other hand, the declaration of independence, and bill of rights, came from the participation of those same blue states, but on the other, other hand, so did the war of northern aggression against the south, so there are no "angels" (besides all us "killer angels").

Since we cant solve a problem on the same level of thinking that created it, then perhaps a melt down would actually be beneficial, at this point.

There are no "angels" in our shared American history, but Yankees were lied to about the South and the CSA, just as so many soldiers from all parts of the country today are lied to about "external threats" (and have been for some time) while their government tries to tear the Constitution to shreds. Nothing new there.

My only real point is that there are some on this board (not saying you) that are ready to "figuratively" or "symbolically" offer up some of these blue states Versailles-style to be part of some kind neo-Soviet bloc, as if there is nobody living there worth half a sh**, but fail to take into account that some states like, say, Virginia, just recently repealed a "One Handgun Per Month" law.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1308194.html

I think ALL of us have got problems we need to deal with--in our own states certainly, but especially in our shared, bloated-to-all-hell federal government.

[BlackgunCO]

It was a hell of a lot harder to buy a handgun in red state NC back in the mid 90s than it is to buy one in blue state CO now. People call CO a liberal state, but Obama won here by around 4%. I guess it is OK to piss on the 46% here that are not Democrates. A lot of the Dems here are pro gun too. Of course there are some wack job left wingers to boot, but they sure as hell don't make up the whole population of CO.

[G1user]

Originally Posted by wkendwarrior2003

...My only real point is that there are some on this board (not saying you) that are ready to "figuratively" or "symbolically" offer up some of these blue states Versailles-style to be part of some kind neo-Soviet bloc, as if there is nobody living there worth half a sh**, but fail to take into account that some states like, say, Virginia, just recently repealed a "One Handgun Per Month" law.

You may be right, but I have not noticed, but I probly have not been paying attention.
I am a bigot, but I am an equal opportunity bigot: I hate everyone equally, so no one group gets any disproportionate hate from me.
I figure I am not the only one here with that "egalitarian" point of view.

I for one do regard blue states as a neo-Soviet bloc, as far as politics goes -- not that this in any way justifies abuses by red state governments, as I often point out (and get flamed for).
But I am sure that there are many good people trapped behind enemy lines; so too, I am sure many, many good people get railroaded all over this land, no matter where they are...such is the nature of a neo feudal nation.
As I said, we cant solve a problem on the same level of thinking that created it, so perhaps a melt down would actually be beneficial, at this point.

Originally Posted by wkendwarrior2003

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1308194.html

I think ALL of us have got problems we need to deal with--in our own states certainly, but especially in our shared, bloated-to-all-hell federal government.

In my estimation DC is lost. The progressive bureaucracy has taken it over, and dug in too deep to ever be worth the cost of taking it back, besides, the progressive bureaucracy is not sustainable; it is inevitably going to come apart at the seams.
Therefore, state/county/local is the only realistic focus, like it or not.