Proposed gun legislation

[Djfan]

From your friendly loving dems.

For the record, if this passes, I will be a vocal advocate for secession.

This would and should cause secession, IMO

Congressman Jeff Duncan

·
I've received many questions about HR 127, The Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act introduced by Congresswoman Jackson Lee.
First of all, this is one of those bills that's actually worse than what you've probably heard. It also proves that yes, there are plenty of politicians out there who want to take your guns.
Here's an overview of the legislation:
1) Establishes a firearms registration system within the ATF
2) Registered individuals must notify the ATF every time they loan their firearms
3) May not loan firearms to anyone under the age of 18, does not seem to have any exception for hunting or recreation
4) All firearms acquired before this legislation must also be registered
5) Creates a firearms and ammunition licensing system
6) Must be in possession in order to purchase or posses firearms or ammunition
7) Must be 21 years old to obtain a license
8) Must go through psychological evaluation
9) Must have firearms insurance, like car insurance, to cover damages resulting from the use of any firearm by the person
10) Need a separate license for Antique Firearm Display
11) Must describe how it will be displayed and demonstrate that it is stored in a manner as approved by the AG.
12) Need a separate license for “Military-Style Weapons”
13) Licenses may be suspended if individual is under indictment, not even charged, for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
14) Must renew licenses every year for 5 years, then once every three years (this provision has already been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, but the author doesn't seem to care).
15) Prohibits possession of certain ammunition, and based on my reading does not provide an exception for shotguns, so 12 and 20 gauge could be prohibited under this legislation.
16) Prohibits “large” capacity feeding devices (10 rounds)
17) Possessing a firearm or ammunition without a license and registration is a minimum fine of $75K and minimum sentence of 15 years
18) Transferring a firearm or ammunition to a person who is not licensed is a minimum fine of $50K and minimum sentence of 10 years
19) Selling or giving a firearm or ammunition without notifying the Attorney General is a minimum fine of $30K and minimum sentence of 5 years
20) Loaning a firearm or ammunition without notifying AG is a minimum fine of $5K
21) Transferring firearm to an individual under 18 is a minimum fine of $75K and minimum sentence of 15 years.
This bill is designed to scare people out of gun ownership. The penalties are so steep, and the rules so strict that the chances of a law abiding citizen accidentally breaking the law is high, and it goes without saying that this bill is a clear violation of the Second Amendment.
I will absolutely, 100% oppose this bill with every fiber of my being. I will be tracking this legislation closely, and if it moves an inch in Congress, I will be the first to sound the alarm.

 

[Steelr4evr]

That's a deal breaker. It is also wonderful they put down on paper what we all knew for years their intent was when it comes to the 2nd Ammendment.

 

[jitter77]

I dont see anything about taking guns? Just a lot of stuff that is near impossible to enforce. The hunting aspect is definitely an issue though. I think I started hunting at 12.

 

[Steelr4evr]

I dont see anything about taking guns? Just a lot of stuff that is near impossible to enforce. The hunting aspect is definitely an issue though. I think I started hunting at 12.

Really? haha... They'll fine you,throw you in jail, make you a felon, then take your guns. All good for the already unconstitutional states. That **** won't fly in Florida or Texas.They'd get a big fat **** you, come and take it!

 

[Djfan]

I dont see anything about taking guns? Just a lot of stuff that is near impossible to enforce. The hunting aspect is definitely an issue though. I think I started hunting at 12.

The second amendment was written to arm the citizenry against tyranny, not hunting.

 

[jitter77]

The second amendment was written to arm the citizenry against tyranny, not hunting.

i understand that, but if you cant loan or purchase a gun under 18/21 how are you going to hunt at 12? Armed citizens would get destroyed against the military. If the military was on the citizens side then the citizens wouldnt need guns. Most citizens at best are going to get a semi-auto w/ probably a max of 75 round drum. That is not going to compete against tanks, apaches, mounted machine guns, guided missles etc etc. If the military stands down then great, but what is realistically what do you think the next steps would be? Force the dems to resign? Have another election? I just dont understand trying to link gun legislation to being protected against the govt. The bottom line is people just want their toys.

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

i understand that, but if you cant loan or purchase a gun under 18/21 how are you going to hunt at 12? Armed citizens would get destroyed against the military. If the military was on the citizens side then the citizens wouldnt need guns. Most citizens at best are going to get a semi-auto w/ probably a max of 75 round drum. That is not going to compete against tanks, apaches, mounted machine guns, guided missles etc etc. If the military stands down then great, but what is realistically what do you think the next steps would be? Force the dems to resign? Have another election? I just dont understand trying to link gun legislation to being protected against the govt. The bottom line is people just want their toys.

You seem to be ignoring every major conflict since Korea in your evaluation of what a "lightly armed" population can accomplish against superior technology and resources.

 

[Steelr4evr]

i understand that, but if you cant loan or purchase a gun under 18/21 how are you going to hunt at 12? Armed citizens would get destroyed against the military. If the military was on the citizens side then the citizens wouldnt need guns. Most citizens at best are going to get a semi-auto w/ probably a max of 75 round drum. That is not going to compete against tanks, apaches, mounted machine guns, guided missles etc etc. If the military stands down then great, but what is realistically what do you think the next steps would be? Force the dems to resign? Have another election? I just dont understand trying to link gun legislation to being protected against the govt. The bottom line is people just want their toys.

That's a ridiculous assumption. The Soviet Union could not take Afghanistan and left with their tail between their legs.

A well armed insurgency of tens of millions of Americans would be impossible to defeat. Even if our military which is made up of a great number of people just like us turned on us.

The bottom line is mind your own ******* buisness. Which is exactly what the federal government should do. Stay in your ******* lane. Try doing something for the god damn country instead of ******* everyone over and giving our money away to other countries.

You know how you hunt at 12? You don't tell anyone what isn't their buisness in the first place. I was hunting on my own at 12, didn't need anyones permission either and would not have asked in the first place.

 

[Djfan]

That's a ridiculous assumption. The Soviet Union could not take Afghanistan and left with their tail between their legs.

A well armed insurgency of tens of millions of Americans would be impossible to defeat. Even if our military which is made up of a great number of people just like us turned on us.

The bottom line is mind your own ******* buisness. Which is exactly what the federal government should do. Stay in your ******* lane. Try doing something for the god damn country instead of ******* everyone over and giving our money away to other countries.

You know how you hunt at 12? You don't tell anyone what isn't their buisness in the first place. I was hunting on my own at 12, didn't need anyones permission either and would not have asked in the first place.

To be fair, the Afghanistani army and militants had a great deal of help from the US and NATO. Don't forget that Bin Laden was on the US payroll at the time.

Still, the assumption that the entirety of the US military would be on the side of the left is so far from truth that it's almost laughable.

My hope is that this will never happen. I neither want it nor advocate for it. I do advocate for the secession if the US Constitution is continually trampled on, and interpreted in a way that is as it is today.

The numbers of people who want to be left alone, without the babysitting from the enlightened woke crowd, is enormous. It needs to be left alone. This legislation runs contrary to that, and needs to be a point of no return. In fact, it is a point of no return. It is the "crossing of the Rubicon."

 

[Steelr4evr]

To be fair, the Afghanistani army and militants had a great deal of help from the US and NATO. Don't forget that Bin Laden was on the US payroll at the time.

Still, the assumption that the entirety of the US military would be on the side of the left is so far from truth that it's almost laughable.

My hope is that this will never happen. I neither want it nor advocate for it. I do advocate for the secession if the US Constitution is continually trampled on, and interpreted in a way that is as it is today.

The numbers of people who want to be left alone, without the babysitting from the enlightened woke crowd, is enormous. It needs to be left alone. This legislation runs contrary to that, and needs to be a point of no return. In fact, it is a point of no return. It is the "crossing of the Rubicon."

I totally agree. I am stating the soviets had an overwhelming force that does not play by any rules. The big bad Russian Bear got beat They still lost regardless of whatever support they had..Which still wasn't that significant compared to what they fought against. I am merely examining the hypothetical if that happened here. Which is the last thing that should ever occur. The succession part is the most viable option that will eventually happen. It has to. You can't have a fully fractured country going the way this one is. I am pointing out things you can easily get a feel on as to the way things will go. It would be as brutal and bloody as we have ever known.

The other great worry the founders had was a large standing army under the control of a tyrannical government. Hence all adult men/women should be armed and train with those arms. A well armed population is a polite one and not easily subjugated to oppression. A disarmed population has no means to defend against oppression of a government gone wrong. They all go wrong eventually. The status of ours being for the entire population is greatly fracturing. I just spent the last year watching things unfold that I never in my wildest dreams thought I'd see in the United States. Nope not in a million years.

There's always great concern when they come up with bills like this. We should never see this sort of thing because we damn sure know the reasoning behind it. It sure as hell isn't protecting us from ourselves.

 

[DBS1970]

I dont see anything about taking guns? Just a lot of stuff that is near impossible to enforce. The hunting aspect is definitely an issue though. I think I started hunting at 12.

Licensing and registration ALAWAYS leads to confiscation.

The rest of it simply makes any technicality a felony for which your weapons can be seized. It also makes it impossibly expensive to own a firearm with an $800 a year tax.

Any government that tries to disarm it's citizens is planning on doing something for which you would shoot the government. So when the government tries to take your guns it is time to use them on the government.

 

[DBS1970]

You seem to be ignoring every major conflict since Korea in your evaluation of what a "lightly armed" population can accomplish against superior technology and resources.

Yeah no.

In this case the government would not have its population as a basis for supply nor would it be on the other side of the world. They have to live among us, they would be within arms reach.

 

[Steelr4evr]

Licensing and registration ALAWAYS leads to confiscation.

The rest of it simply makes any technicality a felony for which your weapons can be seized. It also makes it impossibly expensive to own a firearm with an $800 a year tax.

Any government that tries to disarm it's citizens is planning on doing something for which you would shoot the government. So when the government tries to take your guns it is time to use them on the government.

Or they charge you if you defend your keep from an angry armed mob that breaks down your gate in St.Louis.

 

[Steeler]

i understand that, but if you cant loan or purchase a gun under 18/21 how are you going to hunt at 12? Armed citizens would get destroyed against the military. If the military was on the citizens side then the citizens wouldnt need guns. Most citizens at best are going to get a semi-auto w/ probably a max of 75 round drum. That is not going to compete against tanks, apaches, mounted machine guns, guided missles etc etc. If the military stands down then great, but what is realistically what do you think the next steps would be? Force the dems to resign? Have another election? I just dont understand trying to link gun legislation to being protected against the govt. The bottom line is people just want their toys.

This is just wrong. Its laughable to think it would be as simple as the military world just stomp the citizens out.
There are a lot of variables there. The citizens make the arms for the military, will they continue to go to work? Will companies that make arms continue to operate? Would the citizens destroy those factories that supply the military? What other countries would love to see this and funnel arms to he citizens? Active military have families, they live here. Would they take part in killing their own?
It goes on and on. Way more complex than us vs them.

 

[jitter77]

It's definitely not simple, but if the military wanted to stomp the citizens out they could. I'm sure they have enough stuff stockpiled the manufacturing aspect wouldn't come into play. I am not sure how other countries would funnel guns in either. If the military stands down what would happen? People would capture / kill the govt then what? None of this is a realistic possibility.

 

[Djfan]

It's definitely not simple, but if the military wanted to stomp the citizens out they could. I'm sure they have enough stuff stockpiled the manufacturing aspect wouldn't come into play. I am not sure how other countries would funnel guns in either. If the military stands down what would happen? People would capture / kill the govt then what? None of this is a realistic possibility.

The most desirable reality would be that there is a return to the constitution. The second most desirable would be that there would be a peaceful split. The most likely is that there would be a coup. I would thin, that any coup would be by military leadership, and probably lead to a return to the constitution as law.

Just my guess, as the current situation is most likely untenable.

 

[Steeltime]

I dont see anything about taking guns?

Then you are being intentionally stupid. The laws includes the following (and much, much more):

• No more than 10-round capacity, which makes basically every semi-automatic illegal.
• Requiring a psychological exam at the citizen's expense.
• A fee for every firearm.
• A license for owning firearms, renewed every three years, at the citizen's expense. Never mind that has already been ruled unconstitutional.
• 24 hours of firearm training, once again at the citizen's expense.
• Requirement that citizens tell the government in writing of every firearm they own, including serial number, and where the citizen will keep the firearm.
• Huh, that almost seems as if the government wants a very easy way to track down who has what and where so they can seize the weapons. Otherwise, who the **** cares who has what?
• Separate 24-hour training, once again at the citizen's expense, for ownership of a "military style" weapon.
• Dumbfuck description since "military style" weapons are designed to shoot 3-round bursts or go fully automatic.
• The weapons these morons are talking about are semi-automatic rifles.
• Oh, which are already illegal under the bill because of the standard magazine capacity.
• Denial of a license to any individual who has "a mental illness, disturbance, or diagnosis (including depression, homicidal ideation, suicidal ideation, attempted suicide, or addiction to a controlled substance within the meaning of the Controlled Substances Act or alcohol, or a brain disease.
• So anybody with depression, "addiction" (whatever that means) to alcohol or pot, or attempted suicide - no go. Sorry.
• No magazine of more than ten rounds. "(31) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’ means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition."
• So what magazine cannot be "readily converted" to holding more than ten rounds?!?
• None. Therefore, no semi-autmatics any more. Whee, back to revolvers! Go wheel guns!!
• A charge of $800 per year every year for every firearm owned, payable to the disgusting greedy ************* in Washington. Hey, I'm sure none of that money will be schemed and scammed and stolen and misused and used for political purposes.
• Also, a person with four firearms is looking at being forced to pay $3,200 per year just to own the ******* weapons.
• Good news is that government programs always meet cost projections and that $800 per year per firearm would no way just jump up to $1,500 per year in short order because of the efficiency of government. Right?

These clowns need to stop being lying ****s and just pass a bill saying they are going to take firearms from American citizens. I mean, not gangbangers and criminals. Just those who care about the law.

 

[Badcat]

I am not sure how other countries would funnel guns in either. .

You really are obtuse in the ways of the world. They already are, along with drugs and other unmentionables. Pipelines of supplies are running and if there was a coup...there would be a flood to supply the masses. We'd look like those insurgents in third world countries only dressed in flannel, riding in Dodge Ram pickups, AR's on full display with Hank blaring on the radio at a volume of 11. 'Murika!

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

Yeah no.

In this case the government would not have its population as a basis for supply nor would it be on the other side of the world. They have to live among us, they would be within arms reach.

I am a little dense today. I am confused by your response. Who is the the they you are referring to?

 

[Steeltime]

i understand that, but if you cant loan or purchase a gun under 18/21 how are you going to hunt at 12?

Because of this stupid ******* proposed law, nobody under 18 could hunt, ever. That's the point, genius.

Armed citizens would get destroyed against the military.

I know, like in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq.

Most citizens at best are going to get a semi-auto w/ probably a max of 75 round drum. That is not going to compete against tanks, apaches, mounted machine guns, guided missles etc etc.

Like in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. I loved how the bad guys wore distinctive uniforms and stood out in the open for the conflict, like the Continental army, Napoleon's troops, etc. I mean, if they hid among the population and relied on hidden explosive devices, guerilla tactics, and the like, that **** would have been ugly.

I just dont understand trying to link gun legislation to being protected against the govt. The bottom line is people just want their toys.

Then why are (D)umbfucks so afraid of citizens having weapons? "*sob* Those terrible mass shootings." You are more likely to get killed by lightning than by a mass shooting.

So what's the real reason? Think for a change.

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

Because of this stupid ******* proposed law, nobody under 18 could hunt, ever. That's the point, genius.



I know, like in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq.



Like in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. I loved how the bad guys wore distinctive uniforms and stood out in the open for the conflict, like the Continental army, Napoleon's troops, etc. I mean, if they hid among the population and relied on hidden explosive devices, guerilla tactics, and the like, that **** would have been ugly.



Then why are (D)umbfucks so afraid of citizens having weapons? "*sob* Those terrible mass shootings." You are more likely to get killed by lightning than by a mass shooting.

So what's the real reason? Think for a change.

This!

 

[Confluence]

Alex, I'll take "Disarming the Deplorables" for $400.

Sent from my SM-N950W using Tapatalk

 

[ZonaBurgh]

I doubt it’s meant to pass.
It’s purpose is likely to simply be so batshit crazy that anything less looks like a reasonable compromise.
Although we should all remember it because as crazy as it seems right now make no mistake that this and more is the ultimate goal.

 

[Steeltime]

I doubt it’s meant to pass.

Which (D)im would you expect to vote against it? None as far as I can tell. Leggy Krysten and dumpy Mark are on board.

 

[Djfan]

Which (D)im would you expect to vote against it? None as far as I can tell. Leggy Krysten and dumpy Mark are on board.

Do you think the supreme court would uphold it?