pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Democrats Introduce 8 Anti-Gun Bills On First Day Of 113th Congress…
#1
Quote:[Image: anti-gun-550x236.jpg]

Members of the 113th Congress introduced 10 bills on Thursday relating to gun violence, most of which came from Democrats seeking new restrictions on gun ownership.

The flurry of legislative proposals show that members are likely to push the issue in the wake of the December shooting at a Connecticut elementary school that left 20 children dead.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), whose husband was shot to death in 1993, introduced four of the bills. The congresswoman has vowed to seek changes in federal law in response to the school shooting.

H.R. 137 and 138 from McCarthy would require people prohibited from buying firearms to be listed in a national database, and would prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition clips.

McCarthy’s H.R. 141 would require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions at gun shows, which would close the so-called gun-show loophole. Her H.R. 142 would require face-to-face purchases of ammunition, the licensing of ammunition dealers, and the reporting of bulk ammo purchases.

Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) and Rush Holt (D-N.J.) each proposed their own bills tightening firearms licensing requirements — H.R. 34 and H.R. 117, respectively. And Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) proposed H.R. 65, which would raise the eligibility age to carry a handgun from 18 to 21.

Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) reintroduced his bill, H.R. 21, to require background checks for all gun sales, and to require gun owners to report when their guns have been stolen. Moran argued in December that while the National Rifle Association objects to these changes, members of the powerful group support them.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/ho...-the-house
It's the "BILL OF RIGHTS" not the bill of "needs"
Reply
#2
Here's what the brand new Republicans want to do:

Quote:Two freshman Republicans introduced contrary bills that would end federal law requiring that areas around schools be designated as "gun free zones." These bills, H.R. 35 from Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) and H.R. 133 from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), are a response to findings that violence in and around schools has increased since the gun free zone law took effect in 1990.

"By disarming qualified citizens and officials in schools we have created a dangerous situation for our children," Stockman said. "In the 22 years before enactment of 'gun free school zones' there were two mass school shootings.

"In the 22 years since enactment of 'gun free schools' there have been 10 mass school shootings," he added. "Not only has the bill utterly failed to protect our children it appears to have placed them in danger."

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/ho...z2H2eZZZBo

Hey, Boehner: kiss my ass.
I don't suffer from insanity.
I enjoy every minute of it.
Reply
#3
I think all gun sales should go through a background check. Seems entirely reasonable, and prudent, to me.
Reply
#4
So if I'm reading correctly, HR 137 would create a National Instant Criminal Background Check System????

What a f--king brilliant idea......
"What you're feeling now ain't the worst pain. The worst thing is not feeling the hurt anymore."
Reply
#5
Valorius;62722 Wrote:I think all gun sales should go through a background check. Seems entirely reasonable, and prudent, to me.

I agree. Considering the instant background check isn't an inconvenience, and doesn't infringe on one's rights to bear arms, whatsoever, I think it is a reasonable thing to do.

Justin
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply
#6
JustinHEMI;62753 Wrote:
Valorius;62722 Wrote:I think all gun sales should go through a background check. Seems entirely reasonable, and prudent, to me.

I agree. Considering the instant background check isn't an inconvenience, and doesn't infringe on one's rights to bear arms, whatsoever, I think it is a reasonable thing to do.

Justin


Ditto! I just hope PA gun shops don't get too crazy with their transfer costs for one private owner to another. I understand they want to make money since they are actually not selling the firearm itself to someone, but when I see $40+ transfer fees, it's pretty ridiculous.
[Image: pa_zps59e4c512.png?t=1379682235]
Reply
#7
Philadelphia Patriot;62766 Wrote:
JustinHEMI;62753 Wrote:I agree. Considering the instant background check isn't an inconvenience, and doesn't infringe on one's rights to bear arms, whatsoever, I think it is a reasonable thing to do.

Justin


Ditto! I just hope PA gun shops don't get too crazy with their transfer costs for one private owner to another. I understand they want to make money since they are actually not selling the firearm itself to someone, but when I see $40+ transfer fees, it's pretty ridiculous.

If all sales are forced to go through NICS/PICS then there should be a maximum fee that can be charged, say $35.00. Of course if DC gets involve the price will be $100.00 and it will only be valid for 1 firearm at a time. Sad
[Image: member955.png]
USAF (1976 -1986) NRA, GOA Anim_sniper2
"The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living." Dan Cofall
Reply
#8
Valorius;62722 Wrote:I think all gun sales should go through a background check. Seems entirely reasonable, and prudent, to me.

JustinHEMI;62753 Wrote:I agree. Considering the instant background check isn't an inconvenience, and doesn't infringe on one's rights to bear arms, whatsoever, I think it is a reasonable thing to do.

Philadelphia Patriot;62766 Wrote:Ditto! I just hope PA gun shops don't get too crazy with their transfer costs for one private owner to another. I understand they want to make money since they are actually not selling the firearm itself to someone, but when I see $40+ transfer fees, it's pretty ridiculous.

billamj;62767 Wrote:If all sales are forced to go through NICS/PICS then there should be a maximum fee that can be charged, say $35.00. Of course if DC gets involve the price will be $100.00 and it will only be valid for 1 firearm at a time. Sad

That's the problem. While a national background check sounds reasonable, it will eventually be used as a club against gun owners. At first it might be a nominal fee but it could quickly become punitive. How many new guns would you buy this year if each purchase required an additional $200, $300, or $500 for a background check? And because Democrats are always thinking long term, I'm sure they've already considered this.
Reply
#9
thebearpack;62768 Wrote:That's the problem. While a national background check sounds reasonable, it will eventually be used as a club against gun owners. At first it might be a nominal fee but it could quickly become punitive. How many new guns would you buy this year if each purchase required an additional $200, $300, or $500 for a background check? And because Democrats are always thinking long term, I'm sure they've already considered this.

Democrats never met a tax they didn't like. That's my beef with it. Give an inch . . .
I don't suffer from insanity.
I enjoy every minute of it.
Reply
#10
And suppose there's a rush to buy (say, Christmastime) and the system goes down. No gun sales.

Anywhere. By anyone.
Subject matter expert on questions no one's asking.
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  BREAKING: Anti-Gun CA Senator Leland Yee Charged With Gun Running jahwarrior72 22 2,858 07-07-2015, 09:44 PM
Last Post: jahwarrior72
  Democrats Introduce National Mandatory Firearms Insurance Bill bigdawgbeav 5 751 05-29-2015, 08:14 PM
Last Post: spblademaker
  Anti-Gun Democrat Lawmaker Blasts Girlfriend’s Car With Shotgun mauser 1 652 05-12-2015, 03:31 PM
Last Post: P89
  Anti's set up fake gun shop Emoticon 1 671 03-19-2015, 09:17 PM
Last Post: streaker69
  Media Mogul Bloomberg Stages Anti-gun Indoctrination Camp for Suggestible Reporters das 1 494 01-18-2015, 12:31 AM
Last Post: spblademaker



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.