This didn't take long

.223 shooter

.223 shooter

New member

Ten gun bills on Congress's first day

By Pete Kasperowicz - 01/04/13 09:44 AM ET

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.

"The NRA as an organization is out of step with its membership on many commonsense gun safety measures," he said. "Polling shows nearly two-thirds of NRA members support the five simple ways to improve gun safety included in this bill."

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."

Companion bills could be introduced on the Senate side, but Senate leaders have reserved January 22 as the first day on which new Senate legislation can be proposed.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/275587-10-gun-bills-introduced-in-first-day-of-the-house


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/ho...e#ixzz2H2muGvJ4
 
You folks had better be contacting your reps & senators. There are indications that the GOP may roll over on this.

They need to be feeling the heat from our side.
 
Originally Posted By: Stu FarishYou folks had better be contacting your reps & senators. There are indications that the GOP may roll over on this.

They need to be feeling the heat from our side.


It looks like there will be rolling on any bills that address gun show loopholes or tighter background checks, possibly magazine size also.

The senate is where we'll see DOA written all over bills like Feinstein's that are way too far reaching and off point of tightening control of background versus restricting types of guns.

Simple bills are going to pass, those that try to get too all encompassing are going to die.

That's the compromise we'll see. I've always been pissed off about what's restricted in California, as far as I'm concerned once someone passes a background check they should be good to go for whatever they want. There are other states where more of anything can be bought and the control on who's getting them is not as tough, those will be the casualties.

The house is likely not going to pass senate overreaches.

It will be interesting to see who supports and opposes what, in the last four years there has been a strong democrat opposition to overreaches as well as their support for bills like the ability to carry in federal parks.
 
Stu said: " There are indications that the GOP may roll over on this." If, they do an AR ban I'm through with them forever. Of course, the mag limit, private sale thing may well be a concession that has to happen to save semiautomatics,pumps,levers.

 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: KAZStu said: " There are indications that the GOP may roll over on this." If, they do I'm through with them forever.



It sucks but you can't blame em for being worried about their image and what people think after this last election. Not saying it is right but it could be a killer for a party thats in remission. I will just say they are in a bad spot on this.
 
I say - Don't roll over on anything.

Enforce the laws we have.

DO SOMETHING about mental illness.

You kill? You get caught? You die; no if ands or buts; no long trials, no yak-yak about helping them, nothing. Here today, gone tomorrow.

When I say 'get caught'? The perpetrator is standing there, with the smoking gun, with witnesses. And we have had a few like that.
 
Roll over my @ss... I didn't commit any crime, I legally purchased a firearm, I legally purchased 30 round magazines for it. I'll be dammed if I'm going to be persecuted for the actions of some psychotic little SOB who lives 1500 miles from me. That's a crock of sh1t!

Who in the he11 do they claim to be listening to??

-- 310 million people in the country.
-- A large portion of whom are convicted felons, and cannot legally vote or own a gun.
-- A large portion of whom are not US citizens and cannot legally vote or own a gun.
-- Approximately a third of whom are not old enough to legally vote or own a gun.
-- A large portion of whom are too old and reside in nursing homes where they cannot legally own a gun.
-- A large number of whom are in mental institutions and cannot own a gun.
-- A large number of whom are judged crazy and don't live in institutions and cannot own a gun.
-- That doesn't touch the people that are homeless or impoverished and can't afford to own a gun.
-- Then we have those that don't want to own a gun, but could care less if everyone else does, because they know most of us are law abiding citizens.

-- 100 million gun owners in the country!


So, you tell me... WHO IN THE [beeep] ARE THEY SUPPOSEDLY LISTENING TOO??!

 
Back
Top