MSpredator33
New member
+1 pukindog
Banned guns
- Thread starter smsnyder
- Start date
TexasTexas95
New member
Im a member of the NRA and I write government officials and try and educate those people who truly do no know about firearms. (Like my anti-gun girlfriend who now is a member of the NRA, bought her first pistol, and now wants her CHL) If another stupid gun law comes into play, im not giving up sh1t. I may as well be a criminal. As a matter of fact, i think we should all stand up and say [beeep] NO! When they try and get anything including information from us. I absolutely will never give up my right to bear arms. Never Ever...
Heretic
Active member
Originally Posted By: benbOriginally Posted By: smsnyderFrom all reports it looks like the ban on assualt weapons and high capacity clips will go through. Looks like the NRA is losing this battle.
Of course "from all reports" because it is the liberal news media!! The fight is not over until "we the people" quit fighting...so don't
+1 This. What the politicians are not addressing is that this country was founded by people seeking freedom of oppression. Freedom of tyranny. The only way for us to prevent tyranny is to be armed with the same tools "they" would use to oppress us or subjugate us. Therefore any "thing" we give up is unacceptable. No ban is the only acceptable solution.
Of course "from all reports" because it is the liberal news media!! The fight is not over until "we the people" quit fighting...so don't
+1 This. What the politicians are not addressing is that this country was founded by people seeking freedom of oppression. Freedom of tyranny. The only way for us to prevent tyranny is to be armed with the same tools "they" would use to oppress us or subjugate us. Therefore any "thing" we give up is unacceptable. No ban is the only acceptable solution.
SteveB22250
New member
If they cant get a federal ban they will be going state to state and banning that way, If they do it in California we have no chance at all............there are more liberals than gun owners. And most states are probably in the same boat except Texas or course. This country is going down the tubes and Obama is helping in any way he can, to see to it that it goes quickly.
pukindog
New member
Originally Posted By: SteveB22250 there are more liberals than gun owners. And most states are probably in the same boat except Texas or course.
It will not happen in Tennessee. Republicans increased their majorities in both the House and Senate this year and there is already talk of passing laws designed to give the federal government the chosen finger on gun issues. Several other states are considering similar legislation.
States that already have an AWB look like they are going off the deep end, but a lot of us will not. You have my sympathy and I mean that sincerely.
It will not happen in Tennessee. Republicans increased their majorities in both the House and Senate this year and there is already talk of passing laws designed to give the federal government the chosen finger on gun issues. Several other states are considering similar legislation.
States that already have an AWB look like they are going off the deep end, but a lot of us will not. You have my sympathy and I mean that sincerely.
EJ Reichenbach
New member
Originally Posted By: SteveB22250 If they cant get a federal ban they will be going state to state and banning that way, If they do it in California we have no chance at all............there are more liberals than gun owners. And most states are probably in the same boat except Texas or course. This country is going down the tubes and Obama is helping in any way he can, to see to it that it goes quickly.
I doubt that Montana Wyoming Utah Idaho Arizona Oklahoma Texas and the rest of the red states will go with California
I doubt that Montana Wyoming Utah Idaho Arizona Oklahoma Texas and the rest of the red states will go with California
TTLS
New member
Two things. Well maybe three..
1. Join and or contribute to NRA and GOA.
2. States should follow Wyoming's lead and propose and pass States rights pro gun legislation.
3. Don't get sucked in too deep on what the initial draft of the anti-gun legislation looks like. The libtard progressives will ask for the moon, because they are willing to settle for something less. Then they will tell us that it could be worse we better take the lesser of two evils. And the fence sitters will applaud the grand compromise while making more room for the camel in the tent.
1. Join and or contribute to NRA and GOA.
2. States should follow Wyoming's lead and propose and pass States rights pro gun legislation.
3. Don't get sucked in too deep on what the initial draft of the anti-gun legislation looks like. The libtard progressives will ask for the moon, because they are willing to settle for something less. Then they will tell us that it could be worse we better take the lesser of two evils. And the fence sitters will applaud the grand compromise while making more room for the camel in the tent.
Well for all this NRA talk I bet the people in New York are asking themselves where the NRA was tonight. The bill tonight only had 18 votes against the bill. The people there just had there 2nd Amendment stripped away from them and now what. Sombody has to step up. That is just the first step once the Federal goverment sees how easy this was I would not be suprised if this starts happening all over the blue states
I understand the NRA has no vote but it was as if they werent even fighting this one. Maybe because it happened behind closed doors and it happened quick. Sneaky F***ers!! I know if I lived in New York I would be asking the NRA for my membership back. Just saying you pay all this money for nothing.
NastyDaddy101
New member
If a gun owner in NY just found out they live in a anti gun state,they have been in the dark a long time. They need to fire all of em during the midterms.Originally Posted By: cmil84Well for all this NRA talk I bet the people in New York are asking themselves where the NRA was tonight. The bill tonight only had 18 votes against the bill. The people there just had there 2nd Amendment stripped away from them and now what. Sombody has to step up. That is just the first step once the Federal goverment sees how easy this was I would not be suprised if this starts happening all over the blue states
smsnyder
New member
Address: http://sminglershotgunsports.webs.com/
Well, it passed the Senate and House, just waiting for Cuomo's signature. Will go into effect 12:00am tonight.
The broad strokes:
Pretty much bans future purchase of semi-automatic rifles with “assault” characteristics (detachable mag + pistol grip makes it an assault weapon). Those who have them now will be allowed to keep them, but they will be registered, with a 5 year renewal requirement. There are also new storage requirements for “assault” weapons including trigger locks and safes. Law prohibits transfer of these guns EVER, meaning they cannot be sold, traded, given away, bequeathed, ect. When you die, your executors have one year to get them out of the state, or they will be destroyed. If you own them as of Jan 16, 2012, you own them for life, until you destroy them or die.
10 round magazines made before 1994 can be retained, but must only be loaded with 7 rounds at a time. Any magazine made after 1994 with a capacity higher than 7 rounds must be surrendered, sold out of state, or destroyed. This includes box magazines, stripper clips, en bloc clips, and pretty much any ammunition containing device.
5 year renewal on pistol permits, which were lifetime permits when granted.
Private party sales much go through NICS check unless being given to IMMEDIATE family member. Grandpa wants to give his gun to grandson, has to go through NICS check.
Ammunition will now require a state level NICS-style check (for which there is no mechanism in place to facilitate this). Private ammunition transfers (want to give your buddy a box of shells to shoot another round?) must be facilitated through a dealer. Internet sales much be facilitated through a dealer (which is pretty much a defacto ban on internet ammo sales since no dealer is going to facilitate the transaction and compete against themselves on ammo prices). Ammo prices will skyrocket. This will pretty much ban the sale of ammunition at shoots, since few will be able to comply, and no gun clubs will be able to comply. No specific wording on reloading components, but wide discretion is left up to the commissioner of state police, so I’m sure it will include components shortly if it doesn’t already. Automatic notification to the state police if you buy “large quantities” of ammunition. Guess what, to most people a flat of shotgun shells or a brick of 22s constitutes a “large quantity”. $10 background check fee to purchase ammunition.
That's what I've discovered thus far, will add more if/when I discover it. Much more to the bill, but those are the worst parts. Guess we in NY probably don't need to worry about what Obama has
Well, it passed the Senate and House, just waiting for Cuomo's signature. Will go into effect 12:00am tonight.
The broad strokes:
Pretty much bans future purchase of semi-automatic rifles with “assault” characteristics (detachable mag + pistol grip makes it an assault weapon). Those who have them now will be allowed to keep them, but they will be registered, with a 5 year renewal requirement. There are also new storage requirements for “assault” weapons including trigger locks and safes. Law prohibits transfer of these guns EVER, meaning they cannot be sold, traded, given away, bequeathed, ect. When you die, your executors have one year to get them out of the state, or they will be destroyed. If you own them as of Jan 16, 2012, you own them for life, until you destroy them or die.
10 round magazines made before 1994 can be retained, but must only be loaded with 7 rounds at a time. Any magazine made after 1994 with a capacity higher than 7 rounds must be surrendered, sold out of state, or destroyed. This includes box magazines, stripper clips, en bloc clips, and pretty much any ammunition containing device.
5 year renewal on pistol permits, which were lifetime permits when granted.
Private party sales much go through NICS check unless being given to IMMEDIATE family member. Grandpa wants to give his gun to grandson, has to go through NICS check.
Ammunition will now require a state level NICS-style check (for which there is no mechanism in place to facilitate this). Private ammunition transfers (want to give your buddy a box of shells to shoot another round?) must be facilitated through a dealer. Internet sales much be facilitated through a dealer (which is pretty much a defacto ban on internet ammo sales since no dealer is going to facilitate the transaction and compete against themselves on ammo prices). Ammo prices will skyrocket. This will pretty much ban the sale of ammunition at shoots, since few will be able to comply, and no gun clubs will be able to comply. No specific wording on reloading components, but wide discretion is left up to the commissioner of state police, so I’m sure it will include components shortly if it doesn’t already. Automatic notification to the state police if you buy “large quantities” of ammunition. Guess what, to most people a flat of shotgun shells or a brick of 22s constitutes a “large quantity”. $10 background check fee to purchase ammunition.
That's what I've discovered thus far, will add more if/when I discover it. Much more to the bill, but those are the worst parts. Guess we in NY probably don't need to worry about what Obama has
CrossHare
New member
This is my congressman's reply and very well put I might add....
Thank you for contacting me about gun rights. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue and share your concern about preserving the Second Amendment.
In January, President Obama announced a series of new executive actions designed to increase federal regulation of gun ownership. Some of these actions were straightforward, such as naming a new director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Some of them seemed almost bizarre in a context of gun rights—especially his call to expedite implementation of Obamacare. While I am willing to listen to proposals to curb gun violence, I believe it is important for that discussion to proceed in a manner that is respectful of the right-to-bear-arms as defined in the Constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court.
The reality is that there are millions of gun-owners across America that follow the law and it is important to distinguish the rights of law-abiding citizens from the actions of a few deranged individuals. We need a thoughtful discussion about the best ways to protect our citizens, but I am concerned that the President's proposals fail to respect core constitutional principles. Ultimately, any proposal to change federal gun law must pass through the House Committee on the Judiciary—of which I am a member. You can be sure I will fight to protect Second Amendment rights should the Committee consider any new gun-control legislation.
Again, thank you for contacting me. It is an honor to serve you in the 113th Congress. Should you have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to let me know or visit my website. To stay updated on current legislation, please sign up for my e-newsletter.
Sincerely,
George Holding
Member of Congress
Thank you for contacting me about gun rights. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue and share your concern about preserving the Second Amendment.
In January, President Obama announced a series of new executive actions designed to increase federal regulation of gun ownership. Some of these actions were straightforward, such as naming a new director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Some of them seemed almost bizarre in a context of gun rights—especially his call to expedite implementation of Obamacare. While I am willing to listen to proposals to curb gun violence, I believe it is important for that discussion to proceed in a manner that is respectful of the right-to-bear-arms as defined in the Constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court.
The reality is that there are millions of gun-owners across America that follow the law and it is important to distinguish the rights of law-abiding citizens from the actions of a few deranged individuals. We need a thoughtful discussion about the best ways to protect our citizens, but I am concerned that the President's proposals fail to respect core constitutional principles. Ultimately, any proposal to change federal gun law must pass through the House Committee on the Judiciary—of which I am a member. You can be sure I will fight to protect Second Amendment rights should the Committee consider any new gun-control legislation.
Again, thank you for contacting me. It is an honor to serve you in the 113th Congress. Should you have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to let me know or visit my website. To stay updated on current legislation, please sign up for my e-newsletter.
Sincerely,
George Holding
Member of Congress
.223 shooter
New member
Here's the reply I got back from my Representative. Besides his push for the pro-life agenda, this makes me proud to have voted for him
Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting me regarding our 2nd Amendment rights, in light of President Obama's 23 Executive Orders recently enacted. I take issue with the way in which our President is seeking to implement these measures without consulting Congress or the American voters. This is a calculated attempt to begin eroding our freedom to keep and bear arms, and I will vehemently oppose any attempts to take away those freedoms from law-abiding citizens.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution clearly states, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." To counter those who wish to impose restrictions and gun controls, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It was included – right after the First Amendment that protects free speech to ensure the right of citizens to oppose a tyrannical government. The amendment does not restrict the use of certain arms, magazines, or clips; rather it is broad in its scope – if you do not misuse your right to the weapon, you do not have to be monitored or restricted by the government. I have always supported this Constitutional right, and I will continue to do so as long as I am privileged to serve in the House of Representatives.
Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT suffered a horrible tragedy in December 2012 when a madman went on a rampage against innocent children. As a fellow parent, I literally cannot imagine the pain and devastation those families experienced. Many people in the media and throughout the country immediately ran to call for stricter gun laws – especially to ban assault weapons and high- capacity ammunition clips. All of these people missed the point entirely: the people behind gun tragedies should be held responsible for their reprehensible actions. The rest of the law-abiding citizens should not have to have more of their liberties taken away from them due to a madman's assault on human lives. We should attempt to detect these mentally unstable individuals at an earlier time with hopes of keeping weapons out of their hands, but that should be the extent of further government interference.
It is not government's place to meddle and handicap law-abiding citizens – especially in an area where the Constitution has already explicitly made its case. More citizens should even be encouraged to own weapons and to become more proficient in the weapons they own. Criminals have always preferred and will continue to prefer unarmed victims. Prison surveys indicate when a criminal considers breaking into a home, the greatest deterrent, in his mind, is the fear that his intended victims might be armed. Members of the government should not fear an armed citizenry for this reason.
Our country is blessed with freedoms unlike any other nation in the history of humankind and we must defend these freedoms at every turn. I am deeply committed to the rights of America's law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms. Our Second Amendment is a fundamental tenet of the document enshrining basic human liberty; and it is a freedom I have and will continue fighting to preserve. I will therefore vote against any attempt or formal legislation to reestablish the assault weapons ban.
It is interesting to note that before most great tyrannies and genocides occurred in the world, the citizens of those lands were first disarmed. We must keep a watchful and wary eye toward anything that would take the United States down that same path. I join those who are unable to understand how removing the right to bear arms somehow ensures the safety of honest citizens; and I remain committed to protecting this essential cornerstone in the foundation of human liberty.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. I hope you will continue to inform me of the issues that concern you. In the meantime, please feel free to visit my website at http://www.franks.house.gov
Most Sincerely,
Trent Franks
United States Congress
Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting me regarding our 2nd Amendment rights, in light of President Obama's 23 Executive Orders recently enacted. I take issue with the way in which our President is seeking to implement these measures without consulting Congress or the American voters. This is a calculated attempt to begin eroding our freedom to keep and bear arms, and I will vehemently oppose any attempts to take away those freedoms from law-abiding citizens.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution clearly states, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." To counter those who wish to impose restrictions and gun controls, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It was included – right after the First Amendment that protects free speech to ensure the right of citizens to oppose a tyrannical government. The amendment does not restrict the use of certain arms, magazines, or clips; rather it is broad in its scope – if you do not misuse your right to the weapon, you do not have to be monitored or restricted by the government. I have always supported this Constitutional right, and I will continue to do so as long as I am privileged to serve in the House of Representatives.
Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT suffered a horrible tragedy in December 2012 when a madman went on a rampage against innocent children. As a fellow parent, I literally cannot imagine the pain and devastation those families experienced. Many people in the media and throughout the country immediately ran to call for stricter gun laws – especially to ban assault weapons and high- capacity ammunition clips. All of these people missed the point entirely: the people behind gun tragedies should be held responsible for their reprehensible actions. The rest of the law-abiding citizens should not have to have more of their liberties taken away from them due to a madman's assault on human lives. We should attempt to detect these mentally unstable individuals at an earlier time with hopes of keeping weapons out of their hands, but that should be the extent of further government interference.
It is not government's place to meddle and handicap law-abiding citizens – especially in an area where the Constitution has already explicitly made its case. More citizens should even be encouraged to own weapons and to become more proficient in the weapons they own. Criminals have always preferred and will continue to prefer unarmed victims. Prison surveys indicate when a criminal considers breaking into a home, the greatest deterrent, in his mind, is the fear that his intended victims might be armed. Members of the government should not fear an armed citizenry for this reason.
Our country is blessed with freedoms unlike any other nation in the history of humankind and we must defend these freedoms at every turn. I am deeply committed to the rights of America's law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms. Our Second Amendment is a fundamental tenet of the document enshrining basic human liberty; and it is a freedom I have and will continue fighting to preserve. I will therefore vote against any attempt or formal legislation to reestablish the assault weapons ban.
It is interesting to note that before most great tyrannies and genocides occurred in the world, the citizens of those lands were first disarmed. We must keep a watchful and wary eye toward anything that would take the United States down that same path. I join those who are unable to understand how removing the right to bear arms somehow ensures the safety of honest citizens; and I remain committed to protecting this essential cornerstone in the foundation of human liberty.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. I hope you will continue to inform me of the issues that concern you. In the meantime, please feel free to visit my website at http://www.franks.house.gov
Most Sincerely,
Trent Franks
United States Congress