Gun Control Bill With Bipartisan Support Unveiled In House

Mayhem

Banned
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/05/gun-control-bill_n_2624644.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

House lawmakers on Tuesday unveiled their first bipartisan bill targeting gun violence in this Congress: a measure to make firearms trafficking a federal crime.

During a press event, the bill's sponsors -- Reps. Patrick Meehan (R-Pa.), Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), Scott Rigell (R-Va.) and Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) -- said their legislation would create a single section of federal code to give law enforcement the ability to prosecute gun traffickers. It would also impose up to 20 years in jail for "straw purchasers," or those who buy guns for people prohibited from buying them on their own. Their measure is among the recommendations included in the gun violence package put forward last month by President Barack Obama.

"As a lifetime member of the NRA, as a firearm owner, as a father ... I've got a problem with people who break the law using firearms because it inevitably puts pressure on my rights," Rigell said. "When we punish the bad guys, we're protecting the good guys. That's really the essence of the bill."

Meehan said he is "glad to be able to reach across the aisle and work toward common sense solutions" like their gun trafficking bill, which he noted has a companion bill in the Senate.

The issue was more personal for Cummings, who lost his nephew to gun violence a year and a half ago. It is "a painful thing" to see "the blood of a loved one splattered on walls," Cummings said. Family members of victims are "begging us to address" gun violence and "disregard partisan rhetoric" in order to take meaningful action, he said.

Their bill is significant because it shows that something, anything, related to guns has at least some bipartisan support in the House. But the real question is whether or not House Republican leaders plan to let any gun bills come to the floor for votes.

Rigell said he hasn't talked to party leaders about his bill yet, but he has thus far found them to be "very open to good ideas."

"I look forward to talking with them because we've got to take the next step, which is to get the bill to the floor," he continued. He noted that he's spoken with several GOP colleagues about the bill and found that "generally, they're very supportive." Meehan said that he, too, has talked about the measure with fellow Republicans and said he's "encouraged" by their discussions.

For now, all eyes are on the Senate, where any gun legislation will first have to pass. Hill aides and gun policy advocates said Monday that they expect some type of gun package to advance in the Senate with three core pieces -- a universal background check for firearms sales, a federal trafficking law and a ban on high-capacity magazines -- but nothing is certain at this stage.

Asked about the prospect of combining their bill with another gun measure, such as background check legislation, the House lawmakers soured.

"Personally, I think that's a mistake," Rigell said. "This bill is narrow in scope."

Maloney warned that their bill could lose support in that scenario, and highlighted the importance of moving whatever standalone measures can pass.

"This is one of those rare time when everyone agrees," she said.

UPDATE: 5:30 p.m. -- An NRA spokesman told HuffPost the group has not taken a position on the new bill, but said it plans to "work with Congress as this bill makes its way through the legislative process."

They lose me when they get to magazine capacity, but I'm fine with everything else.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
They put it in with the back round check bill, because they want it, and if you vote against the bill based on that, you're an evil bastard that wants to see children senselessly slaughtered. This is how they'll do it. They'll sneak little things in all the way, to get whatever they want, and they'll do it in a way that makes you look bad, if you're against it. Kind of like Bush did with the Patriot Act...and that whole, you're either with us, or against us, redneck sort of Hatfeilds and McCoys mentality.

Oh, and the magazine capacity thing is all that I have a problem with too.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
I couldn't edit the above post, but I was checking my e-mail, and got this today from Gun Owners of America...I thought I would post it,because they seem to be a little less of the money scroungers the NRA is, and they don't generally use the fear factor as much.

Gun Owners of America
Update on Two Battles
GOA scores partial victory on Rules
Solicits horror stories from its members

Events have been moving so fast and furiously (no pun intended) that we have not had an opportunity to give you an update on the rules fight -- or to solicit your help in connection with a pivotal ongoing battle.

RULES

The Senate has reached its decision on what to do about its rules. And the outcome is neither a complete victory nor a complete loss.

On the good side: The Senate DID NOT pull the “nuclear trigger.” It did not do what we feared most -- and that was to decide that 51 senators could, by brute force, do whatever they wanted, irrespective of the rules.

As for the bad: The most serious change is a two-year “special order” -- which will expire in two years at the end of the 113th Congress. (How convenient. The Democrats put a time limit on this onerous rule in case they are no longer in the majority after the next elections.) That “special order” allows Harry Reid to proceed to the text of legislation without a filibuster of the “motion to proceed” -- but only if he pays the penalty of allowing Republican Leader Mitch McConnell to offer the first amendment.

In addition, the Senate “deal” would allow a bill to be sent to House/Senate conference with virtually no ability to resist. That's important because a House/Senate conference report is generally un-amendable -- and must be dealt with on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

What this means, as a practical matter, is that we cannot afford for ONE WORD of gun control to pass the Senate -- NOT ONE WORD. In the past, pro-gun Senators could have filibustered a gun bill and prevented it from going to conference (when it was suspected that conferees would take a relatively harmless bill and make it worse). But under the new rules, there is nothing we can do to keep a so-called “innocuous” gun bill from going to conference where legislators can then write the Feinstein amendment or a national gun registry into the bill.

REQUEST: SEND US YOUR HORROR STORIES

As you know, we believe that -- while we can take nothing for granted -- the Feinstein gun ban has an uphill battle in the Congress.

Thus, of all the anti-gun proposals in Obama's package, we view the biggest threat to be the universal background check -- which would set up a framework for a national gun registry and gun confiscation. It would also be even more of a slap-in-the-face to the 150,000 veterans on the NICS list who have been deemed “unworthy” of exercising their Second Amendment rights.

But so far, of all of the arguments against the universal background check which we have made on the Hill, the one that seems to have attracted the most interest is when we tell them that the ATF has been going into gun stores and illegally copying the 4473's.

We have received numerous accounts from members of this being done. But we could always use a lot more.

If you know of any instance where the ATF has illegally gone into a gun store and illegally copied a 4473, we would ask you to please write us about it.

We can redact your name and any identifying information if you wish. But we guarantee you that we will take your information and present it to members of the House and Senate who have expressed shock and interest that this was being done.

You can use the “contact” button on the GOA website to send us your stories. Click here for the direct link. Select “information submission” as the Department to where your email should be sent.
 

bobjustbob

Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
No problem here. It's already illegal to buy alcohol and tobacco and sell it to a minor. I don't my gun being used for crime. If I can be assured that my sale would be to a legal user then I can rest assured that gun is legally out of my possession. Just like if it were stolen. Report it with the registered numbers and not only will I not be connected with the crime, I can get my stolen gun back.

Toss me in with the magazine regulation too. Limit to 10 rounds in a clip? What the hell is that going to do stop an nut who wants to fire off 100 rounds? He'll load up with 10 pistols.
 
Toss me in with the magazine regulation too. Limit to 10 rounds in a clip? What the hell is that going to do stop an nut who wants to fire off 100 rounds? He'll load up with 10 pistols.

Or even simpler...... carry ten, 10 round magazines. Can switch out an empty mag with a full one in about less than 3 seconds.
 
My latest purchase... the Glock 26, came with three 10 round mags. :thumbsup:
 

bobjustbob

Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
Or even simpler...... carry ten, 10 round magazines. Can switch out an empty mag with a full one in about less than 3 seconds.

Yea, that too. How do you feel about the tracing of guns with registration numbers following every gun and person? We both don't want government keeping tabs on us. But with that gun we both understand that in the wrong hands it can be used in crimes and can do harm. Even kept in a locked box in the trunk it can still be stolen from a parking lot when eating lunch. When it gets out of your possession, wouldn't it be nice to have a way to report and trace it so no blame can be put on you for anything bad that happens?
 

Mayhem

Banned
Yea, that too. How do you feel about the tracing of guns with registration numbers following every gun and person? We both don't want government keeping tabs on us. But with that gun we both understand that in the wrong hands it can be used in crimes and can do harm. Even kept in a locked box in the trunk it can still be stolen from a parking lot when eating lunch. When it gets out of your possession, wouldn't it be nice to have a way to report and trace it so no blame can be put on you for anything bad that happens?

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Every firearm has a serial number. And that serial number is included with the paperwork that is (supposed to be) filled out at the time of purchase.
 
Toss me in with the magazine regulation too. Limit to 10 rounds in a clip? What the hell is that going to do stop an nut who wants to fire off 100 rounds? He'll load up with 10 pistols.
Or even simpler...... carry ten, 10 round magazines. Can switch out an empty mag with a full one in about less than 3 seconds.
Less than 3 seconds for smeone who's used to do it... Someone who's not would proably be a bit slower. And even if it takes 3 seconds, these 3 seconds could make a difference for someone who would run away. Or even better : 3 seconds could be used by someone to jump on the guy while he's switching magazines and knock him off
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Less than 3 seconds for smeone who's used to do it... Someone who's not would proably be a bit slower. And even if it takes 3 seconds, these 3 seconds could make a difference for someone who would run away. Or even better : 3 seconds could be used by someone to jump on the guy while he's switching magazines and knock him off

Like you, tough guy?

I think that 3 seconds would be better suited for a law abiding, licensed CCW holder, to draw his weapon, and save the tax payers a few bucks.
 
I think that 3 seconds would be better suited for a law abiding, licensed CCW holder, to draw his weapon, and save the tax payers a few bucks.
But without the ban on high capacity magazines, no one would have these 3 seconds...
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
But without the ban on high capacity magazines, no one would have these 3 seconds...

Are you sure you're not from Amsterdam, and posting from one of those coffee houses I hear so much about...cause you really say some silly shit. And you didn't answer the question...are you gonna nut up, and jump on an armed man, throw yourself in front of the speeding bullet? Because unless it's my wife, I'm not. I will however shoot the fucker...I can do that. Probably have the best nights sleep I've had in a long time too.
 
All of you guys love to cite Chicago as the key reason why gun control laws won't work, but I live in Chicago and I can tell you that sensible gun laws can work. As many of you know Chicago does have a strict gun control laws, so the question is where are these guns coming from if there's a strict gun control law? Chicago’s experience reveals the complications inherent in carrying out local gun laws around the nation. Less restrictive laws in neighboring communities and states not only make guns easy to obtain nearby, but layers of differing laws-local and state -make it difficult to police violations. And though many describe the local and state gun laws here as relatively stringent, penalties for violating them- from jail time to fines-have not proven as severe as they are in some other places, reducing the incentive to comply. More than a quarter of the firearms seized on the streets here by the Chicago Police Department over the past five years were bought just outside city limits in Cook County suburbs. Others came from stores around Illinois and from other states, like Indiana, less than an hour’s drive away. Since 2008, more than 1,300 of the confiscated guns, the analysis showed, were bought from just one store, Chuck’s Gun Shop in Riverdale, Ill., within a few miles of Chicago’s city limits.
 
Watch and learn, Johan.

As I said, 3 seconds for a person that's used to do it (like this guy in the video). People who are not used to use this kind of guns (such as Holmes who had bought his guns and ammos a few day before he did the Aurora shooting) would probably be slower.

revidffum said:
And you didn't answer the question...are you gonna nut up, and jump on an armed man, throw yourself in front of the speeding bullet? Because unless it's my wife, I'm not. I will however shoot the fucker
No one on Earth can say what he would do in this kind of situation until he's confronted to it.
Some will pretend they would keep calm and shoot they and, when they actually are in this situation, they'd just run like hell.
Some will say the would rujn like hell and when the situation comes up, adrenaline fill them and they would find the courage to stand between the gunman and the kids.
 

bobjustbob

Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Every firearm has a serial number. And that serial number is included with the paperwork that is (supposed to be) filled out at the time of purchase.

I understand that every gun has a number on it and it is to be registered to the purchaser. But I hear the argument from some people that want to sell or transfer second hand without registration. Much like a lamp or toaster oven.

Rev, debating Johan about magazines is useless since in his perfect world no one would have guns.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
I understand that every gun has a number on it and it is to be registered to the purchaser. But I hear the argument from some people that want to sell or transfer second hand without registration. Much like a lamp or toaster oven.

Rev, debating Johan about magazines is useless since in his perfect world no one would have guns.

In a perfect world, no one would have Johan.
 
Top