Comments on: Federal Gun Bills That Suck

By: ben

ben — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 05:16:06 +0000

Buying a suppressor? Why don’t you quit being a wiener and make one? I’m gonna do that one of these days. Gotta get with the $200 tax and all that crap first. Why are the darn things regulated anyway? It’s pretty dumb.

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:27:59 +0000

The title of this post implies that there are federal gun bills that don’t suck. Is it true, Le Fou?

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:36:46 +0000

The truly scary part of HR-297 is that mental health records will be made available for the NICS.

Got a friend or relative who took the bait after Vietnam, Desert Storm or OIF and let the VA classify them with PTSD? Ask them how much they want for their firearms now so as to get at the front of the line, because that person won’t be allowed to buy or own in short order if this passes.

By: FreedomSight » Blog Archive » Told You So

FreedomSight » Blog Archive » Told You So — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:48:30 +0000

[...] (Via Say Uncle, who provides a handy-dandy link to H.R. 1022, though the text is not yet available) tags: [RKBA, stupid laws] You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. [...]

By: beerslurpy

beerslurpy — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:17:17 +0000

Yes govtrack is the win.

And yes you can own suppressors. My local SOT is about to take possession of my first one from the manufacturer. The ammo for it should be arriving within the hour.

By: Standard Mischief

Standard Mischief — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:35:16 +0000

Damn, I hate Thomas. The above link to HR 297 won�t work; static links on that dreadful site never do.

GovTrack.us rocks. Overview Full text GovTrack does not suck because it is not maintained by government employees.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:56:52 +0000

#9,

Yes. Yes. Yes. No.

that’s the short version. Here’s the long one on legalities and such.

Regarding the last question, suppressors attach to your firearm and aren’t sighted themselves. The can affect accuracy and they can be large enough to mess up your sight picture. So, try them out on a weapon first.

By: #9

#9 — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:48:23 +0000

I am not up to speed on suppressors. Can regular people have them? Is special paper work required? Any other pros and cons to be considered? For target shooting, can they be sighted in like a regular pistol?

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:02:12 +0000

Damn, I hate Thomas. The above link to HR 297 won't work; static links on that dreadful site never do. Instead, you have to go here, type "HR 297" without quotes, and then hit "search." Lame.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:59:33 +0000

Maybe I'm missing something, but after reading HR 297 from top to bottom, I'm frankly at a loss as to why anyone thinks it would prohibit anyone from purchasing a gun who isn't prohibited from doing so now. NICS already contains some arrest information, but per the FBI, "Currently, under federal law, the NICS cannot preclude the transfer of a firearm based on arrest information alone unless independent state law otherwise specifies[.]" What specific section of HR 297 does Mr. Snyder believe would change that result? On the flip side, note that current law allows 3 days to follow up on incomplete NICS information, such as a record of a felony arrest without an accompanying record of the ultimate disposition. A better, more complete database (and I take no position on whether HR 297 would provide one) could save a lot of headaches for those who were arrested but not convicted. The only obvious losers are those who were arrested and convicted, but whose arrest records appear in the database and their convictions do not.

By: ben

ben — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:52:48 +0000

It wouldn’t prevent LEGAL private purchases would it?

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:51:28 +0000

Hopefully the NRA hears that loud and clear on the NICS improvements. And they wonder why we don’t go for their “reasonable restrictions”, because they want to use all these “reasonable” mechanisms they put in place to screw us as often as they can get away with.

By: JustDoIt

JustDoIt — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:29:31 +0000

At what point is the line drawn in the sand? It’s geting mighty close for me…

By: Ron W

Ron W — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:47:41 +0000

The tyrant wannabes will not be satisfied until they have a fully operational police state where we are all disarmed except for the criminals and the hired guns of the “legalized version”.

Politicians (except for a precious few patriots) prefer disarmed peasants and criminals prefer uunarmed victims…the two groups that benefit from gun control.