Comments on: Gun Bills in the New Congress

By: Steve Sky

Steve Sky — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:27:53 +0000

Note: “and other purposes”, on three of the bills. This is a very big loophole, that once the bill is law, can be used to redefine the law to mean whatever those in power, want it to mean. Whenever I see “and other purposes” attached to gov’t legislation or regulation, that is a big red warning flag saying, “watch out”.

By: Robin Goodfellow

Robin Goodfellow — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:02:12 +0000

HR 257 looks pretty bad. As far as I can tell it would raise the legal age for possession of a handgun to 21 and otherwise redefine “child” to mean either “anyone under 18″ or “anyone under 21″, though I only took a quick look at the bill and the relevant code.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:28:41 +0000

Yeah, we gun nuts don't keep up with things like that.

By: M. Simon

M. Simon — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:25:31 +0000

Drug War deaths will be used to justify gun bans.

Gun owners are generally clueless about the threat the Drug War poses to their rights.

Watch – 2,000 guns a day go South to Mexico while drugs come North will be the PR gimmick.

By: ajacksonian

ajacksonian — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:10:22 +0000

It’s belt AND suspenders.

Fence AND defense.

Any word on the ammo tax bill?

By: anonymous

anonymous — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:35:52 +0000

“So fence or defense? Make up your mind!”

If we used the British spelling of ‘defence,” we could have both!

By: TNProgrammer

TNProgrammer — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 02:49:58 +0000

Karrde
I somehow don’t think that the 30 million allotted will allow for their “teams” AND a fence.

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 02:00:52 +0000

HR495= job creation, and by jobs I mean some ignorant soccer mom anti-gunner filled leftist think tank who will sit around dreaming up ways around Heller, how to close down “sources of firearms” INTO mexico.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but mexico isn’t a state…Oooooh, maybe it’s number 57.

If mexico wants to find out where “illegal” guns are coming from they can send the confiscated guns to ATFU for tracing, we don’t need to be paying more money for that cesspool.

By: Wolfwood

Wolfwood — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:49:07 +0000

karrde

So fence or defense? Make up your mind!

By: karrde

karrde — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:07:02 +0000

Is there any way we can get some sort of fence option grafted into HR 495?

By: TNProgrammer

TNProgrammer — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:46:24 +0000

Addendum to HR 17 opinion:
Scratch the “Why” portion.
I expect to see a lot of lawsuits against a few of the more blue states if this passes due to restrictions on firearm storage in event of a felonious crime ensuing in one’s home. Perhaps this will be impetus to relaxing those restrictions, since logic has failed to work in the past, perhaps hitting them in the wallet will work a bit better.

By: TNProgrammer

TNProgrammer — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:43:17 +0000

My summary:

HR 17: Why?…We already have this right in the 2nd amendment; no need to pass a law to affirm that we can own a shotgun/handgun/rifle.

HR 45: Illegal Fail. Register my handgun or detachable mag semi-auto? Methinks not.

HR 247: Likely Fail, can’t tell until the text is posted, but anything “for the children” is typically awful.

HR 197: Win. Though I wouldn’t be surprised if California revokes its permit issuance status if this passes.

HR 442: Win, if I understand correctly this means that all those older NFA guns possessed by vets get to be legal. Let em keep their guns.

HR 495: Pointless money sink.