DNC House already pushing new gun control:

General General Discussion
1

Basically, it’s universal background checks. In committee at the moment, but likely will get traction soon.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8

And has 231 cosponsors to include a few so called Republicans. But of course, let’s not hear from actual victims of shootings that disagree with us!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rep-steve-scalise-says-house-dems-refused-to-let-him-testify-at-gun-violence-hearing

House Republican Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., said Wednesday that Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee refused to let him testify at a hearing on gun violence about his experience as a victim of the congressional baseball practice shooting two years ago. The move infuriated his fellow Republicans.

Scalise told Fox News that he found out over the weekend that Democrats had chosen not to allow his testimony at the hearing --“Preventing Gun Violence: A Call to Action” – something he said is a courtesy traditionally extended to any lawmaker who wishes to speak.

“I thought it outrageous that they want to try to silence this message, because in the end I’m still going to get my message out. They can’t silence this issue,” he said.

Scalise was shot and injured in June 2017. But despite his experience and perspective, he said that committee Democrats said he would not able to testify – although he could submit written testimony for the record, which he did.

2

“He wasn’t denied because he disagrees,” Nadler later said. “Majority members, we decided we needed to have a hard and fast rule today or we’d be here all day with members.”

You mean like an actual job where you’re there all day?!?

3

Not sure if that’s the bill or not but one of these bills some woman is introducing has a 50% tax on ammo. To make it clear she said if a 50 box of ammo was now $10 it would be $15 and similar taxes on cigarettes has proven effective.

So I guess she overlooked eCigs and I suppose she wants more untrained people with guns.

4

That’s in Connecticut.

5

…and it was a 50% increase on the existing tax from what I read. Either way, she is a dumbass.

6

Would have been nice if Republican control had knocked out all the foundations they are building off of.

7

These clowns are well along the path of legislating their way into irrelevance.

Governments collapse when an aggregate of Citizens choose to ignore them.

Irish Democracy.

8

That would be cool, but unfortunately we have far too many willing to enforce those whims to be able to successfully ignore it all.

9

I do not regret getting all I wanted regardless of cost.

Shame I don’t have the same enthusiasm I once did.

10

I just emailed my Congressman.

11

Hahaha, listening to people talk is exhausting for poor Jeery.

12

13

I think they are bound and determined to close the ‘gun show loophole’ one way or another.

Language in the bill such as this:

i Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—

“(A) a law enforcement agency or any law enforcement officer, armed private security professional, or member of the armed forces, to the extent the officer, professional, or member is acting within the course and scope of employment and official duties;

“(B) a transfer that is a loan or bona fide gift between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, between siblings, between aunts or uncles and their nieces or nephews, or between grandparents and their grandchildren;

“(C) a transfer to an executor, administrator, trustee, or personal representative of an estate or a trust that occurs by operation of law upon the death of another person;

“(D) a temporary transfer that is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, if the possession by the transferee lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death or great bodily harm;

“(E) a transfer that is approved by the Attorney General under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or

“(F) a temporary transfer if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms under State or Federal law, and the transfer takes place and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively—

“(i) at a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other area designated for the purpose of target shooting;

“(ii) while reasonably necessary for the purposes of hunting, trapping, or fishing, if the transferor—

“(I) has no reason to believe that the transferee intends to use the firearm in a place where it is illegal; and

“(II) has reason to believe that the transferee will comply with all licensing and permit requirements for such hunting, trapping, or fishing; or

“(iii) while in the presence of the transferor.[/i]

and this:

[i]Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to—

(1) authorize the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a national firearms registry; or[/i]

Make me think that if they are going to do it, this is probably a pretty painless way to do it.

However, this doesn’t give me the fuzzies:

(2) interfere with the authority of a State, under section 927 of title 18, United States Code, to enact a law on the same subject matter as this Act.

I know many of you have the attitude that giving in on this is defeat. However, with the House firmly in the hands of the Dems, and the Republican Senate majority as slim as it is, I think it is likely such legislation is going to get shoved through.

This may be as good as we are going to get.

May have to rely on President Trump stepping up to veto, but that is not going to happen.

14

I’d hope it never got past the Senate.

15

Sen. Gardner (R-CO) will vote for it if comes to that.

I don’t like it, but it really is the really is just the first step to a registration. Actually it could be used retroactively to do so. That is where i’d like to see some real verbiage.

16

“Progressive”. Little by Little, Bit by Bit, Piece by Piece until the goal is reached.

MD in 2013 banned purchase of non-HBAR AR’s, this year with our RINO governor (never Trumper) have two bills:
[b]
HB0612 Bill to Ban HBARs

Senate Bill 737 - Register Your Long Guns With MSP[/b]

17

My state requires a background check through the state police for any firearm sale, so there is no “gunshow loophole”. It’s actually pretty painless. If dealers at a show had access to the same system, said system having the necessary funding to ensure proper operation, it really shouldn’t have any impact on most gun buyers. That said, I used to be in the camp of “throw them a bone” on gun control, but now I firmly believe that is pure folly. Even though my state’s system works (from the perspective of not being a barrier - it does nothing to reduce crime), I despise it, because it has proven to be a backdoor for more anti legislation. I really believe that there is no “rational” compromise on the Second Amendment. The problem is, we’re definitely in the minority in that political sphere. I would say a bare majority, or at least a plurality, even of gun owners, probably support “commonsense” gun bills. The sad truth is we’re on the inexorable path to an effective all-gun ban (except, of course, “deer” guns).

As for a Trump veto, I wouldn’t discount it with the election around the corner. He might indicate differently initially, but he goes to his base on stuff like this because he needs them the most. Just like in '16, there are a lot of people right now saying “anyone but Trump” for the optics, but once they’re in the booth, it’s a different story. Bump stocks were a political hedge for taking a stance on something like this.

18

Here’s the future of gun control legislation: Mass non-compliance and blatant disregard even to willfully violating the law.

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2019/02/06/npr-shocked-find-people-still-buying-bump-stocks-despite-ban/

NPR Shocked To Find People Still Buying Bump Stocks Despite Ban

One thing gun people routinely tell anti-gunners is that gun laws won’t stop people from having guns.

What gun control activists count on is law-abiding gun owners to remain law-abiding indefinitely.

They don’t get that there’s a line in the sand where a gun owner is willing to cross from “law-abiding gun owner” to just “gun owner.”

NPR, though, was shocked to learn that despite a bump stock ban, people are still buying them.

There’s a countdown clock on the website for RW Arms, a Texas-based seller of firearms accessories. It tracks the days, hours, minutes and seconds until they’re no longer permitted to sell bump stocks, devices that allow semi-automatic rifles to fire almost as fast as illegal machine guns.

Promotional emails from RW Arms also include the countdown clock, urging customers to “order now” to “enjoy this unique firing experience” while they can.

Bump stocks are mostly a novelty, used by people who want to experience firing a gun at machine-gun speeds. But in 2017, a gunman used bump stocks to fire into a crowd in Las Vegas, killing 58 people and injuring hundreds. The incident caused the administration to reexamine the legality of the devices, and in December it announced the ban.

RW Arms’ sales pitch does not dwell on the fact that, by March 26, its customers will have to destroy or hand in any bump stocks they buy. In fact, no bump stocks will be “grandfathered in.” The new federal rule reclassifies them all as “machine guns,” no matter when they were purchased, and owning one will become a felony.

But it’s anyone’s guess how many people will dispose of their bump stocks. About half a million of the devices have been sold since 2010, and so far relatively few have been turned in to authorities — even in the handful of states that banned them before the federal rule came out in December.

One reason may be a lingering hope that the ban will be reversed. Gun rights activists have filed several lawsuits, accusing the government of bowing to political pressure when the ATF reversed its earlier findings that bump stocks were legal.

[b]My take: I’ll add another reason why people keep buying them.

Gun owners are sick of the bullshit.

Pass as many more laws as you want. People will ignore them too.[/b]

19

I have no doubt people will ignore the laws. But ultimately what does that alone really accomplish?
We can all be secret scofflaws whose banned guns sit unfired and covered in dust in our attics because we’re too afraid of someone finding out we have them to actually do anything with them. Oh maybe a couple times a year we’ll close all the blinds in the house and go get our illegal weapons, work the bolts a few times, maybe dryfire a bit, and remember the old days, back before we had to live in the shadows like roaches. But before long, back to the attic with them, before we get caught!
But boy, we sure showed them, didn’t we?

Until covert non-compliance becomes overt non-compliance, and on a large scale, we aren’t going to win anything.