IrishFritz
Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2020
- Messages
- 130
- Reaction score
- 257
Last session's 5717 will have expired with the new congress. If you haven't read it, you really should; it pretty much shows you the mind set we are up against.
US House bill 5717
- Thread starter IrishFritz
- Start date
- Status
Register to hide this ad
coachray
Member
Just read it. Glad it expires but unfortunately there will probably be another one to take it's place.
BOB FRONSEE
Member
Just read it also, that is bad.
That seems to be more severe than others I have seen.
Entire text here:
Text - H.R.5717 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
It includes a federal firearm license — needed to possess any firearm or ammunition — which can be denied based on the following very vague standard:
Under the above standard, expect orders finding that possession of more than a certain number of magazines or amount of ammunition to create a potential risk to public safety.
Entire text here:
Text - H.R.5717 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
It includes a federal firearm license — needed to possess any firearm or ammunition — which can be denied based on the following very vague standard:
Under the above standard, expect orders finding that possession of more than a certain number of magazines or amount of ammunition to create a potential risk to public safety.
Last edited:
There are any number of reasons why elected officials might propose legislation.
Some bills are introduced because their sponsors really believe in them, and are willing to do the hard work required to see them become law. They will lobby their colleagues to get co-sponsors, meet with committee leadership to get on hearing schedules, line up witnesses and solicit public support, etc., etc...
And then there is legislation that's introduced for the purpose of "making a statement"...or fulfilling a campaign pledge...or being able to send out a fundraising letter telling donors that the sponsor is "fighting for" this-or-that cause.
Let's say that a candidate for Congress runs on a platform of making every day that ends in "y" a national holiday. He wins the election, then introduces a bill to make every day ending in "y" a national holiday...knowing it's going nowhere. But he can tell his constituents that he's "fighting for them" and doing what he promised to do, and he can fundraise off of that.
I looked up the history of H.R.5717. In the last Congress, it had only 21 co-sponsors. It was introduced and referred to the Judiciary Committee on January 30, and assigned to a subcommittee on March 10. No hearing was ever scheduled for it. Reading between the lines, there wasn't much support for it.
That doesn't mean proponents of this sort of legislation are going away, of course...but they remember the price they paid in 1994, the last time they banned "assault weapons". And true 2nd Amendment opponents in Congress are less numerous now than they were a year ago.
Furthermore, there are millions of new gun owners in this country now, folks who suddenly understood last summer the virtues of civilian gun ownership. (Watching mobs loot and burn police stations is a real eye-opener.)
Yes, we must always be vigilant...and bills like this do illustrate the mindset we're up against, as IrishFritz noted. But I think we're going to be okay in the long run.
Actions - H.R.5717 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Some bills are introduced because their sponsors really believe in them, and are willing to do the hard work required to see them become law. They will lobby their colleagues to get co-sponsors, meet with committee leadership to get on hearing schedules, line up witnesses and solicit public support, etc., etc...
And then there is legislation that's introduced for the purpose of "making a statement"...or fulfilling a campaign pledge...or being able to send out a fundraising letter telling donors that the sponsor is "fighting for" this-or-that cause.
Let's say that a candidate for Congress runs on a platform of making every day that ends in "y" a national holiday. He wins the election, then introduces a bill to make every day ending in "y" a national holiday...knowing it's going nowhere. But he can tell his constituents that he's "fighting for them" and doing what he promised to do, and he can fundraise off of that.
I looked up the history of H.R.5717. In the last Congress, it had only 21 co-sponsors. It was introduced and referred to the Judiciary Committee on January 30, and assigned to a subcommittee on March 10. No hearing was ever scheduled for it. Reading between the lines, there wasn't much support for it.
That doesn't mean proponents of this sort of legislation are going away, of course...but they remember the price they paid in 1994, the last time they banned "assault weapons". And true 2nd Amendment opponents in Congress are less numerous now than they were a year ago.
Furthermore, there are millions of new gun owners in this country now, folks who suddenly understood last summer the virtues of civilian gun ownership. (Watching mobs loot and burn police stations is a real eye-opener.)
Yes, we must always be vigilant...and bills like this do illustrate the mindset we're up against, as IrishFritz noted. But I think we're going to be okay in the long run.
Actions - H.R.5717 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Yes read it. I skimmed it. It is quite limiting. Combines the old AWB with modern gun control: only government entities and law enforcement (including oft-mentioned "campus law enforcement officers on or off duty") are allowed to get all the good stuff like "assault weapons" and silencers; "...and ammunition" appears everywhere, sadly including needing a license to own or purchase; so-called 'ghost guns' and parts are to be serialized and have to be transferred; and check out the TAX:
"(1) Articles taxable at 30 percent:
(A) Pistols.
(B) Revolvers.
(C) Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers).
(D) Any lower frame or receiver for a firearm, whether for a semiautomatic pistol, rifle, or shotgun that is designed to accommodate interchangeable upper receivers.
(2) Articles taxable at 50 percent: Shells and cartridges.".
which doesn't apply to government entities purchasing the same.
I did see the family transfers are mentioned, didn't study that part.
I still don't understand why 'silencers' are so scary here? Many places in Europe where shooting is allowed it is a courtesy or a rule to use one.
"(1) Articles taxable at 30 percent:
(A) Pistols.
(B) Revolvers.
(C) Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers).
(D) Any lower frame or receiver for a firearm, whether for a semiautomatic pistol, rifle, or shotgun that is designed to accommodate interchangeable upper receivers.
(2) Articles taxable at 50 percent: Shells and cartridges.".
which doesn't apply to government entities purchasing the same.
I did see the family transfers are mentioned, didn't study that part.
I still don't understand why 'silencers' are so scary here? Many places in Europe where shooting is allowed it is a courtesy or a rule to use one.
This bill is nothing but anti-gun boilerplate language, with some provisions so off-the-wall that nobody but hard-core extremists would ever support them. Those tax provisions alone should be enough to kill it, in court if not legislatively.
(Look at it this way: The Heller decision affirmed the individual right to own firearms. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that poll taxes, which are designed to inhibit the exercise of a Constitutional right, are unconstitutional. I think the taxes in this legislation would be viewed the same way by the SCOTUS.)
Much of the gun control debate is driven by the perception of firearms, and much of that comes from Hollywood depictions of guns and their owners. (I heard someone mention recently that very few non-gun owning Americans have ever actually heard a firearm discharge in person.) For many decades, "silencers" have been the tools of Hollywood bad guys, mostly assassins, and that stereotype has crept into our social lexicon: Everybody "knows" that law-abiding citizens don't use silencers...I'm sure that's the genesis for the debate about them here in the US.
Not just magazines or ammo. Given today's climate, I would think the words "could" and "potentially" would allow government to ban pretty much anyone who's ever voiced, posted, or written an opposing political thought. Scary stuff.
We know that......
...even a 'not so bad' bill will only lead to more 'really bad' ones.
...even a 'not so bad' bill will only lead to more 'really bad' ones.
Well, since it's not a real bill on the calendar, just tell your reps you're agin it . . .
Here is an idea. Enforce fully the laws on the books already. Stop plea bargaining with previously convicted felons. They probably got a break once already.
My MSR with pistol grip, nor my S&W factory 15 round magazines have ever caused problems. Why target me?
Your right to not be scared by the Boogeyman is NOT protected by the Constitution. Those are FEELINGS. FEELINGS aren't really in the Constitution, are they? My rights ARE.
My MSR with pistol grip, nor my S&W factory 15 round magazines have ever caused problems. Why target me?
Your right to not be scared by the Boogeyman is NOT protected by the Constitution. Those are FEELINGS. FEELINGS aren't really in the Constitution, are they? My rights ARE.
500SNW
Member
As I said in the HR 127 thread...the guy who has his name stamped on this is the guy that said that if too many people go to Guam, the island will tip over and capsize into the ocean.
He was serious.
He was serious.
This is from the 116th Congress and went nowhere.
We'll have plenty to be concerned about in the next few years. For now, let your Representatives and Senators know how you feel about the 2A and support the NRA.
When new anti-2A legislation is proposed, please post so member can take appropriate action.
We'll have plenty to be concerned about in the next few years. For now, let your Representatives and Senators know how you feel about the 2A and support the NRA.
When new anti-2A legislation is proposed, please post so member can take appropriate action.
- Status
