Marlin Firearms Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,984 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Some are being sent to committee, some are under consideration, some are just proposed.
You can find the exact status of a bill by typing in the number here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/legislation.xpd

Pro Gun

H.R. 645
(Ross, Jordan):

This bill would repeal the D.C. gun ban. It would prohibit D.C. from adopting new anti-gun laws. It would: (1) turn the semiauto ban into a full auto ban; (2) repeal registration requirements and ammunition bans; (3) specifically reiterate the Supreme Court's guarantee of the right to defend your home, although it would not allow concealed carry and would broadly authorize D.C. to prohibit guns in "sensitive" public places.

H.R. 826
(Carter, Doggett):

This bill would require Active Shooter Training for personnel performing security functions on military reservations.

H.R. 420
(Rehberg, Boswell):

This bill would establish a 90-day "amnesty" period for NFA firearms (like automatics) held by a veteran or his family

H.R. 58
(Scalise, Boren):
This bill would: allow an individual to purchase any firearm from a federal firearms licensee (FFL) in another state by going to his place of business -– thereby extending provisions currently applying only to rifles and shotguns and

require such an interstate sale to comply with both the law of the state in which the transaction occurs and the law of the state where the buyer resides;
extend these interstate sales provisions to FFL’s at gun shows;
allow a serviceman to claim residence in (1) his state of legal residence, (2) the state where he’s permanently stationed, AND (3) the state where he resides and commutes to the place where he’s stationed.

H.R. 822
(Stearns):

This bill would grant national reciprocity (with the exception of Vermont, Wisconsin, and Illinois) to persons with a concealed carry license. Unlike some versions of this proposal, however, it is not "Vermont-friendly" with respect to states which do not require licenses for concealed carry.


Anti Gun


H.R. 126
(Gingrey, Bachmann, Bartlett, Bishop, Blackburn, Burton, Carter, Conaway, Franks, Gohmert, Sam Johnson, Kline, Marchant, Paul, Roe, Rogers, Ross, Westmoreland, Young):
In determining that a gun was, for example, a full automatic, this bill would require the ATF to make a videotape of its testing and make it available to interested parties.

H.R. 224
(Jackson Lee):

This bill would expand federal hate crime laws, including a provision allowing a person to be sentenced up to life imprisonment if a gun is involved.

H.R. 227
(Jackson Lee):

This bill would:

amend 18 U.S.C. 922(x) -- making it difficult to legally teach your kids the safe and effective use of firearms -- by extending the subsection's labyrinthine provisions concerning handguns to semiautos (and semiauto clips) and to persons less than 21 (rather than 18), with certain exceptions;
increase the penalties for violating 18 U.S.C. 922(x) to five years generally, but ten years in some circumstances;
enhance lock-up-your-safety provisions (1) to provide for a three year prison sentence if you keep a loaded gun in your home for self-defense and a child gains access to it and causes serious bodily injury; (2)to allow $10,000 civil penalties for gun dealers who fail to comply with lock-up-your safety requirements;
provide that it is "child abandonment" to allow your kid to be unaccompanied at a gun show (even to go to the bathroom);
provide for grants for "gun safety programs."

H.R. 263
(Ackerman):

This bill would override McClure-Volkmer and would prohibit an FFL subject to license revocation from transferring any of his inventory.

H.R. 308
(McCarthy and 48 others):

This is the semiautomatic magazine ban. It would prohibit private transfers of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, even if they were grandfathered.

H.R. 367

(Richardson):

This bill would make it a ten-year felony to "knowingly" carry a firearm within 250 feet of a building where you "know" a member of Congress is. Thus, the bill would create an incomprehensible series of moving "no-gun" zones. And while, for example, you would be exempted for a gun in your house, if you lived next door to a congressman, you could not carry your gun to your car parked on the street.

H.R. 496
(King of New York, Bishop, Engel, Rangel, Chu):

This bill would make it a ten-year felony to "knowingly" carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of a building where you "know" a member of Congress is. Thus, the bill would create an incomprehensible series of moving "no-gun" zones. And while, for example, you would be exempted for a gun in your house, if you lived next door to a congressman, you could not carry your gun to your car parked on the street.

H.R. 505
(Nadler):

This bill would create a new class of "prohibited persons" consisting of persons convicted of a "misdemeanor sex offense against a minor." It is hard to imagine what sex crime against a minor would be so insignificant that it would be classified as a misdemeanor, but the most likely example would be, in some states, kid-on-kid sex.

H.R. 591
(McCarthy):

This is the gun show ban. It would provide for comprehensive and open-ended regulation and inspection of gun shows. But, more importantly, it would create a two-year prison sentence for any gun show sponsor who failed to notify EVERY attendee of his responsibilities under the Brady Law. No sane person would sponsor a gun show under these circumstances. In addition, the bill would significantly increase criminal sentences for recordkeeping violations by FFL's or for Brady Law violations.



H.R. 808
(Kucinich et al.):

This bill would establish a Department of Peace.
Duties would include: (5) the Office of Arms Control and Disarmament

S. 32
(Lautenberg, Feinstein, Menendez, Boxer, Kerry, Reed, Levin, Franken, Schumer, Durbin):

This is the Senate version of the semiautomatic magazine ban. It would prohibit private transfers of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, even if they were grandfathered.

S. 34
(Lautenberg, Menendez, Feinstein, Whitehouse, Reed, Levin, Schumer, Durbin, Boxer):

This bill would allow the Attorney General to prohibit you from owning firearms by placing your name on a "watch list" and notifying you of that fact. The Attorney General doesn't need to tell you (or a court to which you appeal your disability) the basis for the loss of your gun rights (other than summaries and "redacted" documents which can be submitted to the court). We have seen other statutes -- notably the Brady Law -- under which you are supposedly given the statutory right to appeal your gun ban, and our experience in those cases has been that ATF frequently just ignores them.

S. 35
(Lautenberg, Reed, Menendez, Kerry, Feinstein, Whitehouse, Levin, Schumer, Durbin, Boxer, Wyden):

This is the Senate version of the gun show ban. It would provide for comprehensive and open-ended regulation and inspection of gun shows. But, more importantly, it would create a two-year prison sentence for any gun show sponsor who failed to notify EVERY attendee of his responsibilities under the Brady Law. No sane person would sponsor a gun show under these circumstances. In addition, the bill would significantly increase criminal sentences for recordkeeping violations by FFL's or for Brady Law violations.

S. 176
(Boxer):

This bill would require every state issuing a concealed carry permit to comply with federal standards for that permit, including "demonstrat[ing] good cause for requesting a concealed firearm permit; and ... demonstrat[ing] that the applicant is worthy of the public trust..."


S. 436

(Schumer, Gillibrand):

This is an effort to embody Barack Obama's Arizona newspaper article into legislation -- and to milk political advantage from the tragedy in Tucson. It would:

withhold federal crime-fighting funds from states which fail to provide a sufficient number of names to the FBI's Instantcheck system (with penalties possible for states that fall as little as 10% short of providing all names [sec. 101];
require federal agencies to turn over the names of all prohibited persons (which would presumably include the names of all persons admitting to having smoked as little as one marijuana cigarette) [sec. 102];
redefine "adjudicated as a mental defective" (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4)) to impose a gun ban in any case in which a "lawful authority" (including, presumably, a school or a Medicare-funded doctor) prescribes counseling or medication in response to "subnormal intelligence, mental illness, or incompetency" [sec. 103];
require colleges to set up a procedure for investigating students who are acting strange and "reporting" them [sec. 103]; -allow a person to be put on the FBI's drug abuser list if, among other things, he admitted to "possessing a controlled substance unlawfully within the last five years" (thereby, humorously, removing current law's theoretical gun ban for large numbers of unadmitted pot smokers) [sec.104];
ban all private person-to-person sales of firearms, requiring that all sales go through federal firearms licensees or the police, who would conduct a background check [Title II].
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,268 Posts
HR 420 looks anti-gun to me.

While it has been some time since I had an FFL, the code used to allow for veterans to keep "war trophies", even if they were select-fire/full-auto falling under BATF jurisdiction.

Giving them a 90-day amnesty from WHAT?

Jon
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,116 Posts
Thanks for the post quietman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
926 Posts
Read H.R. 808

2/5/2007--Introduced.
Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act - Establishes a Department of Peace and Nonviolence, which shall be headed by a Secretary of Peace and Nonviolence appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Sets forth the mission of the Department, including to: (1) hold peace as an organizing principle; (2) endeavor to promote justice and democratic principles to expand human rights; and (3) develop policies that promote national and international conflict prevention, nonviolent intervention, mediation, peaceful resolution of conflict, and structured mediation of conflict. Establishes in the Department the Intergovernmental Advisory Council on Peace and Nonviolence, which shall provide assistance and make recommendations to the Secretary and the President concerning intergovernmental policies relating to peace and nonviolent conflict resolution. Transfers to the Department the functions, assets, and personnel of various federal agencies. Establishes a Federal Interagency Committee on Peace and Nonviolence. Establishes Peace Day. Urges all citizens to observe and celebrate the blessings of peace and endeavor to create peace on such day.


What a load of crap.

How much money this would cause? What assets and personal? Is this a power grab?

Things are wrong in this country.

The government is the symptom.

Very very worried

Matt
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,268 Posts
How about "Piece Day"?

Everyone brings their piece and all federal politicos are present. They are then required to read the U.S. Constitution out loud together, then the senators and representatives from each State are required to read their State Constitution out loud together.

Anyone refusing gets to taste the pieces from their constituents.

After all the reading is done, they have to recite the Second Amendment as a group, followed up with "Self-defense with any weapon is a Basic Human Right!"

Jon
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,593 Posts
quietman said:
H.R. 367[/b]
(Richardson):

This bill would make it a ten-year felony to "knowingly" carry a firearm within 250 feet of a building where you "know" a member of Congress is. Thus, the bill would create an incomprehensible series of moving "no-gun" zones. And while, for example, you would be exempted for a gun in your house, if you lived next door to a congressman, you could not carry your gun to your car parked on the street.

H.R. 496
(King of New York, Bishop, Engel, Rangel, Chu):

This bill would make it a ten-year felony to "knowingly" carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of a building where you "know" a member of Congress is. Thus, the bill would create an incomprehensible series of moving "no-gun" zones. And while, for example, you would be exempted for a gun in your house, if you lived next door to a congressman, you could not carry your gun to your car parked on the street.
Man...just absurd. This just shows you that the liberals want to classify all gun owners as felons for no real reason. Any sane person has to grant that carrying a firearm around a congressperson is only a natural crime if said firearm carrier employs the firearm for some deviant purpose. Simply having the firearm but not using it does not have any impact on anyone...yet these unjust people want to make doing so a crime in itself. Ridiculous. All the sponsors here should be impeached for proposing this.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,467 Posts
It's a standard tactic of the anti-gun Senators and Congressmen to propose totally ridiculous bills that they know won't fly so that they can pass laws that will seem more "reasonable" by comparison. We must never let our guards down with insidious clowns like them. I use the term "clowns," but, make no mistake, I take them very seriously. They will stop at nothing, use any tragic event involving firearms asan excuse to push some kind of anti-gun legislation. They are like vultures circling above a body, waiting for a chance to land and feast on the corpse. They just simply have no scruples whatsoever.

So, for example, they'll propose putting serial numbers on every bullet and keeping a database of the serial numbers, totally ridiculous, so they can maybe get passed high capacity magazine bans. They're already proposing such a ban in the wake of the murders in Tucson.

Proposing laws about "knowingly" possessing a firearm within a certain distance from a Congressman may just be the ridiculous proposal that will make magazine bans seem reasonable by comparison. We've got to keep the pressure on our Congressmen and Senators to let them know that "compromise" with anti-gunners is totally unacceptable and that we'll remember any such "compromise" come election time. The only thing that might scare them is the prospectg of losing their cushy jobs. We've got to keep reminding them of what happened to so many of their colleagues in the wake of their votes on so called health care reform.

It was just that kind of fear that got the Kenyan-in-Chief to agree to an extension of the Bush tax cuts.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,593 Posts
Good point, Brian, there are some truths on which we can never compromise. It's too bad that today's "post-modern" society no longer believes that there is a such thing as absolute truth. We who don't subscribe to those lies know better.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top