House Passes Gun Control Legislation

[mauserme]

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/06/08/us/gun-violence-hearing-uvalde-buffalo

 

House Passes Gun Control Legislation

June 8, 2022, 7:26 p.m. ETJune 8, 2022

Catie Edmondson

 

The House passed wide-ranging gun control legislation, but it is certain to fail in the Senate.

 

...

A divided House on Wednesday approved a wide-ranging package of gun control legislation in a party-line vote, but the measures were all but certain to go nowhere in the evenly divided Senate, where negotiations continued on more modest proposals that could draw the bipartisan support necessary to move forward.

 

... testimony quickly gave way to political reality on Capitol Hill, where Republicans split bitterly with Democrats over their gun control proposals, both in the committee and during votes on the legislation later in the day.

 

The bill passed on Wednesday would prohibit the sale of semiautomatic rifles to people under the age of 21, ban the sale of magazines that hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition, and establish stricter requirements regulating the storage of guns in homes.

 

Democratic leaders broke the package into its component parts, forcing House Republicans to take a vote on each of the seven provisions to put them on the record against every proposal. The provision to close a loophole and effectively ban bump stocks garnered the most bipartisan support, with 13 Republicans voting to support the measure. The measure to raise the age to 21 to purchase semiautomatic rifles garnered 10 Republican votes in favor, though two Democrats opposed it. The section of legislation banning high-capacity magazines — defined by Democrats as carrying 15 rounds or more — picked up relatively scant support in the House, with only four Republicans supporting the provision, and four Democrats opposing it.

 

... fierce debate on the House floor reflected the vast gulf between the two parties on gun control. House Republicans stayed united in opposing the legislation, casting it as an ineffective remedy to mass shootings and claiming it would restrict the rights of responsible gun owners.

Republican leaders had advised their members to vote the measures down...

 

“The speaker started by saying this bill is about protecting our kids,” said Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “That is important — it sure is. But this bill doesn’t do it. What this bill does is take away Second Amendment rights, God-given rights, protected by our Constitution, from law-abiding American citizens.”

...

 

 

 

[Xwing]

🤬  And I see that 5 RINOs including Kinzinger voted for that absolute garbage.  Of course along with every Democrap other than 2.  The Dems are back to banning all normal sized magazines.  It of course is a sliding scale, as we've seen in liberal states. They ban what they can for now, and then keep on decreasing the number over time.  

[GTX63]

It will die in the Senate.

[cybermgk]

Intersting arbitrary round count on the mag ban, max of 14.  It;s beyond stupid.  It would make illegal a vast majority of even handgun mags, that most have, as they are generally 15-17 rds if talking 9mm.  BUT, I guarentee if law, there would be glock 14 rd mags in a heartbeat, for sale.  And it solves nothing, nothing at all.

[springfield shooter]

On 6/9/2022 at 8:20 AM, cybermgk said:

Intersting arbitrary round count on the mag ban, max of 14.  It;s beyond stupid.  It would make illegal a vast majority of even handgun mags, that most have, as they are generally 15-17 rds if talking 9mm.  BUT, I guarentee if law, there would be glock 14 rd mags in a heartbeat, for sale.  And it solves nothing, nothing at all.

 

But it lets them virtue signal.

[krussell44]

The bill would also prohibit the sale of ammunition magazines with a capacity of more than 15 rounds.

15 rounds is Ok from what I am reading 

[fxdpntc]

 

[yurimodin]

On 6/9/2022 at 8:20 AM, cybermgk said:

Intersting arbitrary round count on the mag ban, max of 14.  It;s beyond stupid.  It would make illegal a vast majority of even handgun mags, that most have, as they are generally 15-17 rds if talking 9mm.  BUT, I guarentee if law, there would be glock 14 rd mags in a heartbeat, for sale.  And it solves nothing, nothing at all.

so if that 15th round is a felony and the fun switch is a felony???????????????

[Louie25]

You can serve and die for your country at 18, but won't allow them to drink or own a semi auto gun until 21. 

[Louie25]

The home storage thing, I really hope it's not one of those "all guns must be stored in a locked container at all times" even in your private home and if you live alone. Isn't the locked home already considered the locked container?? 

 

And I couldn't imagine the logistical nightmare of how that'd be enforced until after the fact a crime happens. Weekly, monthly check ins by the police? It'll probably just be another add on charge to tack on to whatever existing crime. 

[RECarry]

On 6/10/2022 at 10:14 PM, Louie25 said:

The home storage thing, I really hope it's not one of those "all guns must be stored in a locked container at all times" even in your private home and if you live alone. Isn't the locked home already considered the locked container?? 

 

And I couldn't imagine the logistical nightmare of how that'd be enforced until after the fact a crime happens. Weekly, monthly check ins by the police? It'll probably just be another add on charge to tack on to whatever existing crime. 

 

$6 trillion for "infrastructure" but no tax credit for Americans who purchase gun safes that they claim would save so many lives? Must be an oversight, or malarkey.

[Louie25]

Will there be a grandfather clause for the magazine limit? Otherwise they would be turning hundreds of thousands into criminals if it passes for no other than than "because we said so". Do they expect people to really just toss them out? Even if there's a buyback, paying abyssal prices for what the magazines are even worth?

 

I'm not even completely against all forms of gun control if they're weren't so heavy in just punishing law abiding people or being unreasonable. 

[mauserme]

On 6/10/2022 at 10:14 PM, Louie25 said:

The home storage thing, I really hope it's not one of those "all guns must be stored in a locked container at all times" even in your private home and if you live alone. Isn't the locked home already considered the locked container?? 

 

And I couldn't imagine the logistical nightmare of how that'd be enforced until after the fact a crime happens. Weekly, monthly check ins by the police? It'll probably just be another add on charge to tack on to whatever existing crime. 

 

They seem to have forgotten that Heller specifically said this is unconstitutional.

 

[ragsbo]

On 6/11/2022 at 7:13 AM, mauserme said:

 

They seem to have forgotten that Heller specifically said this is unconstitutional.

 

You seem to have forgotten that the left DOES NOT CARE about the constitution unless they can use it against you

[Black Flag]

On 6/10/2022 at 10:51 PM, Louie25 said:

 

I'm not even completely against all forms of gun control if they're weren't so heavy in just punishing law abiding people or being unreasonable. 

Please start your answer at any time:
Is there some kind of gun control that you like?

[Louie25]

On 6/11/2022 at 10:26 PM, Black Flag said:

Please start your answer at any time:
Is there some kind of gun control that you like?

 

Some of the obvious stuff like violent felons and existing criminals from having firearms which is already the case.  

 

Universal background checks that don't add undue burden or cost.

[Flynn]

On 6/11/2022 at 7:13 AM, mauserme said:

 

They seem to have forgotten that Heller specifically said this is unconstitutional.

 

 

Half the courts and every anti-gun person alive forgot both Heller decisions, hopefully the SCOTUS reminds them with an epic white glove slap in the NYSPRA case.

[Flynn]

On 6/11/2022 at 10:38 PM, Louie25 said:

 

Some of the obvious stuff like violent felons and existing criminals from having firearms which is already the case.  

 

Universal background checks that don't add undue burden or cost.

 

Riddle me this, if  violent felons and existing criminal are deemed too dangerous to own a gun, should they even be free and walking the streets in the first place? We all know how easy it is to obtain a firearm illegally, so how allowing these people that are deemed a threat to society to be free acceptable in the first place?

 

Quote

Universal background checks that don't add undue burden or cost.

 

Any universal background check is an undue burden, and even if the burden is deemed acceptable it should cost nothing, it should be an expediate proces and there should be an expediated (days not weeks/months/years) appeal process all with strict time limits that must be adhered to or the agency and those personally responsible shall be subject to depervation of rights penalties paid to the individuals they wronged.

[Louie25]

On 6/11/2022 at 10:47 PM, Flynn said:

 

Riddle me this, if  violent felons and existing criminal are deemed too dangerous to own a gun, should they even be free and walking the streets in the first place? We all know how easy it is to obtain a firearm illegally, so how allowing these people that are deemed a threat to society to be free acceptable in the first place?

I'm not saying I know the perfect answer. Determining if someone is still a danger to the public isn't as simple as "You promise you won't hurt anyone else, okay?" And I wish I had the answers. But overall I would think we would agree that we don't want bad people having guns. Whether there's a good way to go about that is a different question I don't have an answer for but I'd hope it'd be one we can all agree on at some point.

 

On 6/11/2022 at 10:47 PM, Flynn said:

Any universal background check is an undue burden, and even if the burden is deemed acceptable it should cost nothing, it should be an expediate proces and there should be an expediated (days not weeks/months/years) appeal process all with strict time limits that must be adhered to or the agency and those personally responsible shall be subject to depervation of rights penalties paid to the individuals they wronged.

I agree with all your points. Which is why I'm against red flag laws as they stand because the appeal process is abhorrent and ripe for abuse. We already know how slow the government works, and getting them to pass legislation to keep their own deadlines in check with risk of penalties would probably garner some laughs from the legislators. 

 

 

[Lou]

On 6/11/2022 at 10:38 PM, Louie25 said:

 

Some of the obvious stuff like violent felons and existing criminals from having firearms which is already the case.  

 

Universal background checks that don't add undue burden or cost.

The rabid anti-gun zealots want to pass laws to make things that are already illegal even more so illegal.

 

Here is a concept for you, if criminals by definition do not follow the existing laws why would a rational person think that the solution is to pass even more laws?  

[Louie25]

On 6/12/2022 at 7:21 AM, Lou said:

The rabid anti-gun zealots want to pass laws to make things that are already illegal even more so illegal.

 

Here is a concept for you, if criminals by definition do not follow the existing laws why would a rational person think that the solution is to pass even more laws?  

 

I agree, there's too much of making things extra illegal. And often too many times like in Chicago I hear, people aren't even properly taken in for charges for crimes they've been caught with red handed. People out here assaulting others or committing violent robberies being out back in the streets within days or a week.

 

I don't want laws that push the burden on to law abiding people. But we do need to hold those willing to do harm accountable. What kind of proposed law that would be, I don't know. 

 

 

[mikew]

On 6/12/2022 at 11:49 AM, Louie25 said:

 

I don't want laws that push the burden on to law abiding people. But we do need to hold those willing to do harm accountable. What kind of proposed law that would be, I don't know. 

 

I think we already have a boat full of laws that make harming other people illegal, with or without firearms.