BATF Reform & Firearms Modernization Act Introduced

A-Bear680 · #1 05-14-09, 10:03

The title says it all. This is very good news:
www.nraila.org

Bills have been recently been intro'ed in both the Senate and the House.
S 941 in the Senate.
HR 2296 in the House.

This has a good chance of winning if people push for it.
During the last two years, similar bills have done very well in the House.
This year the Senate voted ( 61/62 to 36) to remove the DC city government's power to "regulate" firearms.

Lots more info at:
www.theakforum.net

Click on the pic to enter , go to the :
HR 1022 "AWB" Forum.

Fight smart and keep winning.
www.saf.org
www.nraila.org

A-Bear680 · #2 05-14-09, 15:11

No interest at all?
OK , I know Ron Paul refused to be a co-sponsor last year , but come on.

dbrowne1 · #3 05-14-09, 15:13

What does the bill actually do?

If it's appropriating funds to hire another 50 NFA Branch examiners so our transfers don't take 6 months, I'm all for it.

Zhurdan · #4 05-14-09, 15:23

Or as long as one of the consessions made with the other side to getting it moving isn't to adjust the rate of inflation on the $200 tax stamp. That'd be redonkulous.

A-Bear680 · #5 05-14-09, 15:52

More info at the links:
www.nraila.org

Several pages worth.

And , even more info at:
www.theakforum.net

Click on the pic to enter , go to the :
HR 1022 "AWB" Forum.

Fight smart and keep winning.
www.saf.org
www.nraila.org

rubberneck · #6 05-14-09, 16:04

gbear, I liked what I saw but wonder if there are 60 Senator's that would be willing to buck the President as I have no doubt that he would veto it in it's current form.

A-Bear680 · #7 05-14-09, 17:03

Look around .
67 Senators just voted for CCW in National Parks.
That's not to say that anything is a done deal-- just that the grabbers are weaker than they seem.
Just sayin'.

rubberneck · #8 05-14-09, 17:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by gbear48

Look around .
67 Senators just voted for CCW in National Parks.
That's not to say that anything is a done deal-- just that the grabbers are weaker than they seem.
Just sayin'.

CCW in the National Park is a fight that the administration doesn't think is important enough to have right now. This bill on the other hand might generate so much heat from the wing nut anti gun left that he may have to fight it. Right now he is at risk from his base because they are not at all happy with several decisions he has made recently.

The question then becomes are there enough Democrats in a very unpopular Senate who are secure enough in their positions that they are willing to buck a veto from the chosen one. I am sure that some are and then there are that are facing elections in blue states and don't want to get in a pissing match with the President. It is easy to generate 67 votes when there are no real consequences to your vote. It is not so easy when the powers that be in your party start threating you if you don't toe the party line.

A-Bear680 · #9 05-14-09, 17:51

.
We'll see.

Mr.Goodtimes · #10 05-14-09, 18:19

i was kind of hoping that there would be something in there to repeal the '86 ban on new machine guns. or something making SBR's non NFA items... gues no luck.

rubberneck · #11 05-14-09, 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Goodtimes

i was kind of hoping that there would be something in there to repeal the '86 ban on new machine guns. or something making SBR's non NFA items... gues no luck.

Not in our lifetime.

Irish · #12 05-14-09, 18:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhurdan

Or as long as one of the consessions made with the other side to getting it moving isn't to adjust the rate of inflation on the $200 tax stamp. That'd be redonkulous.

$3175 Would be the price of our $200 tax stamps if adjusted for inflation from 1934.

Iron-sapper · #13 05-14-09, 23:02

Hard to get excited about bills being introduced in committee -- thousands are written every year. Will be much more animated if they vote it out of committee and get on the schedule for the floor.

A-Bear680 · #14 05-15-09, 08:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron-sapper

Hard to get excited about bills being introduced in committee -- thousands are written every year. Will be much more animated if they vote it out of committee and get on the schedule for the floor.

True.
But check the history of similar bills back a few years. This one has a history of very strong support in the House.

scottryan · #15 05-15-09, 15:05

Does this bill still have the provision for removing Bush's parts kit ban?

Mjolnir · #16 05-15-09, 16:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottryan

Does this bill still have the provision for removing Bush's parts kit ban?

Not many wish to remember that little tidbit...

chadbag · #17 05-15-09, 16:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishluck73

$3175 Would be the price of our $200 tax stamps if adjusted for inflation from 1934.

don't even discuss it. Don't want to give anyone any ideas

A-Bear680 · #18 05-15-09, 16:41

I dunno.
It looks like it would end the barrel ban. People over on www.theakforum.net
seemed to like that.
It looks like the current bills could solve some of the problems that ATF had back in the 1990's.

A-Bear680 · #19 05-16-09, 21:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Goodtimes

i was kind of hoping that there would be something in there to repeal the '86 ban on new machine guns. or something making SBR's non NFA items... gues no luck.

Slightly OT but....
One step at a time.

A lot has changed since the '86 ban slipped though.
And NFA-'34 covers FA , SBR's , SBS/G's and AOW's. Widespread use of three round burst rigs were not on the radar screen in either '86 or '34. Now 3 rd burst settings are standard in the US military 'a2's and carbines . The same feature is in use in AK's from some nations.

That could be the first medium sized bite out of the '86 ban. I think it could be do-able in a few years.

Still , one step at a time sounds good to me.