View Full Version : H.R. 6257
jostha2007
11-06-08, 15:01
And so it begins...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6257
Guys look at the amendments..
Its going to get really gnarley in the next 8 months...
NOTE THE AMENDMENTS>.. they include Bolt Guns, Lever actions, single shots... all rifles that arent black powder....
What! All of the sponsors are Republicans!
The sad part is that the sponsor and all of the co-sponsors are Republicans. What a disgrace. It makes me want to vomit.:mad:
WTF! i can McCarthy, but all Republicans! Republicans have taken for granted gun owners for to long. Bush's "I'll reinstate the AWB if it makes it to my desk."
Unbelievable!
Anybody else up for making some pissed of phone calls and threatening to never sypport a Republican again?
They apparently don't get it. The have already lost many seats for not sticking to conservatism and now here they go and do this. They want to get voted out!!
I idea that all Republicans are for the Second Amendment is a fallacy. That's why you should vote for the Constitution Party or Libertarian Party candidates.
Agreed, I do and did just that. I vote for candidates not parties.
And so it begins...
NOTE THE AMENDMENTS>.. they include Bolt Guns, Lever actions, single shots... all rifles that arent black powder....
This bill was introduced back in June 2008.
The firearms listed in Appendix A are expressly EXEMPTED from the ban, not included in it.
‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
‘(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;
‘(B) any firearm that--
‘(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;
‘(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
‘(iii) is an antique firearm;
‘(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or
‘(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.
Well, I guess my Mosin-Nagants and Czech Mausers are safe. You would have thought that the folding bayonet on the M44's would terrify the Demos. :D
decodeddiesel
11-06-08, 16:27
This is very old news. Bills such as this pop up all of the time but go no where. It is merely political pandering by the so called "Republicans" who wrote and sponsored the bill to get dems from their home state to vote for them....
Take a deep breath and relax everyone.
So you can still buy a Glock 17 or Beretta 92 or whatever, but you'd be getting the 10 round mags with the gun instead of the hi-caps. Is that accurate?
Until the pre-ban mags ran out, yes. Before the first AWB, Sig used to package two hi-cap mags with its pistols. After the ban they cut down to one to spread out the mags with more pistols.
photosniper
11-06-08, 17:57
this bill already died on the floor from what I understand. Nothing to worry about except that the Republicans that sponsored it need to be replaced.
I idea that all Republicans are for the Second Amendment is a falacy. That's why you should vote for the Constitution Party or Libertarian Party candidates.
Another method is to work inside of a party and replace an anti-gun republican with a pro-gun republican. In many places, like Utah, this is the only way to unseat a republican. November is too late. Chris Cannon (R - Utah) was replaced by another republican this go around because of his soft immigration stance.
Get a big pro-gun voting block at your state convention and you can insure every candidate from the party votes the line or fails their next nomination convention.
The 3rd party protest vote is, IMHO, last resort if you don't get your way at the convention.
Thank you residents of Ohio and Pennsylvania. Your the blame:D. you could have stop this insanity.
Gutshot John
11-06-08, 19:02
Ugh...please people learn how to look up legislation. Library of Congress www.thomas.gov is your friend.
First this bill was introduced back in June, and so the election had nothing to do with it. Moreover it has all of FOUR (count em 4) co-sponsors. That only leaves 430+ Congressmen who didn't.
This bill was sent to committee...and then to subcommittee. Basically this means nothing more will become of it as 99% of all legislation dies there. This will never make it out of committee this congress, let alone make it to floor debate in the next.
It's also worth noting that the average bill takes about 5-6 years before it becomes law going through several incarnations of being reintroduced in each congress.
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.06257:
decodeddiesel
11-06-08, 21:24
This is very old news. Bills such as this pop up all of the time but go no where. It is merely political pandering by the so called "Republicans" who wrote and sponsored the bill to get dems from their home state to vote for them....
Take a deep breath and relax everyone.
This bill was introduced back in June 2008.
The firearms listed in Appendix A are expressly EXEMPTED from the ban, not included in it.
Ugh...please people learn how to look up legislation. Library of Congress www.thomas.gov is your friend.
First this bill was introduced back in June, and so the election had nothing to do with it. Moreover it has all of FOUR (count em 4) co-sponsors. That only leaves 430+ Congressmen who didn't.
This bill was sent to committee...and then to subcommittee. Basically this means nothing more will become of it as 99% of all legislation dies there. This will never make it out of committee this congress, let alone make it to floor debate in the next.
It's also worth noting that the average bill takes about 5-6 years before it becomes law going through several incarnations of being reintroduced in each congress.
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.06257:
Seems to me the vast majority of folks on these forums are not reading posts like this. This is not just here but on every gun related forum out there. I am starting to think everyone just wants to panic, even if it's completely unfounded, such as the reaction to House Resolution 6257.
John,
Out of curiousity how long did it take to pass the 1994 AWB? I don't recall ity being 5-6 years. We cannot be lulled into a false sense of security by thinking that they are not going to force a gun control issue. I think it will happen, just don't know when.
Ugh...please people learn how to look up legislation. Library of Congress www.thomas.gov is your friend.
First this bill was introduced back in June, and so the election had nothing to do with it. Moreover it has all of FOUR (count em 4) co-sponsors. That only leaves 430+ Congressmen who didn't.
This bill was sent to committee...and then to subcommittee. Basically this means nothing more will become of it as 99% of all legislation dies there. This will never make it out of committee this congress, let alone make it to floor debate in the next.
It's also worth noting that the average bill takes about 5-6 years before it becomes law going through several incarnations of being reintroduced in each congress.
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.06257:
Gutshot John
11-07-08, 07:04
John,
Out of curiousity how long did it take to pass the 1994 AWB? I don't recall ity being 5-6 years. We cannot be lulled into a false sense of security by thinking that they are not going to force a gun control issue. I think it will happen, just don't know when.
That is the average, many take longer.
I'd bet money that if you go back and look that they AWB had been introduced in the house multiple times in the preceding years.
Much of the confusion is that after each Congress, if the bill hasn't passed, it "dies" meaning that particular bill will never be voted on.
In the next Congress, if it wants to take up the legislation anew, it must be RE-introduced, often with different language, always with a new bill number.
The OPs post implied that 6257 was somehow the "beginning" when in actuality it's another in a long-string of failed attempts.
I'm not saying that Congress won't take up a new AWB in the future, and I'd bet money that an AWB bil will be re-introduced in the future, probably multiple times.
The question is whether it makes it out of committee, and onto the floor for debate. That will be when your attention, your phone-calls, and the pro-2a grassroots will be necessary.
In the meantime people that throw these bills into a forum thread, without even understanding the process are ginning people up needlessly.
photosniper
11-08-08, 17:35
Thank you residents of Ohio and Pennsylvania. Your the blame:D. you could have stop this insanity.
My uncle down in Georgia sent the same basic message to me the day after the election.
While I'm let down by the performance of my fellow Pennsylvanians, Obama had more than 300 electoral votes, McCain 175. PA is good for 21 and I can't remember what Ohio is worth but even if both states would have gone to McCain, he still would have lost.
My uncle down in Georgia sent the same basic message to me the day after the election.
While I'm let down by the performance of my fellow Pennsylvanians, Obama had more than 300 electoral votes, McCain 175. PA is good for 21 and I can't remember what Ohio is worth but even if both states would have gone to McCain, he still would have lost.
It was just a tongue in cheek post I made , That's why I used the :D.
This is very old news. Bills such as this pop up all of the time but go no where. It is merely political pandering by the so called "Republicans" who wrote and sponsored the bill to get dems from their home state to vote for them....
Take a deep breath and relax everyone.
Introduced Jun 12 , 2008.
Co-sponsors as of last week: 4 ( out of about 435). ;)
Dead right there.
Over half of the House (220 last time I checked ) co-sponsored the ATF reform bill.
This is still a winning fight for our side. A lot tougher than if McCain went to the White house , but we will win in the long run.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.