View Full Version : House passes HR 7910
Who’s read the full text of this steaming pile? Sooo much wrong with it, but here’s an interesting one. Our unserialized AR uppers or Glock slide (among other things) will be considered “ghost guns” and there for be illegal to posses items under the law:
“(38) The term ‘ghost gun’—
“(A) means a firearm, including a frame or receiver, that lacks a unique serial number engraved or cast on the frame or receiver by a licensed manufacturer or importer in accordance with this chapter; and
39) The term ‘fire control component’—
“(A) means a component necessary for the firearm to initiate or complete the firing sequence; and
“(B) includes a hammer, bolt or breechblock, cylinder, trigger mechanism, firing pin, striker, and slide rails.
“(40) (A) The term ‘frame or receiver’—
“(i) means a part of a weapon that provides or is intended to provide the housing or structure to hold or integrate 1 or more fire control components, even if pins or other attachments are required to connect those components to the housing or structure;
“(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i), if a weapon with more than 1 part that provides the housing or a structure designed to hold or integrate 1 or more fire control or essential components, each such part shall be considered a frame or receiver, unless the Attorney General has provided otherwise by regulation or other formal determination with respect to the specific make and model of weapon on or before January 1, 2023.”.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7910/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Hr+7910%22%2C%22Hr%22%2C%227910%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-09-22, 18:40
So I see that they are going for something that was relevant and impactful over grandstanding and wish-writing.... not.
KInd of interesting on 'GHost Guns'. That pretty much admits that selling guns isn't really the issue, it is that people can MAKE their own guns now. The model for gun control has always been focused on manufactured guns. Go after the manufacturer, go after the retailer, with the focus on the gun. Well, if you can make your own gun, that model isn't useful at all, and would only stop lawful buyers from getting access to firearms.
The focus on Ghost guns PROVES that traditional gun control has failed. It is an admission.
On mags, do I read it that unlike during the AWB94, where you could buy and sell used mags, that you couldn't do that here?
Do I read this right? Not an actual AWB??? Just a mag ban?
Once again, the FED stuff is just theater- the real action is at the state and city level. With CO leading the stupidity at the City level... That’s where they go after the ARs themselves and mags, with no grandfathering. That is were it gets nasty in being a felon for doing nothing.
titsonritz
06-09-22, 19:18
Do your job Senate.
On mags, do I read it that unlike during the AWB94, where you could buy and sell used mags, that you couldn't do that here?
Do I read this right? Not an actual AWB??? Just a mag ban?
The AWB is a separate bill. Correct on the mags. You can keep the mags you have but it would be illegal to sell or transfer them to anyone other than the government. If you’re born after the law takes effect no common capacity magazines for you.
So I see that they are going for something that was relevant and impactful over grandstanding and wish-writing.... not.
Until it actually gets passed. You have more faith in the Senate than I do.
The AWB is a separate bill. Correct on the mags. You can keep the mags you have but it would be illegal to sell or transfer them to anyone other than the government. If you’re born after the law takes effect no common capacity magazines for you.
That was the original model of the Hughes bill back in 1986, current owners of ALL NFA items would be the last with no lawful means to transfer them to anyone. If that version had passed you'd know very few people who owned a machine gun, SBR, suppressor or SBS because they'd have needed to lawfully have been the owner in 1986.
That is why Reagan signed the version of FOPA that was on his desk, the alternative was the probable passing of the Hughes version of the ban with none of the benefits of FOPA. Most people don't remember any of this stuff.
This is also why in the early 90s, despite being on a very "working mans" budget, I went without a lot of things to get my first MP5 because I was sure the door would be closing, not simply on the registry as it did in 1986 but on any the transfer status of all of them. When the Clinton ban happened, I was sure it would be an add on.
This bill would also see you get 10 years in prison if you transfer a “large capacity ammunition feeding device” to your significant other or kids after it becomes law.
This bill would also see you get 10 years in prison if you transfer a “large capacity ammunition feeding device” to you’re significant other or kids after it becomes law.
Yes, because that will stop someone.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-09-22, 19:41
The AWB is a separate bill. Correct on the mags. You can keep the mags you have but it would be illegal to sell or transfer them to anyone other than the government. If you’re born after the law takes effect no common capacity magazines for you.
Common capacity
Thanks you, I’ve used standard capacity, but Common is even better since it invokes the protections that SCOTUS wrote out.
Yes, because that will stop someone.
Exactly. The only thing this bill does is punish law abiding citizens. It also:
1. Raised the age required to own semi auto rifles and shotguns to 21
2. Requires “safe storage”
3. Bans bumps stocks
4. Bans “untraceable firearms”
Common capacity
Thanks you, I’ve used standard capacity, but Common is even better since it invokes the protections that SCOTUS wrote out.
Right!?! Common capacity, because words matter.
OutofBatt3ry
06-09-22, 19:48
Do your job Senate.
I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the Senate rammed it though.
ETA, too add, I'd be pretty flabbergasted if they didn't.
Still not time tho, right?
LOL
OutofBatt3ry
06-09-22, 20:14
Still not time tho, right?
LOL
If you stay ready, you don't have to get ready :dirol:
I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the Senate rammed it though.
ETA, too add, I'd be pretty flabbergasted if they didn't.
They need 67 senators to put down a filibuster, I think gun owners have at least 34.
OutofBatt3ry
06-09-22, 21:01
They need 67 senators to put down a filibuster, I think gun owners have at least 34.
member the "affordable care act"? Hell, any hilariously bad bill that was forced down our throats in the last 80 years..
My wallet remembers; and is still paying.
I just assume any law that is passed by the feds, from here on out, will with f*ck me in some way or another....Par for the course I suppose.
member the "affordable care act"? Hell, any hilariously bad bill that was forced down our throats in the last 80 years..
My wallet remembers; and is still paying.
I just assume any law that is passed by the feds, from here on out, will with f*ck me in some way or another....Par for the course I suppose.
First off, I got my numbers wrong. I think it takes 60 senators to stop a filibuster. Do we have 41 senators? I don't know, maybe.
I think, if I read this right, the Dems had a supermajority for Obamacare.
https://ballotpedia.org/Obamacare_overview
OutofBatt3ry
06-09-22, 22:40
First off, I got my numbers wrong. I think it takes 60 senators to stop a filibuster. Do we have 41 senators? I don't know, maybe.
I think, if I read this right, the Dems had a supermajority for Obamacare.
https://ballotpedia.org/Obamacare_overview
Don't take my previous post as a troll or anything hostile. .Gov doesn't care for "the people's" interest in...anything. The vast majority of Americans haven't figured that out. I did in the mid 2010's.
Don't take my previous post as a troll or anything hostile. .Gov doesn't care for "the people's" interest in...anything. The vast majority of Americans haven't figured that out. I did in the mid 2010's.
No, not at all. I think, except for maybe one guy, we're all pretty riled up over the shootings, and gun control about to be jammed down our throats.
Welp, time to buy more clipazines... again. :rolleyes:
Good news- no "R" co-sponsors on this nonsense.
Bad news- somehow I don't see this as extreme enough to get anyone to seriously try to stop it.
That was the original model of the Hughes bill back in 1986, current owners of ALL NFA items would be the last with no lawful means to transfer them to anyone. If that version had passed you'd know very few people who owned a machine gun, SBR, suppressor or SBS because they'd have needed to lawfully have been the owner in 1986.
That is why Reagan signed the version of FOPA that was on his desk, the alternative was the probable passing of the Hughes version of the ban with none of the benefits of FOPA. Most people don't remember any of this stuff.
This is also why in the early 90s, despite being on a very "working mans" budget, I went without a lot of things to get my first MP5 because I was sure the door would be closing, not simply on the registry as it did in 1986 but on any the transfer status of all of them. When the Clinton ban happened, I was sure it would be an add on.
Steyr,
I always appreciate the historical context of your posts like this one.
Steyr,
I always appreciate the historical context of your posts like this one.
I try my best, not because I believe there is some grand 50 year plan where the FDR plan was enacted by LBJ and the LBJ plan was enacted by Clinton and all controlled by the Bildeburgs, but because there is a pattern and a template for the things people do if they want to do something specifically like ban classes of guns.
If you don't understand what they have done, how it was done, what was attempted but failed and everything in between you will never see what is common and you will probably underestimate it. I know we got some "quiet years", but the plain truth is ever since Sandy Hook we've been at a Defcon 2 status for defending gun rights even if nobody realizes it. They don't have to fight to move the ball, all they have to do is wait for the events and try and ride a wave of public opinion to their goals.
We on the other hand, better have our defensive game up and running all the time. We have really only reversed gun control efforts (and really we should call that citizen disarmament efforts) one time, and that was back in 1986 when we stripped out huge parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act. FOPA was the first time any legislation of it's kind got all the way to a Presidents desk, and it is the only time.
Everyone remember Hughes added an amendment that closed the registry but nobody remembers what FOPA did other than that.
It deregulated ammo sales. Prior to FOPA gun dealers who sold ammo had to book it in and book it out just like firearms in a records book. So if you bought a box of shotgun shells to go hunting, it was recorded. Removing that provision of the 1968 GCA also meant for the first time people could mail order ammo again and have it shipped directly to them.
It permitted the sale of surplus military firearms. Before FOPA things like a Moisin 91/30 were a rare collectible in the US. Almost nobody had one. That is because all military surplus firearms were banned from import in 1968 and this is why pre68 "no import marks" firearms like K-98s can cost five times as much as those that were imported during the 90s.
It protected private sellers who made profitable sales or trades from being prosecuted for being unlicensed dealers. During the Carter years there was a common ATF gun show sting. Someone would set up a table selling popular firearms at very fair prices and then the buyers would be solicited by undercover agents to then resell those guns for 150% of what they just paid a few minutes ago. And if you did, you got stung. I still remember gun shows from 1980/81 where the guys at the tables were making sure everyone knew where the ATF table was at. This is also why most serious collectors had a "kitchen table" FFL to protect them from such activities.
There were other things like protecting gun owners who passed through states with items that might be illegal in that state if the item was legal at your destination. So if you were driving from TN to MT and passed through Chicago with handguns they considered illegal, so long as they remained "securely encased" (trunk, locking gun case, etc.) you would be legal as you passed through.
There were a a few other things but those are the pertinent ones. Sadly Reagan did not have a line item veto or he could have struck the Hughes Amendment. He consulted the NRA leadership and they advised him to sign it because most NRA members had no interest in buying a machine gun anyway and by 1986 most gun owners were pretty sick of the excessive infringements of the 1968 GCA.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-10-22, 07:56
Why did we get the removal of the Cleo sign off requirement during the Obama years? It makes sense, but it gave less control to local police, at least theoretically, it would seem that it’s not some thing that the Democrats would do?
titsonritz
06-11-22, 00:02
Be afraid, be very afraid...
Scary But True Facts About Firearms (https://babylonbee.com/news/the-scariest-true-facts-about-firearms)
And it comes with a pride month bonus. :meeting:
Why did we get the removal of the Cleo sign off requirement during the Obama years? It makes sense, but it gave less control to local police, at least theoretically, it would seem that it’s not some thing that the Democrats would do?
If I remember correctly, happened about the same time as the required "responsible person" being named on a Trust for NFA items. Everyone was creating a trust for NFA weapons and completely bypassing the CLEO requirement anyway so it became a sacrifice for them in order to get a responsible party on all those NFA items owned by a trust. Since it was being done with NFA weapons, made sense to follow suit on Title 1 firearms.
The AWB is a separate bill. Correct on the mags. You can keep the mags you have but it would be illegal to sell or transfer them to anyone other than the government. If you’re born after the law takes effect no common capacity magazines for you.
I have notarized written statements of the guns and magazines I have gifted to my five year old and to my 18 month old. The state I did it in allows minors to own but not buy guns.
I have another motorized statement that all ‘my’ magazines are actually “tenents in common” with my wife and two kids. This means legally we all own these magazines equally. The specific mags spelled out as gifts to my kids are not included in this statement.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.