View Full Version : House voting on assault weapons ban
BringMeTheHorizon
07-17-22, 20:03
Colion breaks it down pretty well
https://youtu.be/P-_1meEZChM
BringMeTheHorizon
07-17-22, 20:06
Some light reading for anyone interested
https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/115034/documents/BILLS-117HR1808ih.pdf
BoringGuy45
07-17-22, 20:16
It'll pass the House and die in the Senate.
BringMeTheHorizon
07-17-22, 20:23
We can hope
I have a bad feeling it's going to pass. I get the distinct impression that our rinos just don't care anymore.
ETA: Also, I didn't hear any mention that this is going to affect SBRs or the future registration of SBRs. If that's the case, then effectively all "assault rifles" simply become NFA items. Which gives them their registry, a type of licensing requirement, and federal tax all in one.
Republicans already capitulated in the Senate a few weeks ago. What makes you think they won’t stab us in the back again?
We need to stop kidding ourselves. This republic has failed.
OutofBatt3ry
07-17-22, 21:01
Republicans already capitulated in the Senate a few weeks ago. What makes you think they won’t stab us in the back again?
We need to stop kidding ourselves. This republic has failed.
I have a bad feeling it's going to pass. I get the distinct impression that our rinos just don't care anymore.
ETA: Also, I didn't hear any mention that this is going to affect SBRs or the future registration of SBRs. If that's the case, then effectively all "assault rifles" simply become NFA items. Which gives them their registry, a type of licensing requirement, and federal tax all in one.
I'd be surprised if it didn't pass.
BringMeTheHorizon
07-17-22, 21:22
Any active and former LEO'S are exempt from what I've gathered. Guess there expecting y'all to enforce this.
The Dumb Gun Collector
07-17-22, 21:28
It won’t pass. The only reason the recent bill passed was because it was stripped of all stuff like this. We still have to stay on our senators though.
SomeOtherGuy
07-17-22, 21:35
It's void from the start (void ab initio) under the recent SCOTUS ruling.
Not that Congress really cares about constitutionality any more. The whole thing is a farce. Congress deserves the same respect you would give a foreign telephone scam artist. Maybe less.
The_War_Wagon
07-17-22, 22:13
They can vote themselves an unemployment check while they're at it!
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-17-22, 22:26
With the SCOTUS ruling I could see the RINOs pushing this through, with the idea that it SCOTUS will strike it down. Frankly, its a gamble, but it would be fastest way to SCOTUS and get them to put things right…
Diamondback
07-17-22, 22:33
Are they TRYING to get their whole gun-control agenda burned to the ground? Because my read is the more they poke the bear the more firebrand Thomas is gonna go trying to teach the lesson... this is the guy who once said "they made my life a living hell for 43 years, so now I'm going to stay on the bench for 43 years to do the same to them in return, and after that MAYBE I'll think about retiring."
Republicans already capitulated in the Senate a few weeks ago. What makes you think they won’t stab us in the back again?
We need to stop kidding ourselves. This republic has failed.
That was the first place my mind went when I heard about this. I don't know what's going on, but there's a senate clique of rinos that have just flat out decided they don't care about reelection. Nor the damage they're doing to the party.
It's void from the start (void ab initio) under the recent SCOTUS ruling.
Not that Congress really cares about constitutionality any more. The whole thing is a farce. Congress deserves the same respect you would give a foreign telephone scam artist. Maybe less.
Positively less! We're dumping Cheney here in Wyoming.
That was the first place my mind went when I heard about this. I don't know what's going on, but there's a senate clique of rinos that have just flat out decided they don't care about reelection. Nor the damage they're doing to the party.
I don’t see it that way.
For instance, speaking in a local pro gun group on FB, they were all into emailing and calling Tillis to stop him from voting yes on the previous bill. Once he did I asked them, so are you going to vote against him in 2026? People said they would support his primary challenger. Okay, I asked, and when he wins the primary will you vote for the democrat to teach Tillis a lesson?
Nope. They will still vote for him.
That’s the problem. It’s really hard to primary out an incumbent unless you’re a giant screw up like Chaney. It’s a lot easier in the House than Senate.
Personally I’d rather vote for the Democrat because then I k ow the knife will be in my chest instead of back.
You think the LDS in Utah will vote against Romney? Hardly.
These scumbags know they are safe which is why they do this. The government no longer fears the people because we have been pussified. 200 years ago we would be heating up the tar. Now, we just complain about it on the internet and hang Blue-Line flags as if those same cops won’t be the ones collecting all the guns. It’s sad what’s we’ve become. They know it, that’s why they rule harder and harder every year. L
More theatre of the absurd. It is 100% unconstitutional and won't survive in the courts.
Diamondback
07-18-22, 10:05
US Congress, making the common streetwalker look respectable and honest.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-18-22, 10:19
Full-er Retard-eder…..
It'll pass the house, and I don't think it'll get past filibuster in the Senate, but there's definitely a chance it could. Yes it's unconstitutional, and if it were to pass it should get struck down by the courts.
If the Republicans join with the Marxist then the midterms or at least some of the races might be in jeopardy for the Republicans. But if they side with the Marxist they deserve to lose.
Pass what ever law you want. I will not obey!1
If the Republicans join with the Marxist then the midterms or at least some of the races might be in jeopardy for the Republicans. But if they side with the Marxist they deserve to lose.
Pass what ever law you want. I will not obey!1
The problem is in the Senate, where none of the GOPe RINOs like Cornyn are on the ballot this year. They just flat don't care. :mad:
Diamondback
07-18-22, 13:06
The problem is in the Senate, where none of the GOPe RINOs like Cornyn are on the ballot this year. They just flat don't care. :mad:
This is why we need to repeal the 17th(?) and go back to Senators chosen by State Legislatures and serving at the pleasure thereof. Frankly, while I get the importance of "continuity," I'd like to see every Senator have to face a performance-review every two years with an automatic "confidence/no-confidence" vote.
This is why we need to repeal the 17th(?) and go back to Senators chosen by State Legislatures and serving at the pleasure thereof. Frankly, while I get the importance of "continuity," I'd like to see every Senator have to face a performance-review every two years with an automatic "confidence/no-confidence" vote.
That is another good step toward limiting the tyranny of the majority. Combine this with property owners with a stake in the game voting and some of the problems will start to be resolved. But even then, it will take a long time and take a lot of balls to fix everything that is now broken.
Diamondback
07-18-22, 13:24
That is another good step toward limiting the tyranny of the majority. Combine this with property owners with a stake in the game voting and some of the problems will start to be resolved. But even then, it will take a long time and take a lot of balls to fix everything that is now broken.
Here's what I'd do... everybody gets one vote on a yellow ballot. Active or honorably-discharged mil, you get another vote on a blue ballot. Landowner, you get another vote on a green ballot. Lie about any extra-ballot qual and you lose voting rights for life.
Why separate ballots instead of just more weight on one? That way, if you're torn between two candidates you have the option between putting your full voting weight behind one or splitting it between the two, and that also allows for distinct ballot-pools. Though there is a potential Unintended Consequence scenario where if mil and landowners are known to be heavily R in a D county that marks them as targets for shenanigans... and we know that D's don't stop cheatin' even when they stop breathin'.
Here's what I'd do... everybody gets one vote on a yellow ballot. Active or honorably-discharged mil, you get another vote on a blue ballot. Landowner, you get another vote on a green ballot. Lie about any extra-ballot qual and you lose voting rights for life.
Why separate ballots instead of just more weight on one? That way, if you're torn between two candidates you have the option between putting your full voting weight behind one or splitting it between the two, and that also allows for distinct ballot-pools. Though there is a potential Unintended Consequence scenario where if mil and landowners are known to be heavily R in a D county that marks them as targets for shenanigans... and we know that D's don't stop cheatin' even when they stop breathin'.
I like it. Weighted voting based on the amount of skin you have in the game. Would fit perfectly with what the founders intended and saw as flaws needing checks and balances. As a hedge, I can buy stock in yellow paper futures.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-18-22, 15:21
This is why we need to repeal the 17th(?) and go back to Senators chosen by State Legislatures and serving at the pleasure thereof. Frankly, while I get the importance of "continuity," I'd like to see every Senator have to face a performance-review every two years with an automatic "confidence/no-confidence" vote.
Damn, I was just saying that in another thread somewhere…
Here's what I'd do... everybody gets one vote on a yellow ballot. Active or honorably-discharged mil, you get another vote on a blue ballot. Landowner, you get another vote on a green ballot. Lie about any extra-ballot qual and you lose voting rights for life.
Why separate ballots instead of just more weight on one? That way, if you're torn between two candidates you have the option between putting your full voting weight behind one or splitting it between the two, and that also allows for distinct ballot-pools. Though there is a potential Unintended Consequence scenario where if mil and landowners are known to be heavily R in a D county that marks them as targets for shenanigans... and we know that D's don't stop cheatin' even when they stop breathin'.
And you lost me….. :)
Actually, how about a vote per dollar paid in taxes….
Damn, I was just saying that in another thread somewhere…
And you lost me….. :)
Actually, how about a vote per dollar paid in taxes….
F Dat bruh. LeBron would get more votes than my whole county. Bout the only thing like these ideas I could agree with is that if you are drawing government money from some program to live on (excluding SS retirement benefits) you don't get to vote. My reasoning being: A) It's a conflict of interest. B) Your ability to make important life decisions is suspect.
That said, if it passes I ain't gonna be the one to tell them single moms at the trailer park up the road. Some of them gals is scary. Uh, uh. Dats on you.
BoringGuy45
07-18-22, 15:50
It won't get past the Senate. Even the RINOs won't an AWB. Even if some of them did, they wouldn't get enough on board to go over 60.
Diamondback
07-18-22, 16:14
It won't get past the Senate. Even the RINOs won't an AWB. Even if some of them did, they wouldn't get enough on board to go over 60.
*Shitt Romney, Susan Collins and Rob Portman have entered the chat*
I think it’s a 50/50 chance of passing. We all thought no gun control would pass but we’ve already had the first gun control in 30 years become law.
*Shitt Romney, Susan Collins and Rob Portman have entered the chat*
Guarantee mittens will vote for it. I hate he represents Utah, the only way he got elected is because he’s Mormon. F*cking traitorous rino…
BoringGuy45
07-18-22, 18:04
*Shitt Romney, Susan Collins and Rob Portman have entered the chat*
We say this every single time, and yet they haven't passed a ban since 1994. The only reason the last bill passed was because they took bans off the table. I don't like the RINOs, but I highly, highly doubt they will get enough of them to break 60 votes. Also, Collins, as much of RINO as she is, is not super anti-gun and has voted against most gun ban bills.
Also, Manchin won't vote for a ban.
At any rate, I'm not worried. Even if something did get passed, it wouldn't last long before it got struck down.
Diamondback
07-18-22, 18:07
Manchin depends on if they finally make whatever Golden Parachute offer he's been holding out for.
BoringGuy45
07-18-22, 18:11
Manchin depends on if they finally make whatever Golden Parachute offer he's been holding out for.
He's been pretty reliable though.
*Shitt Romney, Susan Collins and Rob Portman have entered the chat*Don't forget the bitch from Alaska.
We say this every single time, and yet they haven't passed a ban since 1994.
Technically not true, in 2004 a renewal of the Clinton ban was successfully amended to the final version of a Larry Craig industry protection bill. It was ready to be sent to Bush's desk, but Craig killed his own bill.
Technically not true, in 2004 a renewal of the Clinton ban was successfully amended to the final version of a Larry Craig industry protection bill. It was ready to be sent to Bush's desk, but Craig killed his own bill.
Thank God Larry did that before he was caught foot-tapping in airport restrooms! LOL
Diamondback
07-18-22, 20:13
Thank God Larry did that before he was caught foot-tapping in airport restrooms! LOL
I think the Establishment broke that story in retaliation for him pulling the rug out from under them. They were SO CLOSE to ridding the country of "those icky evil proleguns," and then he had to go and ruin everything just when victory seemed assured... just like that disgusting Trump.
Thank God Larry did that before he was caught foot-tapping in airport restrooms! LOL
And while he should have known better (I mean what kind of Senator can't have hook ups managed by a staffer), it's pretty low on my list of faults by US Senators. Being gay he should have also known he was a potential target for any kind of "big story."
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-19-22, 07:36
Don't forget the bitch from Alaska.
I do think she is a conniving bitch, but I would think that an AWB wouldn't play that well in Alaska? Cheap, good guns.
I do not think it passes. If it does, I think Clarence Thomas and Co. will strike it down so hard it'll make their heads spin, based on the language he has been used in The Big Case. He and a couple of other justices have already said they amount to common use.
Not only does the 17th amendment need repealed, we need to change the electoral college. Instead of the candidate that wins the most votes in a state, wins the ec; we need to have it be the candidate that wins the most counties win the state ec votes. It would be a more true representation of the state. In ca for instance mission modoc county (least populated in the state) could cancel out LA’s vote. The founders wanted rural America to control the country, not urban centers.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do think she is a conniving bitch, but I would think that an AWB wouldn't play that well in Alaska? Cheap, good guns.I hope you're correct.
I don’t think it will pass, but it’s possible I could be wrong.. Are hi-cap 9mm and other caliber pistols like the Glock included in this bill ?
IMHO, the sad reality is mass shooting won’t stop, and at some point one of them will be the straw that broke the camels back, with enough of those in the House and Senate knuckling under to the public outcry. I hope I am wrong about that. Also didn’t Biden say he wants to ban hi-cap pistols also ? If they have their way NFA items and sniper rifles won’t be safe either. Over time they want all guns gone. How in the hell could anybody especially gun owners vote for today’s F’ed up extreme Democrat Communist Party.
I can see things like a Steyr AUG or B&T APC being banned. But the AR15 is in common use. It would have to be exempt.
The one I really want to see is that the 30rnd mag is also a ‘common use’ gun part.
Diamondback
07-19-22, 10:10
Not only does the 17th amendment need repealed, we need to change the electoral college. Instead of the candidate that wins the most votes in a state, wins the ec; we need to have it be the candidate that wins the most counties win the state ec votes. It would be a more true representation of the state. In ca for instance mission modoc county (least populated in the state) could cancel out LA’s vote. The founders wanted rural America to control the country, not urban centers.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Or no more WTA, make it one race for each CD's electors then two at-large electors awarded to whoever takes the most CD's in that state.
Even the AP style manual is calling ARs (and AR-style rifles) 'common use' and getting away from 'assault weapon' terms. Honestly, if it passes, it ain't sticking.
john armond
07-19-22, 10:17
I can see things like a Steyr AUG or B&T APC being banned. But the AR15 is in common use. It would have to be exempt.
The one I really want to see is that the 30rnd mag is also a ‘common use’ gun part.
But will they try to name individual brand names. For instance, a Larue OBR isn't as common as a Bushmaster XM15 or a S&W M&P15. Some states already have lists of banned guns by specific name. Doing it this way, they could say only the large name brands are in "common use," ban the others, then incentivize those large companies to remove their weapons from public sale.
But will they try to name individual brand names. For instance, a Larue OBR isn't as common as a Bushmaster XM15 or a S&W M&P15. Some states already have lists of banned guns by specific name. Doing it this way, they could say only the large name brands are in "common use," ban the others, then incentivize those large companies to remove their weapons from public sale.
I think the fair argument is that the AR15 ‘pattern’ rifle is in common is e regardless of manufacture. I could see something like a requirement of cross compatible parts like barrel, receivers, BCG all be cross compatible to be “ar15 pattern”
Diamondback
07-19-22, 10:32
Personally, I'd also add a definition of "semiauto versions of any military-issued full-auto are specifically protected as Common Militia Use," if not go all the way to "anything issued to a basic 11B or 0311 infantry rifleman."
I believe they started selling the AR15 to the public around 1965 or 57 years ago. I am 70 and don’t really recall that there were many mass shooting before Columbine.
Seems like their are many more miserable people F’ed up in the head because of mental illness, drugs, etc. that want to go out in their blaze of glory. IMHO, if you haven’t already done so, get all the firearms, hi-cap mags and **ammo** that you can comfortably afford, and don’t ever, ever register your firearms or turn them in. The only thing worse than a Republican is a Democrat, and the only thing worse than a Democrat is a RINO Republican. IMHO, if this Country ever goes down, it will because of easily deceived and manipulated, brain dead suckers and fools who believed the propaganda of the *fake* news media and the extreme Democrat Communist Party. Wake up America !! MAGA !!!
Diamondback
07-19-22, 11:21
I believe they started selling the AR15 to the public around 1965 or 57 years ago. I am 70 and don’t really recall that there were many mass shooting before Columbine.
Seems like their are many more miserable people F’ed up in the head because of mental illness, drugs, etc. that want to go out in their blaze of glory. IMHO, if you haven’t already done so, get all the firearms, hi-cap mags and **ammo** that you can comfortably afford, and don’t ever, ever register your firearms or turn them in. The only thing worse than a Republican is a Democrat, and the only thing worse than a Democrat is a RINO Republican. IMHO, if this Country ever goes down, it will because of easily deceived and manipulated, brain dead suckers and fools who believed the propaganda of the *fake* news media and the extreme Democrat Communist Party. Wake up America !! MAGA !!!
And then you have the massive explosion of psychotropic drug use in tandem with the infantilization of the populace... things that send my generation running home crying to mommy sucking their thumbs were just "eff it, drive on, this shit happens and it's part of life" to our grandparents' generation. And the generations after Gen-X are even worse on the snowflakery... psychotropics and public schools as indoctrination centers, twin IV's of poison set to max flow rates.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-19-22, 12:01
I can see things like a Steyr AUG or B&T APC being banned. But the AR15 is in common use. It would have to be exempt.
The one I really want to see is that the 30rnd mag is also a ‘common use’ gun part.
Don't even try to give them that idea. Magazine fed, semi-auto firearms. Handguns and rifle form and caliber. The particulars are not important.
BoringGuy45
07-19-22, 14:40
I can see things like a Steyr AUG or B&T APC being banned. But the AR15 is in common use. It would have to be exempt.
The one I really want to see is that the 30rnd mag is also a ‘common use’ gun part.
No, the issue is not the brand and model; it's the style of weapon. From an originalist perspective, the Founding Fathers didn't care if you had something common like a Brown Bess or Springfield 1795 musket, or some musket you got from a local gunsmith. It was a common use style of weapon that was suitable for all lawful purposes.
It's not that the AR-15, specifically, is common use. It's that semi-automatic rifles as a whole are in common use, whether they're a widespread design like an AR or AK, or whether they're something more obscure like a AUG or SG550. It doesn't matter.
I can see things like a Steyr AUG or B&T APC being banned. But the AR15 is in common use. It would have to be exempt.
The one I really want to see is that the 30rnd mag is also a ‘common use’ gun part.
They are going after scary guns, your AR15 is scary to them. Your murder capacity magazines are scary to them.
Relying on common usage to save you isn't going to save you.
Even the AP style manual is calling ARs (and AR-style rifles) 'common use' and getting away from 'assault weapon' terms. Honestly, if it passes, it ain't sticking.
LOL. They started calling Colt rifles Colt Sporters, that didn't prevent anyone from passing laws saying they couldn't have flash hiders, bayos or sliding stocks. Obviously some of you don't remember rifles with fixed "M4 style" buttstocks and bull barrels.
The Dumb Gun Collector
07-19-22, 17:57
Interesting they were only able to muster 48 votes for the ATF director. They got exactly two Republican votes: a blue state Republican legacy Senator and a guy who was retiring. It was enough, but sure doesn't sound like they have a deep reserve of votes for anything serious.
Any law if passed will be largely ignored and eventually repealed, one way or another. Hope I'm not around to see it. After Uvalde the only-cops-should-have-them argument is weakened. Obviously we all think it was settled in 1791 but regular non-gun people are beginning to see the light I hope.
Any law if passed will be largely ignored and eventually repealed, one way or another. Hope I'm not around to see it. After Uvalde the only-cops-should-have-them argument is weakened. Obviously we all think it was settled in 1791 but regular non-gun people are beginning to see the light I hope.
I agree with you, but for my associates that have different ideas on guns I've heard Uvalde spun the opposite way. The AR is "so scary" even cops won't face up to one. Obviously a stupid argument, and kind of slap in the face of anyone who ever served in the military and faced off against AKs and PKMs, but I've seen it a lot.
In regards to the Republican Party being a Bastion of Democracy regarding firearms laws, I find our members faith
commendable but extremely naive .
My faith is not in the Republicans
I agree with you, but for my associates that have different ideas on guns I've heard Uvalde spun the opposite way. The AR is "so scary" even cops won't face up to one. Obviously a stupid argument, and kind of slap in the face of anyone who ever served in the military and faced off against AKs and PKMs, but I've seen it a lot.
True. Some won't ever get it.
No, the issue is not the brand and model; it's the style of weapon. From an originalist perspective, the Founding Fathers didn't care if you had something common like a Brown Bess or Springfield 1795 musket, or some musket you got from a local gunsmith. It was a common use style of weapon that was suitable for all lawful purposes.
It's not that the AR-15, specifically, is common use. It's that semi-automatic rifles as a whole are in common use, whether they're a widespread design like an AR or AK, or whether they're something more obscure like a AUG or SG550. It doesn't matter.
The founding fathers did not care about common use. They wanted citizens to own military weapons
Andy
A bunch of blowhard bullshit. This is just for political clout. None of these bans ever work. If they did, why did the last one become history?
They are going after scary guns, your AR15 is scary to them. Your murder capacity magazines are scary to them.
Relying on common usage to save you isn't going to save you.
QFT. All the “common usage”, “so-in-so vs. so-in-so” cases, SC rulings are just semantics. Commies are going to Commie irregardless of what the SC says. Commie states have laws that are blatant violations of the 2A and get away with it. Maybe I’m just a pessimist but nothing I have seen from our government in the last decade gives me confidence that they will do the Constitutionally right thing. I read a post somewhere that said “ the greatest conspiracy theory of all is the notion that your government cares about you”. I need to add that to my sig line.
QFT. All the “common usage”, “so-in-so vs. so-in-so” cases, SC rulings are just semantics. Commies are going to Commie irregardless of what the SC says. Commie states have laws that are blatant violations of the 2A and get away with it. Maybe I’m just a pessimist but nothing I have seen from our government in the last decade gives me confidence that they will do the Constitutionally right thing. I read a post somewhere that said “ the greatest conspiracy theory of all is the notion that your government cares about you”. I need to add that to my sig line.
I think Heller was important. I don't think it restored all constitutional freedom to everyone across the land, but it did put in place a significant roadblock to restrict rights.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-20-22, 18:51
I think Heller was important. I don't think it restored all constitutional freedom to everyone across the land, but it did put in place a significant roadblock to restrict rights.
To me Heller is the foundation of them not being able to just outlaw guns. At the very least, I’ll have pump shotgun and a revolver in my house. Now we are building on that.
The question I have is that these people won’t give up, every law that gets passed will just be followed by another slightly less illegal law.
How do we get to the point where states like NY and CA aren’t allowed to pass new gun laws with out some pre-clearance like the southern states had for voting? They have had a long history of violating people’s rights, and they use our dimes to pay for the lawsuits to take away our rights.
To me Heller is the foundation of them not being able to just outlaw guns. At the very least, I’ll have pump shotgun and a revolver in my house. Now we are building on that.
The question I have is that these people won’t give up, every law that gets passed will just be followed by another slightly less illegal law.
How do we get to the point where states like NY and CA aren’t allowed to pass new gun laws with out some pre-clearance like the southern states had for voting? They have had a long history of violating people’s rights, and they use our dimes to pay for the lawsuits to take away our rights.
Same way they do it, keep hammering back. Honestly if you told me the gains we would make with CCW and open carry way back in the 90s, I'd have laughed at you. Losing the NRA as a viable front line of defense really hurt us, we need something like that.
The NRA has not been a first line of defense for a long time, if ever !
The Dumb Gun Collector
07-20-22, 20:36
https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2022/7/20/23271930/highland-park-july-4-massacre-senate-hearing-republicans-on-judiciary-reject-assault-weapons-ban?_amp=true
The Republicans on the committee who spoke at the hearing — Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa; Sen. John Cornyn and Sen. Ted Cruz, both of Texas, and Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee — saw absolutely no reason to put any curbs on the sale of assault weapons.
The NRA has not been a first line of defense for a long time, if ever !
Look up the Cincinnati Revolution and Neal Knox.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.