4 new gun control measures in congress

[wingnutx]

1) "The Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2007," H.R.256, will impose severe penalties should you have recklessly disregarded the risk and a child is able to gain possession of your firearm and use it to cause death or serious bodily harm. It also seeks to raise the minimum age for which someone can own a semi-automatic rifle from eighteen to twenty-one and will mandate that children under the age of eighteen in attendance at a gun show be accompanied by an adult at all times.

H.R.256

2) "To require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban toys which in size, shape, or overall appearance resemble real handguns," H.R. 428, aims to do exactly as the title implies: Take a quick break from banning real guns and start banning toy guns.

H.R.428

3) "The NICS Improvement Act," H.R. 297, is being proposed. However, there is no information available on the bill at the time of this writing from the Library of Congress.

H.R.297

Finally, the most onerous and far-reaching piece of legislation of the bunch:

4) "The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007," H.R. 96, will basically destroy any gun show or private sale of firearms as we know it. Alan Korwin, noted firearms author says of this bill,

"Under the original draft, currently legal gun shows are outlawed without prior federal permission. Gun show promoters must agree to warrantless searches in order to operate, and may be arrested if private citizens talk at the show about gun sales they wish to complete away from the show. The right to assemble peaceably at a gun show or even plan for one, carries stiff prison terms unless federal licenses are issued in advance. I am not making this up.

"Massive new bureaucracy is created because all shows and their exhibitors must be registered 30 days before the show, then again 72 hours before the show, and again five days after the show. That's in addition to registering anyone who walks in, plus "any other information" the Secretary of the Treasury decides, by regulation, is necessary on vendors, attendees, and the show itself."

We all knew that the newly elected anti-gun majority would not waste much time in proposing new laws that further infringe our Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. Now is the time to contact our representatives to make sure our voices are heard concerning these issues.

H.R. 96

[The Rabbi]

Wiht 1 sponsor and 3 co-sponsors I would say this bill (HR 94) will go nowhere fast.  Remember, many of the Dems who were elected are more pro-gun than the Republicans they replaced.

[El Tejon]

Rabbi, maybe, but we need to beat the drum and get people sending in the letters and calls.

[Fly320s]

I'm on it, El T.

Time to meet the New Boss.

[Mannlicher]

Wiht 1 sponsor and 3 co-sponsors I would say this bill (HR 94) will go nowhere fast.  Remember, many of the Dems who were elected are more pro-gun than the Republicans they replaced.

don't think for a moment that the Democrat leadership won't whip those new boys and girls into shape right away.  Once the new kids understand that there will be NO committe assignements, NO PAC money for re election, and that their office will be in a basement broom closet without complete compliance to Nancy P, they will toe the line.
Disabuse yourself of any thoughts that the Liberal Democrats don't name the marching tune.

[The Rabbi]

Wiht 1 sponsor and 3 co-sponsors I would say this bill (HR 94) will go nowhere fast.  Remember, many of the Dems who were elected are more pro-gun than the Republicans they replaced.

don't think for a moment that the Democrat leadership won't whip those new boys and girls into shape right away.  Once the new kids understand that there will be NO committe assignements, NO PAC money for re election, and that their office will be in a basement broom closet without complete compliance to Nancy P, they will toe the line.
Disabuse yourself of any thoughts that the Liberal Democrats don't name the marching tune.

I will bet money this bill does not come to a vote in this Congress.
The Democrat members fear their own constituents more than they fear Pelosi.  They know gun control is a loser of an issue for them.  They will alienate many more voters switching sides than gain friends.
Nope, I'm sleeping easy.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Don't blame me, I voted Republican.

[Perd Hapley]

Don't blame me, I voted Republican.

Well said.  I blame the spineless among the Republican leadership. 

[tyme]

Toy guns--

I understand the problem with item 2, but I'm quite ambivalent.  I grew up in a city, and never owned a BB gun.  There's a significant sociological divide between people like myself and people in places where kids carrying BB guns is unremarkable... regardless of how we feel about regulation of real guns.

The liberal concern on this issue is a valid one, I think.  If there are two types of things that look like guns, how is anyone -- kid or adult or cop -- supposed to tell them apart?  Would anyone sell kids blunt swords?  They're not inherently dangerous, but anybody observing kids playing with swords is going to get nervous until they investigate, and rightly so.

If only real guns look like real guns, then there's an expected code of conduct when handling one.  If there are real guns, paintball guns, and bb guns that all look the same, there are different sets of handling rules and an outside observer can't know if the proper rules are being observed.  This is a serious concern in an urban environment where people are increasingly carrying concealed handguns.  What is a private citizen supposed to do if some unknown 12-year-old kids are running through a neighborhood with what look like real guns?

The commonly-stated solution is for parents to prohibit their children from running around with real-looking toy guns.  But if that's universal common sense, why not codify it... if not by banning real-looking toy guns outright, at least banning them in public?  Yes, it should be dealt with at the level of a city/town ordinance, but the liberal position is that many cities and towns won't deal with it because their residents place undue value on letting kids run around with bb guns and paintball guns.

I don't know what that value is, and maybe it's worth the negligible cost.  But I don't think that just because someone wants to ban real-looking toy guns, they also want to ban real guns.

There are clearly more important issues that would save a non-negligible number of lives.  But we all know that anything to do with real or toy guns is a hot-button issue.  I personally might be fine with the gene pool cleansing resulting from dumb kids running down streets with BB guns and getting shot by ccw holders.  That indicates at least dumb parents, who tend to raise dumb kids.  There is, however, a sociological purpose in not allowing such shenanigans, and I'm not inclined to get worked up about it.  It's a great issue to think about, though.

I don't think even a Democrat-dominated Congress would pass such child-protectionist legislation at a federal level.  Part of the legislative game is to introduce nonsense feel-good legislation that will never pass just so you can get brownie points from your constituents.  Not every silly bill is worth getting worked up over.

Don't blame me, I voted Republican.

Our votes in the last election don't change the fact that this legislation exists.  If a comet is hurtling toward Earth, should we do nothing just because we're not responsible for the physics of the solar system?  If the bills are DOA, that's a good reason for doing nothing.  Our votes in the last election are not a good reason for doing nothing.

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

Tyme, remember that a couple of our northern suburbs have already banned Airsofts and other 'replicas' inside their city limits within the past 5 years or so.

What's new with ya? Been seeing you around a little more lately. You doing ok?

Regards,
Rabbit.

[tyme]

Fine... I suppose that my interest in social issues is cyclical, and happens to be on an transient upswing.

Yeah, I remember that uproar... Dallas had one too, but it didn't pass, did it?  This is all I remember and all I can find:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/local/stories/080806dnmettoygun.e85ed8.html

[DJJ]

These bills may not get far, yet, but does anyone doubt Bush would gladly sign them, out of sheer vindictiveness?

[gunsmith]

So would Uncle Sugar obey this one
1) "The Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2007," H.R.256
And not give 17 year old recruits machine guns?

[cosine]

I'm going to be keeping an eye on this H.R. 256, among all of the bills. If I want a semi-auto, I don't want to have to wait another two years. As it is I already and still have to wait another two years to buy a handgun. 

[wmenorr67]

I dont believe any of them will reach the Presidents desk, let alone make it out of conference.  This is a ploy for some to say that they are still tuff on control but then place the blame elsewhere when they are not passed.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Don't blame me, I voted Republican.

Our votes in the last election don't change the fact that this legislation exists.  If a comet is hurtling toward Earth, should we do nothing just because we're not responsible for the physics of the solar system?  If the bills are DOA, that's a good reason for doing nothing.  Our votes in the last election are not a good reason for doing nothing.

My point isn't that I or anyone else should do nothing to stop these bills.  Quite the contrary, we ALL should do whatever we can to prevent them.

The biggest thing any of us could have done to prevent these bills was vote Republican back in November.  I knew this and acted accordingly, and I urged other people to do the same.  Yet too many people stupidly rationalized away this obvious fact.  I can't count how many times I heard people say we should vote Libertarian because they better represent our position, or that we shouldn't vote Republican because they don't perfectly agree with each and every position we might hold, or that the Republicans need to lose an election in order to be taught a lesson, or whatever. 

The bottom line is that a lot of pro-gun, pro-freedom folks failed to vote for Republicans.  These gun control bills are the inevitable and obvious result!  They didn't want to vote for "the lesser of two evils", and thus saddled us all with a much greater evil.  And the gun control bills are only the beginning.  The Dems have only been in charge for a few weeks...

I want people to remember this the next time they consider throwing away their vote on a third party candidate.  When you don't vote for Republicans, the Democrats win, and these sorts of bills are the result.  The Republican Party may not be perfect, but it's a helluva lot better than the only alternative. 

Remember this in two years.

[Perd Hapley]

Sigh.  Yeah.  At heart I'm a third-party type of guy, but I can't get away from the "obvious facts." 

[RevDisk]

Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2007  - H. R. 256

Prohibits "(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon" and "(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device." for folks under the age of 21.  Specifically allows for folks under 21, no minimum age, to use a handgun to defend against intruders, limited to residence of that person or a residence in which that person is an invited guest. 

Not sure how they define 'assault weapon' and 'large capacity ammo device', have to research that.  I didn't think either term was valid since the AWB expired.  Specifically does "semiautomatic assault weapon", not "semiautomatic rifle".  Interesting.

Allows for folks between 18-21 to use firearms in the course of employment (ranching or farming), target practice, hunting, or a firearm safety course; and "in accordance with State and local law"



"The NICS Improvement Act," H.R. 297

Doesn't seem to add anything new to NICS, just requires data from various govt agencies (looks like mainly State police) to be provided faster.  No changes to requirements for owning guns, just awarding grants for courts/police to transfer information faster to NICS.  The GAO would be required to audit these grants to make sure they are being spent on exactly the purposes outlined in said grant. 

Aside from spending more tax money, I don't see any negatives. 



"Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007" H.R.96

A "special firearms event" must notify the AG 30 days in advance.  No fees are allowed to be charged by the AG.  AG must issue special firearms event license to anyone qualified.  Has to verify identity of each vendor.  Has to provide the AG a list of all vendors after the event.  All vendors must have an FFL, no person to person sales allowed.  Must notify AG if a non-FFL person buys multiple handguns.

Aside from more annoying paperwork, no major change.  The person to person sale ban at gun shows would be annoying, but as long as the transaction does not occur at the event, it'd be legal.  Ie, if your state allows person to person sales, you'd just have to walk off the property of the gun show and it'd be legal.
 

H. R. 428

Here is the entire bill.

SECTION 1. BAN ON REALISTIC-LOOKING TOY HANDGUNS.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission shall promulgate a rule in accordance with section 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2058) to declare as a banned hazardous product under section 8 any toy which in size, shape, or overall appearance resembles a real handgun.

Obviously, only handguns, not all firearms.  Only thing that'd be hit would be AirSoft.  Most kids toys already have an orange tip, due to child safety concerns or more likely, lawsuits.  Annoying and stupid bill, but not an infridgement of the 2A.


Except for H. R. 256, raising the age for 'semi assault weapons', none of the bills would change gun ownership.  I seriously doubt they'll pass, and even if they did, it'd just be "feel good" anti-2A.  Not that I think wasting tax dollars, adding more paperwork, or banning toy guns are good ideas, but I definitely do not see them as serious threats to the Constitution. 

Folks, seriously, read the bills before accepting exaggerated accounts of what they really do.  Most are not that long, nor complicated.  You do not have to be a lawyer to understand most laws.  Except for tax law, in which suicide by rusty spork is preferable.

[280plus]

I sent out quite a few emails today, I hit Dodd, Lieberman and Joe Courtney and on the local anti gun bills I wrote my local rep, my local senator and the governor. Took me about an hour. Now to see how many respond.

[cosine]

Except for H. R. 256, raising the age for 'semi assault weapons', none of the bills would change gun ownership. 

You're, it would substantially change gun ownership. Adults such as me would be denied the right to keep and bear certain types of arms.

[RevDisk]

Except for H. R. 256, raising the age for 'semi assault weapons', none of the bills would change gun ownership. 

You're, it would substantially change gun ownership. Adults such as me would be denied the right to keep and bear certain types of arms.

Yep.  And I agree it'd be an arbitrary violation of your rights.   I firmly believe it's wrong to ban folks under 21 from drinking or owning handguns also.  When I was 18, I was trusted with automatic weapons, handguns, hell, even tanks.  But not a pint of a decent lager?  It made absolutely no sense then, it doesn't now.

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

Yeah, I don't think the City of Dallas' ordinance made it past the discussion phase.

Plano and Frisco both have them because of kids playing cops and robbers with airsofts, which harelipped the hockeymommies.

Regards,
Rabbit.