H.R. 127 gun law text released

[Culvercreek hunt club]

1 minute ago, steve863 said:

As much as people complain about gun control our gun laws are the least strict anywhere on the planet.  Yeah, maybe NYS, California, a few other states are stricter than the rest of the country, but in general people can own just about anything they want in the USA.   

With that said,  does anyone really think we can easily go from people owning practically anything they want with few questions asked to the stringent regulations in this bill in one sweep?  I can't see it happening.  How in the world would the government even implement the things in this bill?  Government can't even balance a budget, come up with ideas on improving our healthcare system or protect the Capitol building from a bunch of dumbass thugs and then do we think they could successfully implement something like this?  No way.  This bill was written by someone who knows absolutely nothing about the number of guns in private citizens hands and the logistics involved in registering every freaking firearm in this country and licensing every owner of one.  Absolutely will never happen.  Plenty of democrats in congress and the senate would know that their asses would be on the line if even a fraction of what is in this bill would get passed.  Plus the supreme court would take this up with deliberate speed and rule it unconstitutional.  I won't be losing a wink of sleep over this because it ain't happening.  Do I think some new gun laws will pass with a democratic president, house, and senate?  Probably, but this ain't going to be the one.   

 

 

 

 

Turn back the clock and the same words you typed could have been written for the passage of the safe act. No idea about how to implement it or being written by those that knew nothing about firearms sure didn't stop them from running a vote through in the middle of the night. 

[suburbanfarmer]

3 minutes ago, steve863 said:

As much as people complain about gun control our gun laws are the least strict anywhere on the planet.  Yeah, maybe NYS, California, a few other states are stricter than the rest of the country, but in general people can own just about anything they want in the USA.   

With that said,  does anyone really think we can easily go from people owning practically anything they want with few questions asked to the stringent regulations in this bill in one sweep?  I can't see it happening.  How in the world would the government even implement the things in this bill?  Government can't even balance a budget, come up with ideas on improving our healthcare system or protect the Capitol building from a bunch of dumbass thugs and then do we think they could successfully implement something like this?  No way.  This bill was written by someone who knows absolutely nothing about the number of guns in private citizens hands and the logistics involved in registering every freaking firearm in this country and licensing every owner of one.  Absolutely will never happen.  Plenty of democrats in congress and the senate would know that their asses would be on the line if even a fraction of what is in this bill would get passed.  Plus the supreme court would take this up with deliberate speed and rule it unconstitutional.  I won't be losing a wink of sleep over this because it ain't happening.  Do I think some new gun laws will pass with a democratic president, house, and senate?  Probably, but this ain't going to be the one.   

 

 

 

 

Similar statements were made prior to SafeAct and yet here we are..

[Northcountryman]

4 minutes ago, steve863 said:

As much as people complain about gun control our gun laws are the least strict anywhere on the planet.  Yeah, maybe NYS, California, a few other states are stricter than the rest of the country, but in general people can own just about anything they want in the USA.   

With that said,  does anyone really think we can easily go from people owning practically anything they want with few questions asked to the stringent regulations in this bill in one sweep?  I can't see it happening.  How in the world would the government even implement the things in this bill?  Government can't even balance a budget, come up with ideas on improving our healthcare system or protect the Capitol building from a bunch of dumbass thugs and then do we think they could successfully implement something like this?  No way.  This bill was written by someone who knows absolutely nothing about the number of guns in private citizens hands and the logistics involved in registering every freaking firearm in this country and licensing every owner of one.  Absolutely will never happen.  Plenty of democrats in congress and the senate would know that their asses would be on the line if even a fraction of what is in this bill would get passed.  Plus the supreme court would take this up with deliberate speed and rule it unconstitutional.  I won't be losing a wink of sleep over this because it ain't happening.  Do I think some new gun laws will pass with a democratic president, house, and senate?  Probably, but this ain't going to be the one.   

 

 

 

 

Hope youre right, man, thats all I can say 

[BowmanMike]

1 hour ago, rob-c said:

I know your a die hard bow hunter and don’t really  care about fire arms,  but come  on you don’t see this as bad ? How would you feel if the government decided you needed a physch test to own archery equipment ? And that decision was left to the AG only . And they happen  to decide that since you kill animals your a danger to others .

21 evaluation of the individual indicated that
22 the individual engaged in conduct that
23 posed a danger to self or others.

I wouldn't be too worried about passing a psych eval. I would think it is stupid for a bow,a single shot weapon. But if that's what it would take to own one i would do it.

[rob-c]

6 minutes ago, BowmanMike said:

I wouldn't be too worried about passing a psych eval. I would think it is stupid for a bow,a single shot weapon. But if that's what it would take to own one i would do it.

Ok, but what about the most important part of my post ? ? And that decision was left to the AG only . And they happen  to decide that since you kill animals your a danger to others 
You may think it’s stupid,  but others may not see it that way . 

[BowmanMike]

Just now, rob-c said:

Ok, but what about the most important part of my post ? ? And that decision was left to the AG only . And they happen  to decide that since you kill animals your a danger to others 
You may think it’s stupid,  but others may not see it that way . 

I think Steve's post hit the nail on the head. The wording in that bill takes things way too far to ever pass. Maybe it's like one of those tactics that folks loved about trump,start with something outrageous and then negotiate from there.

[DoubleDose]

11 minutes ago, BowmanMike said:

I wouldn't be too worried about passing a psych eval. I would think it is stupid for a bow,a single shot weapon. But if that's what it would take to own one i would do it.

Your perspective is incorrect.  The psych eval is not to allow you to own a bow, it is to stop you from owning one!

[Northcountryman]

10 minutes ago, BowmanMike said:

I wouldn't be too worried about passing a psych eval. I would think it is stupid for a bow,a single shot weapon. But if that's what it would take to own one i would do it.

Mike, with all due respect...really?  No you wouldnt!!  You would NOT be ok with this piece of legislation passing--no freakin way!!

And Just because it --as written-- doesnt affect youre bow equipment , you dont care how ot impacts the rest of us?? 

Tell me I'm wrong in what I just inferred from what youre saying cuz, if true, thats pretty messed up 

[DoubleDose]

4 minutes ago, rob-c said:

Ok, but what about the most important part of my post ? ? And that decision was left to the AG only . And they happen  to decide that since you kill animals your a danger to others 
You may think it’s stupid,  but others may not see it that way . 

Absolutely have to see it that way.  Almost all serial killers start out killing small animals.  Your desire to hunt may just be symptom and first step that you are a serial killer.  Denied!!!!! NEXT

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Here's one to ponder. all shotguns 28 gauge and larger would fall under the ammunition ban part of this for foster slugs. 20 gauge sabots may or may not depending on the  sabots but all shotgun slugs larger would fall under that ban. How would that stack up for the shotgun area hunting guys left in the state?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

5 minutes ago, BowmanMike said:

I think Steve's post hit the nail on the head. The wording in that bill takes things way too far to ever pass. Maybe it's like one of those tactics that folks loved about trump,start with something outrageous and then negotiate from there.

Then how did the safe act make it through?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

and this is exactly why the gun sights groups and organization do not want to give an inch. 

[rob-c]

21 minutes ago, BowmanMike said:

I think Steve's post hit the nail on the head. The wording in that bill takes things way too far to ever pass. Maybe it's like one of those tactics that folks loved about trump,start with something outrageous and then negotiate from there.

Ok , but your deflecting my question . We think it’s over the top. But obviously the person who wrote it  does not. So if it came to that ? Would you feel your rights  were being infringed on? 

Edited January 29, 2021 by rob-c

[BowmanMike]

19 minutes ago, Northcountryman said:

Mike, with all due respect...really?  No you wouldnt!!  You would NOT be ok with this piece of legislation passing--no freakin way!!

And Just because it --as written-- doesnt affect youre bow equipment , you dont care how ot impacts the rest of us?? 

Tell me I'm wrong in what I just inferred from what youre saying cuz, if true, thats pretty messed up 

This bill will never go through like that. Too many people own guns for this to ever pass like that.

[BowmanMike]

18 minutes ago, DoubleDose said:

Absolutely have to see it that way.  Almost all serial killers start out killing small animals.  Your desire to hunt may just be symptom and first step that you are a serial killer.  Denied!!!!! NEXT

Haha,doubledose knows how it's going down.

[BowmanMike]

14 minutes ago, rob-c said:

Ok , but your deflecting my question . We think it’s over the top. But obviously the person who wrote it  does not. So if it came to that ? Would you feel your fights were infringed on? 

I said it before and will say it again. I dont care about guns..I dont think about them and dont need them. People can have guns,i dont have a problem with that. The bill seems over the top,but i dont have a dog in this fight. 

I wouldn't feel my rights have been infringed upon because i dont care about the 2nd amendment. But that is my point of view and i am not forcing that on others.

Edited January 29, 2021 by BowmanMike

[suburbanfarmer]

2 minutes ago, BowmanMike said:

I said it before and will say it again. I dont care about guns..I dont think about them and dont need them. People can have guns,i dont have a problem with that. The bill seems over the top,but i dont have a dog in this fight. 

I pray that you never ever need them.

Its like having car insurance. You dont think about it until you need it and if you dont have it than you are SOL

[BowmanMike]

Just now, suburbanfarmer said:

I pray that you never ever need them.

Its like having car insurance. You dont think about it until you need it and if you dont have it than you are SOL

I made it to almost fifty,so chances are good i wont. Thanks for your consideration.

[9jNYstarkOH]

5 minutes ago, BowmanMike said:

I said it before and will say it again. I dont care about guns..I dont think about them and dont need them. People can have guns,i dont have a problem with that. The bill seems over the top,but i dont have a dog in this fight. 

I wouldn't feel my rights have been infringed upon because i dont care about the 2nd amendment. But that is my point of view and i am not forcing that on others.

You seem to care a lot about other rights that concern people like civil rights which is very noble of you why not this one?

[rob-c]

1 minute ago, BowmanMike said:

I said it before and will say it again. I dont care about guns..I dont think about them and dont need them. People can have guns,i dont have a problem with that. The bill seems over the top,but i dont have a dog in this fight. 

Well you do have a dog in this fight,  you said you do not have a problem with the psych evaluation . So let’s take firearms out of the equation and yes we know you don’t care about them  , I’m asking a hypothetical question . If it came to the point that you had to do this for archery equipment ,   And that decision was left to the AG only . And they happen  to decide that since you kill animals your a danger to others   ( as dumb as it is may be ) Would you feel your rights were violated ? 
I’ll tell ya, I think this bill is stupid, but obviously others do not . 
So what’s your answer ? 

[BowmanMike]

9 minutes ago, rob-c said:

Well you do have a dog in this fight,  you said you do not have a problem with the psych evaluation . So let’s take firearms out of the equation and yes we know you don’t care about them  , I’m asking a hypothetical question . If it came to the point that you had to do this for archery equipment ,   And that decision was left to the AG only . And they happen  to decide that since you kill animals your a danger to others   ( as dumb as it is may be ) Would you feel your rights were violated ? 
I’ll tell ya, I think this bill is stupid, but obviously others do not . 
So what’s your answer ? 

My answer is it's over the top. But your scenario is as unlikely as me winning the lottery. That would mean no hunting for anyone unless you use your bare hands.

I dont know why you assume a psych eval would be a way to confiscate all guns. If you are not crazy you should be fine. You paint the worst scenario that evryone will be deemed unstable. 

Obviously some guns ended up in unstable peoples hands. How do you suggest that could be prevented?

[steve863]

1 hour ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

Turn back the clock and the same words you typed could have been written for the passage of the safe act. No idea about how to implement it or being written by those that knew nothing about firearms sure didn't stop them from running a vote through in the middle of the night. 

True, but the safe act wasn't nearly as stringent as this law.  All guns don't need to be registered or all long gun owners licensed with a psyche evaluation required.  Plus, the safe act was in enacted in liberal NYS which has never exactly been a gun friendly state.  This law would be a nationwide law and states that don't have nearly the strict gun laws like NYS such as Texas, Wyoming, Arizona, you name it wouldn't stand for any of this.  Any congressman or senator who would vote for such a law would be history in their next election.  It would turn the house and senate republican in the next election and democrats over the years have learned a thing or two to protect their own hides first.   

[suburbanfarmer]

1 minute ago, steve863 said:

True, but the safe act wasn't nearly as stringent as this law.  All guns don't need to be registered or all long gun owners licensed with a psyche evaluation required.  Plus, the safe act was in enacted in liberal NYS which has never exactly been a gun friendly state.  This law would be a nationwide law and states that don't have nearly the strict gun laws like NYS such as Texas, Wyoming, Arizona, you name it wouldn't stand for any of this.  Any congressman or senator who would vote for such a law would be history in their next election.  It would turn the house and senate republican in the next election and democrats over the years have learned a thing or two to protect their own hides first.   

55-45 was the last tally..

[suburbanfarmer]

Maybe we have forgotten the past..it has happened and can happen again

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

[steve863]

1 minute ago, suburbanfarmer said:

55-45 was the last tally..

Last tally to what?