Terrible Bill just introduced in the US Congress

[rugertoter]

Here we go again.....BS!

 

[cornfused]

So when are we marching on the Capitol?!

 

[JAL]

Here we go again.....BS!

The number of bills . . . three that I'm aware of related to bump stocks, gat cranks, etc. . . . does not surprise me. It's political posturing for their constituency and reelection so they can claim they introduced legislation regarding gun control. The reality is three bills . . . and there will possibly be more . . . will not progress very far before they're winnowed down to a single bill in sub-committee in the House and another in the Senate. There will be all manner motions for amendments. Congress very, very rarely moves quickly on anything. It must truly have great urgency to move to (or toward) the front of the line.

• A bill is assigned to a sub-committee which may hold hearings, conduct other relevant investigations, and amend it. If if fails a sub-committee vote to submit it to the committee, it dies. If the sub-committee approves it, the bill proceeds to the committee.
• The committee then considers just as the sub-committee did with hearings, other investigation and possible amendments, including sending it back to sub-committee. As with the sub-committee, if it fails a vote to approve it, the bill dies. If the committee approves it, the bill proceeds to the full House for consideration, which can send it back to committee.
• In the House, a bill usually proceeds to a Committee of the Whole to consider it similar to committee consideration. However, they do not vote on whether or not it should proceed to the full House for a vote. The Senate does not have this procedure.
• The basic process for the Senate, without a Committee of the Whole, is otherwise the same until it reaches the full Senate. If it fails a floor vote by the full house in which it originated, it dies. If a bill passes the house in which it originated, it is referred to the other house where it starts the sub-committee, committee and full house process. Any differences in a bill passed by both houses must then be reconciled in Conference with Senate and House members. If they are resolved, each house votes again on a final version common to both houses. Failing ability to reach a common version in Conference, a new Conference can be conducted, it can go back to (sub-)committee, or it can simply die. Aside from the joint Conference, getting to a common bill that passes both houses, if it can be achieved, has many alternate paths.

The majority party in each house controls the leadership of each sub-committee, committee and a House Committee of the Whole, along with the Managers each sends to a Conference between the two houses. Membership in each of these is split between each party in a ratio approximating the ratio of the full house. The majority party will have a majority of the members on each. The majority party also controls the pace at which bills proceed.

This is a simplified version that doesn't get into the procedures in the full House or full Senate which differ in procedure (e.g. the House has a Committee of the Whole; Senate can engage in a filibuster), or some of the sub-committee and committee nuances. In addition, a bill dies if it doesn't complete this process with a bill approved by both houses submitted to the POTUS before the end of a two-year Congressional Session. Bills other than appropriation may be introduced in either house. Only the House may introduce an appropriation bill.

Suffice it that a bill must get past three complete opportunities to kill it in either the House or the Senate plus potential failure to agree on a common bill in Conference between the two, long before it reaches the PTOUS' desk for signature. I don't foresee any of these five bills I'm aware of clearing all those legislative hurdles to land on the POTUS desk any time soon. Won't get into POTUS bill signing, veto, not signing or pocket veto, etc. If you want to battle any of them at this point, contact your Congressman and both Senators. Find out (the links above will tell you) what it's status is. If it's in committee or sub-committee, contact the relevant members of that committee including its chairman even if they do not represent you. Obviously, with a few exceptions, most "D" won't be worthwhile. The most important is the committee or sub-committee chairman. Target who you contact beyond your Congressman and Senators to (sub-)committee members while it's in committee. Unless someone else has great influence over them, you won't get any traction with anyone else while it's in committee.

Corrections to this process welcome. Pulled it from deep memory. I've tried to keep it to the basics which are complex enough. Be very glad the process is very deliberative and not a swift one.

John

 

[JTJJ]

I'm not sure whether it will help or not, but there is a petition being on We the People. Actually, there are two, but the following link has the most signatures at this point. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/do-not-pass-hr3999

It may not help, but along with contacting Senators Donnelly and Young, it also couldn't hurt!

I just signed both of them, thanks for the link

 

[Floivanus]

Petitions are one thing, BUT calling, and writing your representatives is a better choice.

and anyone who is an NRA member should darn well make sure they let the brass, or whoever will listen know what WE want.

Tim (MAC) said last night on someone else's stream that he may be making a list of NRA board members who are NOT friendly to us (the 'you only need five rounds' types) to let others in on the inner goings. And we do need people like adam kraut on the NRA board

 

[cornfused]

But When are we marching on the capitol?!?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I just considered the thread title. I thought Terrible Bill was introduced to congress in 1992 when he was elected president.

 

[ultra...good]

But When are we marching on the capitol?!?

Whenever you want, just let me know.
i will meet you there.

 

[churchmouse]

I just considered the thread title. I thought Terrible Bill was introduced to congress in 1992 when he was elected president.

Tonight's winner

 

[d.kaufman]

And yet a few more bills introduced. 1 banning "high capacity magazines" and another banning online ammo sales. We are definitely under attack!
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2017/...tm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

 

[JAL]

And yet a few more bills introduced. 1 banning "high capacity magazines" and another banning online ammo sales. We are definitely under attack!
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2017/...tm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

Carry a towel!

These bills very rarely get out of sub-committee. If they start progressing into serious committee consideration, then it's time to worry, and especially so if it gets out of committee. In general, it's their sponsor(s) posturing for their constituency for reelection campaign fodder: "I'm fighting for YOU in Congress!". Until then, it's mostly watch and wait to see what happens with it. If your congressman is on the sub-committee, or committee in which it lands, contact them voicing your opposition. If not, you can still do so, but it's not likely to get much attention.

The bills to watch closely are those that deal directly with bump stocks and similar devices.

John

 

[d.kaufman]

Carry a towel!

These bills very rarely get out of sub-committee. If they start progressing into serious committee consideration, then it's time to worry, and especially so if it gets out of committee. In general, it's their sponsor(s) posturing for their constituency for reelection campaign fodder: "I'm fighting for YOU in Congress!". Until then, it's mostly watch and wait to see what happens with it. If your congressman is on the sub-committee, or committee in which it lands, contact them voicing your opposition. If not, you can still do so, but it's not likely to get much attention.

The bills to watch closely are those that deal directly with bump stocks and similar devices.

John

I hear ya that there's not a lot of chance, but the fact remains the same, that these bills are being introduced. As far as contacting my congressman, it will do NO good. He's the one and only Pete Visclosky, a true anti gunner that wants us disarmed.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I hear ya that there's not a lot of chance, but the fact remains the same, that these bills are being introduced. As far as contacting my congressman, it will do NO good. He's the one and only Pete Visclosky, a true anti gunner that wants us disarmed.

People like Pete make me wish our founders had thought to put a serious penalty (like execution) in the Constitution for violation of the oath of office.

 

[KLB]

I hear ya that there's not a lot of chance, but the fact remains the same, that these bills are being introduced. As far as contacting my congressman, it will do NO good. He's the one and only Pete Visclosky, a true anti gunner that wants us disarmed.

I think his point is that these bills are introduced every year. There is no need to worry until one of them actually makes some traction and progresses to where it has some chance of being voted upon.

 

[d.kaufman]

People like Pete make me wish our founders had thought to put a serious penalty (like execution) in the Constitution for violation of the oath of office.

I'd of been happy had they just put term limits in. I believe he's been congressman for half his life, or more, and the fools up north here just keep on voting him in. Doesn't help he runs unopposed at times either

 

[KLB]

I'd of been happy had they just put term limits in. I believe he's been congressman for half his life, or more, and the fools up north here just keep on voting him in. Doesn't help he runs unopposed at times either

Much of the time he is opposed it is by someone with no chance.

I don't know that it would matter though. Unless he were to lose in the primary, the candidate with the D will win, which means him

 

[BE Mike]

I think his point is that these bills are introduced every year. There is no need to worry until one of them actually makes some traction and progresses to where it has some chance of being voted upon.

I take a different view. For about as long as I can remember, anti-gunners have been on the attack. If it isn't bills that are introduced, it's their constant anti-gun bantering in all forms of media. The media has, but for the rare exception, been their partners. We pro 2A folks need to be constantly on the offensive and getting our message across. Although we have differences, we need to unite and stay united in the fight. We need to write letters to the editor and our representatives. We need to join pro 2A groups. We need to keep the groups on point when they go astray. The anti tactics are to keep pecking away until they reach their ultimate goals. Leaving decisions, that directly affect our constitutional rights, to bureaucrats is NOT good for us.

 

[bloodandgutsmurphy]

I think the biggest contribution we can make for the second amendment is to keep introducing people to firearms and safe shooting practices

 

[NyleRN]

I think the biggest contribution we can make for the second amendment is to keep introducing people to firearms and safe shooting practices

I think the biggest key to our success is educating why the 2nd amendment exists.

 

[KLB]

I think the biggest key to our success is educating why the 2nd amendment exists.

I think Murphy is right. Introducing people to guns removes the fear of the unknown that most anti-gun people have. They then open their eyes to the reality of what the anti-gun crowd is saying. I have a lot of conversations at work in Chicago with people about guns. Those conversations have changed a lot as more of them have come out to my house and shot guns.