Text Released for HR 127 To provide for the licensing of firearm and ammunition possession and the registration of firearms, and to prohibit the posse

[indyjohn]

“(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;"

I wonder who dreamed this one up.

 

[printcraft]

“(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;"

I wonder who dreamed this one up.

That's like every gun stock... ever...

These assholes need to GTFO.

 

[Slapstick]

I may be optimistic but I personally have not heard Biden mention gun control since being elected. I know he wants it but I don't think the democrats will do much this early in the administration. They won't risk the mid terms and loosing all that power. They will want to get alot more progressive/communist crap passed first before pulling the gun control lever Im sure they remember the carnage they suffered after the 1st assault weapons ban. After the midterms though all bets are off. Kamala will be president by then. And everyone knows shela Jackson Lee is a kook. So yea gun control is comming and in a big way but I think we have 2-4 years...So by the time things smooth out...well you know

I believe the only reason the Biden Administration hasn't moved on gun control yet is that they are waiting until they pack SCOTUS. They know that they can't obtain all they want with the current Court makeup so they have to pack it with liberal activist judges. He did form a judical commission yesterday to explore such a possibility. By this time next year they will have accomplished packing the Court and then look out!

 

[Cameramonkey]

I assume you mean "you" in a general term, not to me?

Yes. The general "you" that didnt care about bumpstock bans because "you" dont own any and think they were silly.

Now if that applies to you... you can be offended.

 

[Bennettjh]

Yes. The general "you" that didnt care about bumpstock bans because "you" dont own any and think they were silly.

Now if that applies to you... you can be offended.

Ok that's what I figured, just checking. Didn't want to come off as a bumpstock banner.

I'm not offended.

 

[MCgrease08]

“(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;"

I wonder who dreamed this one up.

It's their way of trying to outlaw AR and AK style pistols. They don't want you to be able to have a hand guard. If you have to hold the barrel directly it gets too hot to shoot.

 

[cbhausen]

Maybe it will for those here that voted for it.

...but, LEOSA!

 

[SarahG]

I'll be contacting my reps tomorrow. This is scary stuff.

 

[Calibrator]

Here is the actual text:

Text - H.R.127 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act

Text for H.R.127 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act

www.congress.gov

Unbelievable!

 

[Egldriver]

So who exactly pays for this over-reaching 'psychological evaluation'?

The person you seein the mirror every morning.

 

[2A_Tom]

Yes. The general "you" that didnt care about bumpstock bans because "you" dont own any and think they were silly.

Now if that applies to you... you can be offended.

I really wish some could get off the high horse of they were against the bump stock ban.

I did not have one, never wanted one and thought they were wasteful toys.

I commented to the ATF that it was unconscionable to ban them and turn law abiding citizens into criminals or deprive them of their legally owned property. I still believe that their ruling is wrong and should be reversed.

My point is that some here used the ATFs ruling to denigrate The President and that is at least partially responsible for the place we are now.

Again, President Trump was not a Concientious Conservative, he was a Republican In Name Only, he was moving toward our positions, which I can accept as TRUE PROGRESS.

What we are facing now is the result of our own infighting. We now have the most anti-American administration (even worse than Obama) in history.

I don't own any ARs or AKs, because they are not what I like. That does not keep me from wanting you to be able to own them. I do not have any magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. That does not keep me from defending your right to keep and bear standard capacity magazines of 20 or 30 round capacity. I have no problem with 100 round drum magazines. I will always stand with gun owners rights and the Second Amendment.

The division in our ranks both with gun owners and Republicans is caused by our encouraging each other to think for ourselves. We do not and should not require people to walk lockstep with our agenda.

Have I just shot myself in the foot when it comes to the Biden voters here? Personally, that seems to me to cross a line.

 

[Super Bee]

The psych eval is even worse than I thought. It includes other members of the family, even ex-spouses.

Yeah, those could be fun conversations. Not concerned with ex #1. . . its the angry, bitter ex #2 who makes me go hmmmm.

 

[JeepHammer]

WAY too far...

There is no reason why common background checks that so many of us have already won't work with firearms ownership.
To drive a truck with Hazardous Materials and/or food, it's about 4 of these Homeland Security checks already...
And that's just to drive a truck!

Checks with LE and criminal records, and of course, past mental health issues should be plenty.
Prying into a person's family and friends group is just WAY too far if there isn't a red flag alert (family reporting strange behavior, threats, ect.).

I've never opposed instant background checks, cuts a lot of the rif-raf out and gives legal coverage to the seller.
I've been a proponent of "Assault Weapons" background checks ONCE.

No reason to do it on every firearm/magazine (like NFA devices), that just doesn't make sense, way too much red tape & expense for common items like magazines and the millions of semi-autos that take detachable magazines.

 

[nonobaddog]

** *** ****** *** ****** ****.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I’ll post a draft for our elected officials later this evening.

 

[bcannon]

I’ll post a draft for our elected officials later this evening.

Thank you

 

[MCgrease08]

There is no reason why common background checks that so many of us have already won't work with firearms ownership.

Just how do you propose to get criminals to submit to a background check? Because people who know they aren't allowed to possess guns are simply going to ignore this law and continue buying guns on the street the same way they do today.

Are you aware that Indiana had a universal background check requirement on the books for close to two decades before it was repealed for being impossible to enforce?

Not only were there no criminal convictions for illegal private sales, I don't believe a single person was even prosecuted for failing to submit to a background check during that time.

 

[ashby koss]

It is a good thing that the financial impact of your (the government) handling of the whole COVID crisis forced me to sell all of my items that held any value, including my guns, to insure my family had food on the table and to purchase my medications. I have nothing left to register.

Totally agree. Although I've decided to use the funds to invest in the market. Having a secure financial future is very important. I still have ammo, spare parts, and gear; but I will be divesting of those quickly as I no longer need them.

 

[2A_Tom]

JUST DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING,WHETHER IT IS EFFECTIVE OR ENFORCABLE OR NOT!

JUST DO SOMETHING!

 

[BigRed]

WAY too far...

There is no reason why common background checks that so many of us have already won't work with firearms ownership.
To drive a truck with Hazardous Materials and/or food, it's about 4 of these Homeland Security checks already...
And that's just to drive a truck!

Checks with LE and criminal records, and of course, past mental health issues should be plenty.
Prying into a person's family and friends group is just WAY too far if there isn't a red flag alert (family reporting strange behavior, threats, ect.).

I've never opposed instant background checks, cuts a lot of the rif-raf out and gives legal coverage to the seller.
I've been a proponent of "Assault Weapons" background checks ONCE.

No reason to do it on every firearm/magazine (like NFA devices), that just doesn't make sense, way too much red tape & expense for common items like magazines and the millions of semi-autos that take detachable magazines.

"Common sense proposals" aka "Just give us an inch".