Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 53

Thread: Bills introduced in House of Representatives:

  1. #1
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    Bills introduced in House of Representatives:

    Well, here they are:

    1. H.R.137 : To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited
    from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal
    background check system and require a background check for every
    firearm sale.
    Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors
    (None)
    Committees: House Judiciary
    Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status:
    Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

    2. H.R.138 : To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity
    ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.
    Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors
    (1)
    Committees: House Judiciary
    Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status:
    Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

    3. H.R.141 : To require criminal background checks on all firearms
    transactions occurring at gun shows.
    Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors
    (None)
    Committees: House Judiciary
    Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status:
    Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

    4. H.R.142 : To require face to face purchases of ammunition, to
    require licensing of ammunition dealers, and to require reporting
    regarding bulk purchases of ammunition.
    Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors
    (None)
    Committees: House Judiciary
    Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status:
    Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.


    So, we need to write our Federal Representatives and make sure these don't see the light of day.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,201
    The fight goes on and on.

    We did away with face to face and ID for ammo back in the 80's becuse it was such a waste of time and money.

    I have been fighting is crap sense 68 and I will keep fighting it till I die.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  3. #3
    Regular Member oliverclotheshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    mauston wi
    Posts
    849
    does anyone have ron kinds email???? i cant find it online
    SCOTT

    "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"

    "When seconds count police are minutes away"

    "Dialing 911 only takes seconds but waiting for help may take the rest of your life"

    http://g2-elite.com/phpbb/index.php Shed Hunting

  4. #4
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverclotheshoff View Post
    does anyone have ron kinds email???? i cant find it online
    https://kindforms.house.gov/email-ron

  5. #5
    Regular Member oliverclotheshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    mauston wi
    Posts
    849
    yeah i found that but i was hoping for a more direct email addy
    SCOTT

    "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"

    "When seconds count police are minutes away"

    "Dialing 911 only takes seconds but waiting for help may take the rest of your life"

    http://g2-elite.com/phpbb/index.php Shed Hunting

  6. #6
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    Re: Bills introduced in House of Representatives:

    Quote Originally Posted by oliverclotheshoff View Post
    yeah i found that but i was hoping for a more direct email addy
    They usually don't have one.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

  7. #7
    Regular Member anmut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Stevens Point WI, ,
    Posts
    879
    http://www.examiner.com/article/nati...e-plan?cid=rss

    There is other disturbing language in the Post story, which was picked up by the Minneapolis Star Tribune Saturday.

    “To sell such changes,” the Post reported, “the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses.”

    “In addition to potential legislative proposals,” the newspaper also said, “(Vice President Joe) Biden’s group has expanded its focus to include measures that would not need congressional approval and could be quickly implemented by executive action…”

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Gunshow Loophole

    Ok, it isn't a loophole and relates to private sales rather than gunshow sales but I still have the question:

    What is the basis of the opposition to background checks on all transfers of firearms? Is it cost, inconvenience, something else? It seems intuitive that we all have the responsibility to ensure that prohibited persons do not end up with firearms (or is there opposition to the concept of PP in the first place?). If you oppose action to "close the GSLH," doesn't consistency and intellectual honesty require you to oppose Insta-Check at an FFL? This is a question in good faith looking for thoughtful answers, so please no nastiness or platitudes.

  9. #9
    Regular Member anmut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Stevens Point WI, ,
    Posts
    879

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    Ok, it isn't a loophole and relates to private sales rather than gunshow sales but I still have the question:

    What is the basis of the opposition to background checks on all transfers of firearms? Is it cost, inconvenience, something else? It seems intuitive that we all have the responsibility to ensure that prohibited persons do not end up with firearms (or is there opposition to the concept of PP in the first place?). If you oppose action to "close the GSLH," doesn't consistency and intellectual honesty require you to oppose Insta-Check at an FFL? This is a question in good faith looking for thoughtful answers, so please no nastiness or platitudes.
    The "basis?"

    How about SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

    Is that enough for you? Background checks, permits and registration are already unconstitutional. However when I was just a child my parents allowed that to happen to make sure that when I grew up I had to pay a penalty for crimes I never committed. I will not allow my son to have to deal with anymore bullsh1t with the government infringing on his rights just because I chose the path of least resistance and a means to an end.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Wow!

    Quote Originally Posted by anmut View Post
    The "basis?"

    How about SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

    Is that enough for you? Background checks, permits and registration are already unconstitutional. However when I was just a child my parents allowed that to happen to make sure that when I grew up I had to pay a penalty for crimes I never committed. I will not allow my son to have to deal with anymore bullsh1t with the government infringing on his rights just because I chose the path of least resistance and a means to an end.
    Nastiness and platitudes in the first reply! Once you get the Supreme Court to agree with you, please post the details. There are many efforts underway to increase restrictions. I think defending against those will be more successful with a reasoned and cogent argument. Emotional appeals are of little value. Even if they carried weight, that weight would be preponderantly on the other side. Twenty dead first graders beats a weatherworn rant any day of the week.

  11. #11
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    Ok, it isn't a loophole and relates to private sales rather than gunshow sales but I still have the question:

    What is the basis of the opposition to background checks on all transfers of firearms? Is it cost, inconvenience, something else? It seems intuitive that we all have the responsibility to ensure that prohibited persons do not end up with firearms (or is there opposition to the concept of PP in the first place?). If you oppose action to "close the GSLH," doesn't consistency and intellectual honesty require you to oppose Insta-Check at an FFL? This is a question in good faith looking for thoughtful answers, so please no nastiness or platitudes.
    I am against all of the background checks but accept them at FFL's because they are in a business and have to jump through other hoops.

    If we added the background checks for all private sales, I could imagine that the seller would have to register in some way with the government to be allowed to perform the check, otherwise, we could all run checks on each other.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,201
    Private sales with out a back ground check are the safety valve insureing that the 4473 will not in most states be use as a relieable means of confiscation.

    Buy and selling firearm on the free market is not only a good thing to do, but insures that after a firearm is sold a few times on the free market that firearm becomes almost untraceable.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  13. #13
    Regular Member anmut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Stevens Point WI, ,
    Posts
    879
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    Nastiness and platitudes in the first reply! Once you get the Supreme Court to agree with you, please post the details. There are many efforts underway to increase restrictions. I think defending against those will be more successful with a reasoned and cogent argument. Emotional appeals are of little value. Even if they carried weight, that weight would be preponderantly on the other side. Twenty dead first graders beats a weatherworn rant any day of the week.
    I think there are many of us that are sick of having to explain this to people that want to "have a conversation about gun control." Or in your case - background checks. There isn't any conversation to be had. It's a black and white issue. However each time we allow the gun grabbers to suck us into "a conversation" we loose a little ground. And then a little more. And then a little more. Gun grabbers won't stop until they have them all and we have none.

    It doesn't matter to me that you rely on the SCOTUS to define your debate. I believe the 2nd Amendment was written as a Right so it never needed any clarification. But if you want to "have a conversation" about background checks, or magazine capacities or pistol grips on rifles, the gun grabbers will oblige you and they will use use it to chip away at a God given, paid for in blood, RIGHT.

    I apologize if I came off a little rough - however I am SO TIRED of having to have this conversation within our own ranks. Remember Obama's rule is to divide and conquer. While we are busy arguing about background checks he'll be forming a national registry.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Trip20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wausau Area
    Posts
    527

    Bills introduced in House of Representatives:

    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    There are many efforts underway to increase restrictions. I think defending against those will be more successful with a reasoned and cogent argument. Emotional appeals are of little value. Even if they carried weight, that weight would be preponderantly on the other side. Twenty dead first graders beats a weatherworn rant any day of the week.
    As the resident devil's advocate, could you possibly lay out your opinion as to what you consider "reasonable gun control"?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059

    Bills introduced in House of Representatives:

    The answer is that "this enormous flurry of mass killing" (as if) has not been committed by people who were prohibited from owning guns, and those that were prohibited obtained them illegally anyway. A background check would have been irrelevant.

    And, as others say, government does not have the authority to regulate the private trade in firearms. We can give it to them, but they may not take it unilaterally. The problem here is that people like Feinstein represent only their constituency, but politics potentially gives them a disproportionate role in making law. And also, when majority is allowed to rule, the minority will be repressed. I'd like to say that the founders did not intend it to work that way, but there is substantial evidence they probably did.

  16. #16
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    Ok, it isn't a loophole and relates to private sales rather than gunshow sales but I still have the question:

    What is the basis of the opposition to background checks on all transfers of firearms? Is it cost, inconvenience, something else? It seems intuitive that we all have the responsibility to ensure that prohibited persons do not end up with firearms (or is there opposition to the concept of PP in the first place?). If you oppose action to "close the GSLH," doesn't consistency and intellectual honesty require you to oppose Insta-Check at an FFL? This is a question in good faith looking for thoughtful answers, so please no nastiness or platitudes.

    I like the idea that family can give me a gun w/o hassle. They know my background already.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    Ok, it isn't a loophole and relates to private sales rather than gunshow sales but I still have the question:

    What is the basis of the opposition to background checks on all transfers of firearms? Is it cost, inconvenience, something else? It seems intuitive that we all have the responsibility to ensure that prohibited persons do not end up with firearms (or is there opposition to the concept of PP in the first place?). If you oppose action to "close the GSLH," doesn't consistency and intellectual honesty require you to oppose Insta-Check at an FFL? This is a question in good faith looking for thoughtful answers, so please no nastiness or platitudes.
    It is already illegal to sell or relinquish possession of firearms or ammunition to a prohibited person, so what is this going to do, make it more illegal??

    I have "gifted" firearms to people close to me on more than one occassion, For instance, my GF and I live together, If I want a new firearm, and bring one home, she gets pissed off to no end. But if I buy a new firearm oh lets say around her birthday or some other gift-giving holiday, it is her gift, not my new gun. There is a huge difference there in the eyes of a woman. I still get to shoot the new gun, but it is her gift.
    Another reason for this, if I ever get slapped with a charge that may prohibit me from owning firearms, Said firearm are technically not my firearms and cannot be seized.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Please Join "POPVOX" And Let Your Voice Be Heard!

    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Well, here they are:

    1. H.R.137 : To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited
    from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal
    background check system and require a background check for every
    firearm sale.
    Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors
    (None)
    Committees: House Judiciary
    Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status:
    Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

    2. H.R.138 : To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity
    ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.
    Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors
    (1)
    Committees: House Judiciary
    Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status:
    Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

    3. H.R.141 : To require criminal background checks on all firearms
    transactions occurring at gun shows.
    Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors
    (None)
    Committees: House Judiciary
    Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status:
    Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

    4. H.R.142 : To require face to face purchases of ammunition, to
    require licensing of ammunition dealers, and to require reporting
    regarding bulk purchases of ammunition.
    Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors
    (None)
    Committees: House Judiciary
    Latest Major Action: 1/3/2013 Referred to House committee. Status:
    Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.


    So, we need to write our Federal Representatives and make sure these don't see the light of day.
    PopVox is a site that you can vote IMMEDIATELY on the issues that concern you. Your "vote" is sent to your representative and you can immediately see how many have voted on the issue and what percentage "Support" or "Oppose" the bill. All of the new gun control bills are on the "Bills" page so please join and vote your mind!

    Link: https://www.popvox.com/bills
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mountain Home, Arkansas, United States
    Posts
    400
    Ask Canada how well gun registry worked. I believe it cost billion of dollars and didn't solve any crime so the voted it out.


    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...-registry.html


    But please don't confuse me with facts when I have my emotions.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...y-vote004.html
    Last edited by Packer fan; 01-08-2013 at 05:15 PM. Reason: added a link

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greenfield, Wi
    Posts
    30
    One thing that has not been mentioned here is that private sale background checks would add more expense to the purchase of a gun.

    You would have to go to an FFL to make a private sale. Most would charge a fee. $25, $50, $75? For each transaction.
    Wisconsin Carry Member

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    Nastiness and platitudes in the first reply! Once you get the Supreme Court to agree with you, please post the details. There are many efforts underway to increase restrictions. I think defending against those will be more successful with a reasoned and cogent argument. Emotional appeals are of little value. Even if they carried weight, that weight would be preponderantly on the other side. Twenty dead first graders beats a weatherworn rant any day of the week.
    There are already laws preventing the sale of firearms to unqualified people. Don't make more laws, inforce the ones already there.

    It's not that difficult.

    JJC

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Delavan, WI
    Posts
    71
    Be thankful of the state you live in. NY just made big changes, very quickly and easily. CT, MD, and others are trying to go full steam ahead. Some are looking to go the opposite, and states will be more polarized in ownership.

    WI is still looking good, and it happens by voting right and more.

    Most of what passed in NY will not be a benefit, and they gave up a lot.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Reason: FFL's are different

    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    I am against all of the background checks but accept them at FFL's because they are in a business and have to jump through other hoops.

    If we added the background checks for all private sales, I could imagine that the seller would have to register in some way with the government to be allowed to perform the check, otherwise, we could all run checks on each other.
    Thank you for a clear, polite and thoughtful reply. If private sellers could perform a background check quickly, easily and at no cost, would your position be different? Mr. Anmut - see how simple it is to be both nice and participatory?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Laissez-faire, Mon Frere

    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    Private sales with out a back ground check are the safety valve insureing that the 4473 will not in most states be use as a relieable means of confiscation.

    Buy and selling firearm on the free market is not only a good thing to do, but insures that after a firearm is sold a few times on the free market that firearm becomes almost untraceable.
    Well, no doubt on your stance. Thanks for the input. If (when) you sell a firearm privately, do you undertake any sort of evaluation of the buyer? Do/would you require anything beyond cash in hand?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    The Family Way

    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    I like the idea that family can give me a gun w/o hassle. They know my background already.

    What about a sale to/from a known non-family member? An unknown person?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •