• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Bills introduced in House of Representatives:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,342
Location
northern wis
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.
 

anmut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
875
Location
Stevens Point WI, ,
http://www.examiner.com/article/nat...ales-part-of-obama-anti-gun-game-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…”
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,159
Location
, ,
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.
 

anmut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
875
Location
Stevens Point WI, ,
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.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,159
Location
, ,
Wow!

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.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,342
Location
northern wis
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.
 

anmut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
875
Location
Stevens Point WI, ,
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.
 

Trip20

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
526
Location
Wausau Area
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"?
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
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.
 

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,065
Location
Arizona
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.
 

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Please Join "POPVOX" And Let Your Voice Be Heard!

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
 

Preferred Customer

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
30
Location
Greenfield, Wi
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.
 
Top