That didn't take long. HR 127

[daveman]

Our issue is poverty. Yea we could live in a police state and reduce crime like the japanese. Just as important to crime rates are privacy rights as gun ownership rights. With privacy rights you can hide your illegal gun. Europeans have much less robust civil liberties than we do.

Okay, frankly, here's the thing. You guys whine about "Freedom" and "Liberty", but if we are building our whole society around the nut with the gun, to the point where we have gun free zones in every workplace, metal detectors, security guards, CCTV, Active Shooter Drills, electronic key cards in every workplace, sending our kids off with bullet proof backpacks when they go to school, are we really "Free"?

All this because the gun industry has promoted the fantasy than an obsolete amendment about militias entitles everyone to own a gun.

Where do mass shootings happen?

Gun-free zones.

You're too fucking stupid to see the correlation.

 

[daveman]

Our issue is poverty. Yea we could live in a police state and reduce crime like the japanese. Just as important to crime rates are privacy rights as gun ownership rights. With privacy rights you can hide your illegal gun. Europeans have much less robust civil liberties than we do.

Okay, frankly, here's the thing. You guys whine about "Freedom" and "Liberty", but if we are building our whole society around the nut with the gun, to the point where we have gun free zones in every workplace, metal detectors, security guards, CCTV, Active Shooter Drills, electronic key cards in every workplace, sending our kids off with bullet proof backpacks when they go to school, are we really "Free"?

All this because the gun industry has promoted the fantasy than an obsolete amendment about militias entitles everyone to own a gun.

I'm not a gun owner, but i also don't like being treated like a dog

As they do to Canadian and Austrlian citizens. A large part of that is being armed. Constiutions are not enough as corona lockdowns prove. Our rights are very easy to strip without the ability to ramp up the cost to the state

You saw it very recently. Large armed groups are not easy for the state to deal with without just mowing them down. It's very important we retain the ability to arm ourselves so our elites continue to fear us.

Let them have their barbed* wire and their concrete barricades around congress. This generation has enough fear in em to last a lifetime hahahaaha. But they may forget when our children grow

Just like you could reduce crime by curtailing speech rights.

Or any other number of rights you want to strip. It's not just all benefit, don't pretend it is. There may come a day when there is a Trump like figure in office and you like the idea of an armed citizenry. I find i like it no matter who is in power but i'm a cynic

Okay, I kind of see the argument you are making, but I go back to my original point. How much should I have to go out of my way because you want to own a gun.

I don't own a gun. I saw plenty of guns when I was in the Army. No need to see anymore.

But if we are carving our whole society around "A maniac with a gun can come around the corner and start shooting people". then that's not a freedom.

And if you really think that the angry mob that showed up at Congress was a good thing, I'm not sure what to do with you.

What happens when it's 2028, and an Antifa/BLM mob shows up?

You don't have to go out of your way, because 99%+ of gun owners are peaceful. There's no need at all for you to be pissing your pants.

 

[daveman]

Did you own a gun when you were a card carrying Republican and before you got kicked in the head by the donkey? Oh wait, it was supposedly a non-head related injury that caused a complete 180 on every political policy and every Republican politician past and present.

Nobody believes you were ever a Republican.

I was in the army for 11 years. I handled enough guns to last me three lifetimes.

you see, there used to be a point when non-crazy Republicans supported sensible gun laws. Ronald Reagan supported the Brady Bill and Bush the Elder quit the NRA after they called Federal Agents "Jack Booted Thugs" after the Waco Mass suicide.

So prior to 2008, I supported sensible gun rights, like sensible Republicans did.

Unfortunately, this is another example of how the crazies took over the asylum. The last thing the National Rampage Association wants is guns kept out of the hands of criminals, because it means the 3% of the population that own 50% of the guns won't want to buy more.

Nobody can take you seriously. You voted for the party of AOC and folks that run around in vagina outfits. Those are the kooks. Not only are they kooks, they are anti-American. They are Euro fans, like most liberals I know.

We won’t get guns out of the hands of criminals. That is what you can’t seem to get through your head. It is the mindless, indoctrinated drones in big cities that are scared of guns. They are terrrified because the only time they ever see one is on TV or being shot by a gangster. That is the narrative the left wants to portray to keep the ants in the ant hills at bay. Unfortunately, it has worked to some extinct and that mentality is begining to spread.

Indoctrination works, there is no denying that. If the government can get everyone(except criminals) to disarm and get us all on the healthcare dole, only the Nancy Pelosi’s of the world will have the luxury of having a dedicated ice cream freezer. You don’t see it, your fellow indoctrinated blue state inner city kooks don’t see it. Those of us that have been spared the indoctrination are astounded and saddened by the lunacy and gullibility by many in our country, but throughout world history, the same pattern is followed and the same folks don’t get it until it is too late. Yes, you and the rest of the folks that continue to vote away your freedoms are THOSE folks.

 

[daveman]

Actually it's the US Supreme Court that said gun ownership is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Why do you hate this country? Perhaps you should pack your shit up and move to Japan or China.

Actually, that was a goofy ruling that ignored hundreds of years of precedent.

I love my country... I don't like that it's too easy for crazy people to get guns.

So I have a simple enough solution. Let the victims of gun violence sue the gun manufacturers. Bet you after that, the gun companies will be VERY selective as to who they sell to.

So you want all manufacturers to be liable for customers that misuse their products to harm anyone else. Would that include everything from autos, pipes, knives, baseball bats, 2X4s, screw drivers and on and on. If not you're nothing but an ideological hypocrite, because blunt objects kill more people than all rifles combined.

BTW, what do you gain by invading your neighbors privacy and just knowing whether they legally own a gun or not? There's not a fucking thing you can do about it.

.

 

[justinacolmena]

With privacy rights you can hide your illegal gun.

It's no good for self-defense or protecting your home if it's illegal because you're just going to get arrested for it anyways.

 

[Juicin]

I think it's good they got hte fear in them. Without corona i would be a bit disturbed. But this was the perfect time to show that the people still have a little spunk.

Considering there were so few deaths it was ok

If zip tie guy had had his way and they started hanging people....Well yea that would have been very bad and no doubt caused an overbearing reaction from the state.

I was prepared to watch them lynch pence tho. What an ironic death that would have been.

Okay, if you say shit like that, there's no taking you seriously. We aren't a democracy at that point, it's just mob rule...

Not a good thing. Again, imagine it's 2028, and President Harris incites an Antifa/BLM Mob to storm Congress and lynch some Republicans.

Democracy and mob rule are inseparable bud

And we're a republic

Which is why they wanted to lynch pence, they wanted him to use the powers given to him by our republican system

He had no legal authority in the process! None. His job, in that process, is to open and count. Period. Nothing more...nothing less.
BTW...We are a representative republic...which is...wait for it...a democratic form of govt.

I do note your acknowledgement of the intent of the Insurrectionists....I applaud your honesty.

You don't understand law if you think he had no process

He controlled the session and his powers were undefined

That by legal standards meant he had good faith options

Just like every VP has

He only had one good faith option..and he exercised it.

Everything else was extra-legal.

Pence chose America over Trump....kudos.

All good faith requires is a possibly valid interpetation

One memo away from being in good faith doing basically wahtever he wants as "leader of the session" or whatever the phrase that is used. Unbelievably vague

Which means there are a myriad of good faith interpretations

In the world of rhetoric and spin..you are, no doubt, correct. people can, and do, argue everything in that light. Every good litigator will tell you that anything can be spun as anything--it does not mean that the prevailing view is the correct one, now does it? Possibly valid..now that's some really cotton candy! Who can resist a bite of that!
This board is rife with those who think they are masters of this..most are ludicrously mistaken~

However, in the world of ethics and in the spirit of the Constitution...Pence was correct and Trump was a putz for even suggesting it..especially given the unstinting support that Pence provided Trump..sometimes in the face of gross provocation.

Ethics and spirit mean nothing

THe VP can throw out the election full stop

One has just never chosen to do so.

 

[Juicin]

With privacy rights you can hide your illegal gun.

It's no good for self-defense or protecting your home if it's illegal because you're just going to get arrested for it anyways.

That's not how the law works on the issue

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Actually, that was a goofy ruling that ignored hundreds of years of precedent.

Two things - all of the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights with few exceptions outline rights of "the people" upon which the government shall not infringe or violate. Why would the 2nd amendment be the only exception?

Secondly, it's not like the SCOTUS has ever not gotten things right, Dred Scott readily comes to mind which is considered the worse ruling they've ever handed down. It is my opinion that it was their original ruling that was incorrect and they just self-corrected in 2008 almost a century later, particularly when you consider what the case involved. The only circumstances under which a person could possess a weapon in the District of Columbia is if it were in their home AND disassembled rendering it useless for defense and contrary to it's manufactured purpose.

As far as the crazies, as we have just seen, depending on their stats and completely irrelevant to the level of stated malicious intent, nobody is going to do anything that could potentially harm them, crazy or not. That is not a 2nd amendment problem, it's a selective lack of enforcement of existing laws (as always) based on implicit and explicit biases.

 

[JoeB131]

For that purpose you have to employ crooked Nazi war criminal doctors to adjudicate U.S. subjects as crazy or "mental defectives", shortlist them on National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) | Federal Bureau of Investigation, blackball them from all fields of gainful employment or business, and consign them to extreme poverty, starvation, and homelessness for the rest of their lives on Earth.

What a traitor and a sick bastard you are if you if you ever served in the U.S. Army, to turn your back on the Constitution like that.

Okay, buddy, your crazy posts are the best example of why we shouldn't let crazy people have guns.

Does your doctor know you are off your medications?

 

[JoeB131]

Two things - all of the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights with few exceptions outline rights of "the people" upon which the government shall not infringe or violate. Why would the 2nd amendment be the only exception?

Actually, that's not true at all. The third amendment, for instance, was specifically about a military practice at the time, quartering troops in private homes in peacetime. (We don't even do that in wartime now.) The British tried to control local militias, the Second Amendment was about making sure states could have them, which turned out to be a really bad idea when the civil war hit. It was never about gun ownership.

Secondly, it's not like the SCOTUS has ever not gotten things right, Dred Scott readily comes to mind which is considered the worse ruling they've ever handed down. It is my opinion that it was their original ruling that was incorrect and they just self-corrected in 2008 almost a century later, particularly when you consider what the case involved. The only circumstances under which a person could possess a weapon in the District of Columbia is if it were in their home AND disassembled rendering it useless for defense and contrary to it's manufactured purpose.

Washington DC had a crime problem that was out of control, and they were trying to control it. If the Second Amendment really allows private citizens to "Keep and bear arms", then why can't I have some Anthrax and a howitzer?

As far as the crazies, as we have just seen, depending on their stats and completely irrelevant to the level of stated malicious intent, nobody is going to do anything that could potentially harm them, crazy or not. That is not a 2nd amendment problem, it's a selective lack of enforcement of existing laws (as always) based on implicit and explicit biases.

No, it's a problem of the gun industry specifically marketing to the crazies. The Crazies buy 20 guns and fires a lot of ammunition. The regular person maybe bought one gun fifteen years ago, and maybe takes it out once a year for target practice.

 

[JoeB131]

Nobody can take you seriously. You voted for the party of AOC and folks that run around in vagina outfits. Those are the kooks. Not only are they kooks, they are anti-American. They are Euro fans, like most liberals I know.

And you voted for the party that thinks a Giant Jewish Space Laser started forest fires. Neither party should be judged by it's craziest member. The problem is, your side put the craziest person you had in the White House.

We won’t get guns out of the hands of criminals. That is what you can’t seem to get through your head. It is the mindless, indoctrinated drones in big cities that are scared of guns. They are terrrified because the only time they ever see one is on TV or being shot by a gangster. That is the narrative the left wants to portray to keep the ants in the ant hills at bay. Unfortunately, it has worked to some extinct and that mentality is begining to spread.

Uh, guy, most countries that ban private gun ownership or limit have no problem keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. It's why Japan only has a handful of gun murders each year, the UK has less than 50, and Germany has less than 200. We have 15,000 a year. This really isn't complicated.

Indoctrination works, there is no denying that. If the government can get everyone(except criminals) to disarm and get us all on the healthcare dole, only the Nancy Pelosi’s of the world will have the luxury of having a dedicated ice cream freezer.

What is this weird obsession with her ice-cream freezer? I mean, do you really want a dedicated ice cream freezer in your double wide, Cleetus?

You don’t see it, your fellow indoctrinated blue state inner city kooks don’t see it. Those of us that have been spared the indoctrination are astounded and saddened by the lunacy and gullibility by many in our country, but throughout world history, the same pattern is followed and the same folks don’t get it until it is too late. Yes, you and the rest of the folks that continue to vote away your freedoms are THOSE folks.

Yawn, you see, guy, I'm old enough to remember what a Middle Class actually looked like, when Dad could go to his good union job and mom could stay home with the kids. That's before Nixon wiped out the middle class with hyper-inflation and Reagan destroyed the unions.

I went to Catholic Schools. What changed my mind was when my wonderful boss reacted to me busting up my knee by wrecking my career and saying, "This is why I'm glad I don't have to deal with a union."

 

[JoeB131]

Where do mass shootings happen?

Gun-free zones.

You're too fucking stupid to see the correlation.

Well, because it's largely a myth. Mass shootings happen at places that the shooter is angry about... you take a look at the motive of any mass shooter, it had nothing to do with whether or not it was a 'gun free zone"..It was usually beause it was a school he hated, or that he thought he was the Joker and a Batman movie was playing, or a Congresswoman was speaking who ignored his rantings about imaginary currency.

The one thing these people had in common? Even though they were crazy, they were all able to buy guns.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

H.R.127 - Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act117th Congress (2021-2022)


A BILL
To provide for the licensing of firearm and ammunition possession and the registration of firearms, and to prohibit the possession of certain ammunition.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act”.
SEC. 2. LICENSING OF FIREARM AND AMMUNITION POSSESSION; REGISTRATION OF FIREARMS.

(a) Firearm Licensing And Registration System.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
Ҥ 932. Licensing of firearm and ammunition possession; registration of firearms
“(a) In General.—The Attorney General, through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, shall establish a system for licensing the possession of firearms or ammunition in the United States, and for the registration with the Bureau of each firearm present in the United States.
“(b) Firearm Registration System.—
“(1) REQUIRED INFORMATION.—Under the firearm registration system, the owner of a firearm shall transmit to the Bureau—
“(A) the make, model, and serial number of the firearm, the identity of the owner of the firearm, the date the firearm was acquired by the owner, and where the firearm is or will be stored; and
“(B) a notice specifying the identity of any person to whom, and any period of time during which, the firearm will be loaned to the person.
“(2) DEADLINE FOR SUPPLYING INFORMATION.—The transmission required by paragraph (1) shall be made—
“(A) in the case of a firearm acquired before the effective date of this section, within 3 months after the effective date of this section; or
“(B) in the case of a firearm acquired on or after the effective date, on the date the owner acquires the firearm.
“(3) DATABASE.—
“(A) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall establish and maintain a database of all firearms registered pursuant to this subsection.
“(B) ACCESS.—The Attorney General shall make the contents of the database accessible to all members of the public, all Federal, State, and local law enforcement authorities, all branches of the United States Armed Forces, and all State and local governments, as defined by the Bureau.
“(c) Licensing System.—
“(1) REQUIREMENTS.—
“(A) GENERAL LICENSE.—Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the Attorney General shall issue to an individual a license to possess a firearm and ammunition if the individual—
“(i) has attained 21 years of age;
“(ii) after applying for the license—
“(I) undergoes a criminal background check conducted by the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, and the check does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the individual would violate subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 or State law;
“(II) undergoes a psychological evaluation conducted in accordance with paragraph (2), and the evaluation does not indicate that the individual is psychologically unsuited to possess a firearm; and
“(III) successfully completes a training course, certified by the Attorney General, in the use, safety, and storage of firearms, that includes at least 24 hours of training; and
“(iii) demonstrates that, on issuance of the license, the individual will have in effect an insurance policy issued under subsection (d).
“(B) ANTIQUE FIREARM DISPLAY LICENSE.—The Attorney General shall issue to an individual a license to display an antique firearm in a residence of the individual if the individual—
“(i) is the holder of a license issued under subparagraph (A);
“(ii) supplies proof that the individual owns an antique firearm;
“(iii) describes the manner in which the firearm will be displayed in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, and certifies that the firearm will be so displayed; and
“(iv) demonstrates that the individual has provided for storage of the firearm in a safe or facility approved by the Attorney General for the storage of firearms.
“(C) MILITARY-STYLE WEAPONS LICENSE.—The Attorney General shall issue to an individual a license to own and possess a military-style weapon if the individual—
“(i) is the holder of a license issued under subparagraph (A); and
“(ii) after applying for a license under this subparagraph, successfully completes a training course, certified by the Attorney General, in the use, safety, and storage of the weapon, that includes at least 24 hours of training and live fire training.
“(2) PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION.—A psychological evaluation is conducted in accordance with this paragraph if—
“(A) the evaluation is conducted in compliance with such standards as shall be established by the Attorney General;
“(B) the evaluation is conducted by a licensed psychologist approved by the Attorney General;
“(C) as deemed necessary by the licensed psychologist involved, the evaluation included a psychological evaluation of other members of the household in which the individual resides; and
“(D) as part of the psychological evaluation, the licensed psychologist interviewed any spouse of the individual, any former spouse of the individual, and at least 2 other persons who are a member of the family of, or an associate of, the individual to further determine the state of the mental, emotional, and relational stability of the individual in relation to firearms.
“(3) DENIAL OF LICENSE.—
“(A) REQUIRED.—The Attorney General shall deny such a license to an individual if—
“(i) the individual is prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm; or
“(ii) the individual has been hospitalized—
“(I) with a mental illness, disturbance, or diagnosis (including depression, homicidal ideation, suicidal ideation, attempted suicide, or addiction to a controlled substance (within the meaning of the Controlled Substances Act) or alcohol), or a brain disease (including dementia or Alzheimer’s); or
“(II) on account of conduct that endangers self or others.
“(B) AUTHORIZED.—The Attorney General may deny such a license to an individual if—
“(i) the psychological evaluation referred to in paragraph (2) indicates that the individual—
“(I) has a chronic mental illness or disturbance, or a brain disease, referred to in subparagraph (A)(ii)(I);
“(II) is addicted to a controlled substance (within the meaning of the Controlled Substances Act) or alcohol; or
“(III) has attempted to commit suicide; or
“(ii) prior psychological treatment or evaluation of the individual indicated that the individual engaged in conduct that posed a danger to self or others.
“(4) SUSPENSION OF LICENSE.—
“(A) IN GENERAL.—A license issued under this subsection to an individual who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year is hereby suspended.
“(B) AUTHORIZED FOR LACK OF FIREARM INSURANCE.—The Attorney General may suspend a license issued under this subsection to an individual who has violated section 922(dd) in the most recent 12-month period.
“(5) REVOCATION OF LICENSE.—A license issued under this subsection to an individual who is or becomes prohibited by Federal or State law from possessing a firearm is hereby revoked. Such an individual shall immediately return the license, and surrender all firearms and ammunition owned or possessed by the individual, to the Attorney General.
“(6) EXPIRATION OF LICENSE.—A license issued to an individual under this subsection shall expire—
“(A) in the case of a license that has been in effect for less than 5 years, 1 year after issuance or renewal, as the case may be; or
“(B) in the case of a license that has been in effect for at least 5 years, 3 years after the most recent date the license is renewed.
“(7) RENEWAL OF LICENSE.—The Attorney General shall renew a license issued to an individual under this subsection if the individual—
“(A) requests the renewal by the end of the 60-day period that begins with the date the license expires;
“(B) in the 3-year period ending with the date the renewal is requested—
“(i) has met the requirement of paragraph (1)(A)(ii)(II); and
“(ii) has successfully completed a training course, certified by the Attorney General, in the use, safety, and storage of firearms, that includes at least 8 hours of training;
“(C) meets the requirement of paragraph (1)(A)(iii); and
“(D) in the case of a license issued under paragraph (1)(C), in the 2-year period ending with the date the renewal is requested, has successfully completed a training course, certified by the Attorney General, that includes at least 8 hours of training in the use of the weapon subject to the license.
“(d) Firearm Insurance.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall issue to any person who has applied for a license pursuant to subsection (c) and has paid to the Attorney General the fee specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection a policy that insures the person against liability for losses and damages resulting from the use of any firearm by the person during the 1-year period that begins with the date the policy is issued.
“(2) FEE.—The fee specified in this paragraph is $800.”.
(2) MILITARY-STYLE WEAPON DEFINED.—Section 921(a) of such title is amended by inserting after paragraph (29) the following:
“(30) The term ‘military-style weapon’ means—
“(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as—
“(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
“(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
“(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC–70);
“(iv) Colt AR–15;
“(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
“(vi) SWD M–10, M–11, M–11/9, and M–12;
“(vii) Steyr AUG;
“(viii) INTRATEC TEC–9, TEC–DC9 and TEC–22; and
“(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
“(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—
“(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
“(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
“(iii) a bayonet mount;
“(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
“(v) a grenade launcher;
“(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—
“(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
“(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
“(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;
“(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
“(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
“(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of—
“(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
“(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
“(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
“(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.”.
(3) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following:

“932. Licensing of firearm and ammunition possession; registration of firearms.”.
(4) DEADLINE FOR ESTABLISHMENT.—Within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall prescribe final regulations to implement the amendments made by this subsection.
(b) Prohibitions; Penalties.—
(1) PROHIBITIONS.—Section 922 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(aa) It shall be unlawful for a person to possess a firearm or ammunition, unless—
“(1) the person is carrying a valid license issued under section 932(c)(1); and
“(2) (A) in the case of a firearm owned by the person, the firearm is registered to the person under section 932(b); or
“(B) in the case of a firearm owned by another person—
“(i) the firearm is so registered to such other person; and
“(ii) such other person has notified the Attorney General that the firearm has been loaned to the person, and the possession is during the loan period specified in the notice.
“(bb) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to transfer a firearm or ammunition to a person who is not licensed under section 932(c)(1).
“(2) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell or give a firearm or ammunition to another person unless the person has notified the Attorney General of the sale or gift.
“(3) It shall be unlawful for a person to loan a firearm or ammunition to another person unless the person has notified the Attorney General of the loan, including the identity of such other person and the period for which the loan is made.
“(4) It shall be unlawful for a person holding a valid license issued under section 932(c)(1) to transfer a firearm to an individual who has not attained 18 years of age.
“(cc) A person who possesses a firearm or to whom a license is issued under section 932(c)(1) shall have in effect an insurance policy issued under section 932(d).”.
(2) PENALTIES.—Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(aa) shall be fined not less than $75,000 and not more than $150,000, imprisoned not less than 15 years and not more than 25 years, or both.
“(9) (A) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(bb)(1) shall be fined not less than $50,000 and not more than $75,000, imprisoned not less than 10 years and not more than 15 years, or both.
“(B) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(bb)(2) shall be fined not less than $30,000 and not more than $50,000, imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 10 years, or both.
“(C) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(bb)(3) shall be fined not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000.
“(D) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(bb)(4) shall be fined not less than $75,000 and not more than $100,000, imprisoned not less than 15 years and not more than 25 years, or both, except that if the transferee of the firearm possess or uses the firearm during or in relation to a crime, an unintentional shooting, or suicide, the transferor shall be fined not less than $100,000 and not more than $150,000, imprisoned not less than 25 years and not more than 40 years, or both.
“(10) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(cc) shall be fined not less than $50,000 and not more than $100,000, imprisoned not less than 10 years and not more than 20 years, or both.”.
(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—
(A) ELIMINATION OF PROHIBITION ON ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRALIZED FIREARM REGISTRATION SYSTEM.—Section 926(a) of such title is amended by striking the 2nd sentence.
(B) APPLICABILITY TO GOVERNMENTAL AND MILITARY FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION.—Section 925(a) of such title is amended in each of paragraphs (1) and (2), by inserting “and except for section 932,” after the 2nd comma.
(4) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this subsection shall take effect on the date final regulations are prescribed under subsection (a)(4).
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON POSSESSION OF CERTAIN AMMUNITION.

(a) In General.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 2 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(dd) (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess ammunition that is 0.50 caliber or greater.
“(2) (A) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
“(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to—
“(i) the manufacture for, or possession by, the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or the possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);
“(ii) the possession by an employee or contractor of a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 on-site for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;
“(iii) the manufacture or possession by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General; or
“(iv) the manufacture for, or possession by, an organization that provides firearm training and that is registered with the Attorney General, or the possession by an individual to whom such an organization is providing firearm training during and at the location of the training.”.
(b) Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Defined.—Section 921(a) of such title, as amended by section 1 of this Act, is amended by inserting after paragraph (30) the following:
“(31) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’ means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition, but does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”.
(c) Penalties.—Section 924(a) of such title, as amended by section 2 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(11) (A) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(dd)(1) shall be fined not less than $50,000 and not more than $100,000, imprisoned not less than 10 years and not more than 20 years, or both.
“(B) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(dd)(2) shall be fined not less than $10,000 and not more than $25,000, imprisoned not less than 1 year and not more than 5 years, or both.”.

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

So far, it has no sponsors. And there are a couple of items in there that the Heller Ruling won't allow. If it were to go all the way through the House, Senate and be signed into law, the Supreme Court would bounce it for those reasons. One person presented it and it's been presented to a committee, that's all. Not something any of us should worry about.

 

[justinacolmena]

Okay, buddy, your crazy posts are the best example of why we shouldn't let crazy people have guns.

Buddy, is it? Well, well, well! There's a burglar in the house at 2:43am who wants to make sure I don't possess any firearms.

Does your doctor know you are off your medications?

And an overeducated pharmaceutical drug dealer on the street corner, to boot. What is it now? Crack cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, quaaludes, benzodiazepines, marijuana, "spice" or just plain alcohol?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Two things - all of the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights with few exceptions outline rights of "the people" upon which the government shall not infringe or violate. Why would the 2nd amendment be the only exception?

Actually, that's not true at all. The third amendment, for instance, was specifically about a military practice at the time, quartering troops in private homes in peacetime. (We don't even do that in wartime now.) The British tried to control local militias, the Second Amendment was about making sure states could have them, which turned out to be a really bad idea when the civil war hit. It was never about gun ownership.

The Third Amendment absolutely is about the rights of "the people", in this case the rights of a "home owner", to not have our government instill unwanted military personnel in one's home. That is a private right upon which the government shall not infringe. As far as I am concerned it goes hand-in-hand and should part and parcel to the Fourth Amendment's directive that the rights of "the people" to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. How secure can anyone be if there are strangers with guns occupying your home with you, even if they are soldiers?

Again, why would the Second amendment be the only exception to enumerated rights that apply to "the people" which the government is forbidden to violate? The second amendment has always been exactly what it states "...the right of the people, to keep & bear arms, shall not be infringed". The State (another way of saying "government" is not "the people" irrespective of original SCOTUS interpretation. And perhaps it was erroneous of me to say that they got it wrong originally, because I really believe that they knew that their interpretation was not correct but didn't care because they wanted to maintain lawful gun control. Same way they created laws to maintain control over black people and their rights and movement both during slavery and every century since.
----------

Secondly, it's not like the SCOTUS has ever not gotten things right, Dred Scott readily comes to mind which is considered the worse ruling they've ever handed down. It is my opinion that it was their original ruling that was incorrect and they just self-corrected in 2008 almost a century later, particularly when you consider what the case involved. The only circumstances under which a person could possess a weapon in the District of Columbia is if it were in their home AND disassembled rendering it useless for defense and contrary to it's manufactured purpose.

Washington DC had a crime problem that was out of control, and they were trying to control it. If the Second Amendment really allows private citizens to "Keep and bear arms", then why can't I have some Anthrax and a howitzer?

Anthrax is not "arms" aka firearms but we have restrictions that have been legislated and codified on all of our rights, not just the second. Some of them are good, some not so good but none of our rights are absolute. I didn't makes the rules, I just have to live in this society.
-----------------

As far as the crazies, as we have just seen, depending on their stats and completely irrelevant to the level of stated malicious intent, nobody is going to do anything that could potentially harm them, crazy or not. That is not a 2nd amendment problem, it's a selective lack of enforcement of existing laws (as always) based on implicit and explicit biases.

No, it's a problem of the gun industry specifically marketing to the crazies. The Crazies buy 20 guns and fires a lot of ammunition. The regular person maybe bought one gun fifteen years ago, and maybe takes it out once a year for target practice.

The tobacco industry still manufactures and sells cigarettes. They are no longer allowed to market them, yet people still want and purchase the products and are able to do so because they are still available. I'll give you the removal of the targeted marketing in exchange for continuing to not try to hold manufacturers responsible when someone abuses their product, particularly when they obtained them unlawfully.

Would you hold the auto manufacturers responsible when someone takes a vehicle they produced gets drunk and then either accidentally or intentionally causes carnage with said vehicle? It's the fault of the person behind the wheel or pulling the trigger, not the person who manufactured the item. The only plus to allowing these lawsuits to proceed is that the companies have deep pockets while most criminals do not and apparently the perpetrator going to jail or being killed in the process is not sufficient salve for the wounds they've caused, which I certainly can understand, but it's still not the fault of the manufacturer in either case.

 

[JoeB131]

Anthrax is not "arms" aka firearms but we have restrictions that have been legislated and codified on all of our rights, not just the second. Some of them are good, some not so good but none of our rights are absolute. I didn't makes the rules, I just have to live in this society.

The problem is, it doesn't say "firarms", it says "Arms". Which could mean Swords, Catapaults, Maces, Cannons, Machine guns, Weaponized anthrax, tactical nuclear weapons.

If you subscribe tot he theory the reason why we dones needs us some guns, Cleetus is that you needs to fight the gummit, why not weapons the government should be really worried about.

The tobacco industry still manufactures and sells cigarettes. They are no longer allowed to market them, yet people still want and purchase the products and are able to do so because they are still available. I'll give you the removal of the targeted marketing in exchange for continuing to not try to hold manufacturers responsible when someone abuses their product, particularly when they obtained them unlawfully.

Nope. I like my idea better. Hold the gun makers accountable for the people they sell to, just like the tobacco industry and alcohol industry are.

Best thing they did was pass BASSET laws to make sure they weren't serving anyone until they were falling down drunk and ran over a family

 

[daveman]

Where do mass shootings happen?

Gun-free zones.

You're too fucking stupid to see the correlation.

Well, because it's largely a myth. Mass shootings happen at places that the shooter is angry about... you take a look at the motive of any mass shooter, it had nothing to do with whether or not it was a 'gun free zone"..It was usually beause it was a school he hated, or that he thought he was the Joker and a Batman movie was playing, or a Congresswoman was speaking who ignored his rantings about imaginary currency.

The one thing these people had in common? Even though they were crazy, they were all able to buy guns.

You lie. But then...you ALWAYS lie.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Why are you liberal cultists behind it?

How is it not anti 2A?

 

[Indeependent]

Link!

 

[ColonelAngus]

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

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

www.congress.gov