Paragraph six, bullet 2: "Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. " All items currently regulated by the NFA require the $200 fee. NFA items currently are anything full-auto, short barrelled shotguns and rifles and suppressors.
Why do people want 75" TVs? Why do people want 200mph cars? Why do people want, yet another, ceramic cat?
Isn't everyone supposed to? I bought a gun at a gun show and they checked my background. It took about a minute
Yup. No background check for folks that steal guns though. Which is what the comment you responded to was referencing.
Do you not see an issue with this? How about posting lists of people who own a Mercedes, or gold bullion, along with lists of who has cash in the house. While we are at it, lets ban locks on doors, too.
TY for confirming In general terms, the sunset provision forced them to either pass new legislation or renew the current legislation a 2nd time and there wasn't support, which is different than them passing legislation to remove the old law.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-take-firearms-first/ Eminent common sense. Red flag law Trump never really was a big gunny type, he just made the right noises and they all fell into line.
We are in agreement, I was just pointing out the sunset provision, yes the end result is the same, but from a legislation standpoint its significantly different, it forces the legislators to go back on record to pass a new law. Obviously there was not enough support. Honestly, I'm not aware if they attempted to pass new bans or if they did their standard informal poll and decided it had no hope and just moved on, not sure. If I was on Jeopardy and the question was "this senator tried to renew gun bans" and i'd guess "who was Feinstein"
If by "they attempted to pass" you're asking if a gun ban was proposed (drafted as a piece of legislation, given a bill number, sent to a committee, etc), then yes, that's happened repeatedly. They haven't progressed all that far in the legislative process in most instances though. Probably the closest was 2013, when the full Senate held a vote on a (you guessed right) Feinstein amendment "To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes." That amendment was defeated 40-60.
lol, I figured it was old lady Diane. <not a fan This is a constant battle that needs to be fought, i'm glad the majority of the GOP is on my side with this.